A compilation of Francis Bacon portraits, ca 60's, held in private collections in London
Yesterday morning we woke up to Senator Jo Lieberman's probing question: "What matters more to us, the real fight over there, or the political fight over here?"
Well, as to option-A, fair question, providing of course you have consensus that we are still fighting over there.
Problem is, most Democrats -- and increasingly poll-weary Republicans -- have bought into their own propaganda that the war is already lost; all that is left to do is exercise damage control on the way back home.
Leading us swiftly to option-B: No one wants to be associated with a loss, especially not with a lost war and all the blame that follows in tow.
So, are we really witnessing a 'political fight over here'?
I think not. We are much more treated to front-row seats in an unfolding blame-game of epic proportions.
This kind of constellation brings out the worst in most politicians as they prepare the fight for survival; as they prepare for a prolonged period of musical chairs.
The sad consequence is an ironic convergence of bad choices made. Ironic, because the resulting actions by both Democrats and Republicans increasingly resemble Gore Vidal's post-Watergate gloom 30 years ago.
Ironic, because crackpots like Gore Vidal were the first to sell crazy, paving the way, as it were, for the dawn of a new era during which populist pandering has effectively stalemated the Democratic majority in both the House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate. Senator Lieberman continues:
Unfortunately, for many congressional opponents of the war, none of this seems to matter. As the battle of Baghdad just gets underway, they have already made up their minds about America's cause in Iraq, declaring their intention to put an end to the mission before we have had the time to see whether our new plan will work.
There is of course a direct and straightforward way that Congress could end the war, consistent with its authority under the Constitution: by cutting off funds. Yet this option is not being proposed. Critics of the war instead are planning to constrain and squeeze the current strategy and troops by a thousand cuts and conditions.
Among the specific ideas under consideration are to tangle up the deployment of requested reinforcements by imposing certain "readiness" standards, and to redraft the congressional authorization for the war, apparently in such a way that Congress will assume the role of commander in chief and dictate when, where and against whom U.S. troops can fight.
Too many times has it been proven, that what matters more is political survival; even at the cost of suspending every sense of civic duty in the process. After all, Hillary "Here's what I've learned," "I can't make a mistake" Clinton knows all about that only too well.
UPDATE: From Nofate in the comments:
Interesting update on the "slow bleed" theme at Captain's Quarters: "Democrats have delayed further consideration to restrict or cripple the Iraq war deployments, apparently stunned by the lack of cohesion among their own caucuses and fearful of the backlash their efforts might produce. Harry Reid has delayed the progress of a Joe Biden bill to revoke the 2002 AUMF, and Nancy Pelosi has started to distance herself from John Murtha". more...
I wouldn’t be alone in thinking each time an artist or commentator insults Christians: friend, if you’re so brave, say that about Islam.
Show us your chocolate Mohammeds. Show us your Korans dipped in urine....
So when I see a Western artist mock Christ, I see an artist advertising not his courage but his cowardice – by not daring to mock what would threaten him more....
It’s no accident that we feel safer insulting Christians than trashing almost anyone else.
This is a religion that’s always preached tolerance, reason and non-violence, even if too many of its followers have seemed deaf....We are the beneficiaries of that preaching, even those of us who aren’t Christians....
...[W]e do not actually fear what we condemn. We know Christians are taught not to punch our smarmy face, and we even count on it. Indeed, it is the very faith we mock that has made us so safe.
In fact, the idea of freedom of speech or freedom of expression that they abuse lies in that safety. Nevertheless, freedom of expression or any other form of freedom, for that matter, is not absolute - one’s freedom ends where another’s begins. One no longer has legitimate claim on freedom when his action constitute a malicious infringement on another’s. God created us and endowed us with freewill, even to choose to recognize HIM or not to. Yet, we will have to answer to HIM on account of the choices we make in exercising that freedom. This is the rule that Christians play by and which make us predictable and which all non Christians exploit.
Essentially, freedom must be hitched to discipline and must be given positive content — this is a foundational ideal in Christianity. No one should have the freedom to be maliciously wrong or intentionally wrong as to harm someone else, in the name of freedom of expression, the way the Western artists and media in general have committed to. Ironically, the essential effects of such are no different from the effects of Islam. There is nothing edifying about the idiocy which they disguise as art (or that Muslims disguise as religion), it is only intended to desecrate the image of Jesus Christ and to spite Christians. Indeed, Christian bashing has become the favorite pastime of these decadent artists and cowardly media that increasingly smear the Western civilization with decadence. Think about it, Hollywood alone accounts for 99% of the global perception (or misperception) of America's moral state.
It may be true that there is nothing to fear from Christians — no consequence or retribution such as the wrath of a suicide bomber, a fatwa calling for the he-heading of anyone that insults Jesus Christ, Christians and Christianity, and no terrorist attack on anyone engaged in the sort of sacrilege they constantly bring to bear on Christians and Christianity. Nevertheless, freedom is like the highway, the horizon is its embrace, yet as the horizon, one knows not what lay in its bosom, until in embrace, its bosom one beholds. All I can say to these cowards is that there is a day of reckoning -- you keep at it, godless fools, soon it will be everyone doing as he pleases. When that happens there will be no hiding place for anyone who cannot wield the sword. When the Western median and artists -- the likes of Cosimo Cavallaro and Matt Semler have destroyed the notion of freedom -- wrought from the Judeo-Christian principles which they now deride and seek to destroy, they will have no place to hide and they would certainly not be fit to fight to restore it — the cowards would simply have destroyed freedom, thus and denying everyone of freedom.
Posted by: slowtrain | Monday, April 09, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Well, I couldn't get the listing of references to post, so I hope Alexandra doesn't mind if I send you here, where the list is complete. Good night and rest well.
Posted by: nofate | Monday, April 09, 2007 at 04:17 AM
gringoman: What an absolutely wonderful reference to a great article by James Arlandson with an excellent set of reference links. I have been on this "crusade" with GD, i.e., that there was a lot of conquering, pillaging, raping and slaughtering going on long before the Christian crusaders got started. And here you are with Mr. Arlandson's and Andrew Bostom's proof that the crusades were a to islam. BTW, your link didn't work- it had an extra backslash in it. Here's the working link, and I hope you don't mind if I do a major cut and paste here because Mr. Arlandson does a much better job than I could hope to do of tying it all together, and the article is from 2005, so it has been a while. I have never seen it before. I encourage everyone interested in this to save this article and the references mentioned in it.
The Truth about Islamic Crusades and Imperialism, By James Arlandson:
"Historical facts say that Islam, including Muhammad, launched their own Crusades against Christianity long before the European Crusades.
Westerners—even academics—accept the notion that the West alone was aggressive. It seems that Islam is always innocent and passive. It is difficult to uncover the source of this Western self—loathing. It is, however, a pathology that seems to strike Westerners more than other people around the globe. This anti—West pathology shows up in Westerners' hatred for the European Crusades in the Medieval Age
Muslims seem to forget that they had their own, for several centuries before the Europeans launched theirs as a defense against the Islamic expansion.
638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.
639—642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.
641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.
644—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.
710—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.
711—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus. This article recounts how Muslims today still grieve over their expulsion 700 years later. They seem to believe that the land belonged to them in the first place.
831 Muslim Crusaders capture Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy
1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (aka Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.
1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia
1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca
1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970
1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099
So it is only after all of the Islamic aggressive invasions that Western Christendom launches its first Crusades.
It must be noted that Islamic expansion continues until well into the seventeenth century. For example, the Muslims Crusaders conquer Constantinople in 1453 and unsuccessfully besiege Vienna for the second time in 1683 (earlier in 1529). By the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Islamic Crusades receded, due to Western resistance. Since that time until the present, Islamic civilization has not advanced very far.
Khalid al—Walid (d. 642), a bloodthirsty but superior commander of the Muslim armies at the time, also answers the question as to why the Muslims stormed out of Arabia...'I call you to God and to Islam. If you respond to the call, you are Muslims: You obtain the benefits they enjoy and take up the responsibilities they bear. If you refuse, then [you must pay] the jizyah. If you refuse the jizyah, I will bring against you tribes of people who are more eager for death than you are for life. We will fight you until God decides between us and you.'
When the Islamic Crusaders go out to conquer, carrying an Islamic banner inscribed in Arabic of the glory and the truth of their prophet, Ibn Khaldun would not deny that the army's mission, besides the material reasons of conquest, is to convert the inhabitants. Islam is a 'universalizing' religion, and if its converts enter its fold either by persuasion or force, then that is the nature of Islam.
Moreover, Ibn Khaldun explains why a dynasty rarely establishes itself firmly in lands of many different tribes and groups. But it can be done after a long time and employing the following tactics, as seen in the Maghrib (N and NW Africa) from the beginning of Islam to Ibn Khaldun's own time:
The first (Muslim) victory over them and the European Christians (in the Maghrib) was of no avail. They continued to rebel and apostatized time after time. The Muslims massacred many of them. After the Muslim religion had been established among them, they went on revolting and seceding, and they adopted dissident religious opinions many times. They remained disobedient and unmanageable . . . . Therefore, it has taken the Arabs a long time to establish their dynasty in the . . . Maghrib. (p. 131)
It is only natural that the Quran would be filled with references to jihad and qital, the latter word meaning only fighting, killing, warring, and slaughtering. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Muhammad. And after.
But this means that the Church had to fight back or be swallowed up by an aggressive religion over the centuries. Thus, the Church did not go out and conquer in a mindless, bloodthirsty, and irrational way—though the Christian Crusades were far from perfect.
Islam was the aggressor in its own Crusades, long before the Europeans responded with their own."
It's been a challenge getting this comment up. I looked up and updated a whole list of the references given in this article, but the "gatekeeper" program won't let me post them. If it will work I will post them separately, as they are nearly an online library of articles from 2005 that prove that a) the christian crusades did not start as an "imperialistic" land grab, and b) sharia is a poor choice for any society except muslims.
Posted by: nofate | Monday, April 09, 2007 at 02:14 AM
Thanks to Her Anchorship, I've found an Easter piece that's more worth reading than my own. It's rather more political than meditative, though, and doesn't really fit the theme of the discussion on the "Sunday's On Its Way" post; so I'm tagging it on this thread instead.
At any rate, you should certainly read all of Australian agnostic Andrew Bolt's musings on why "courageous" Western artists make fun of Christianity but not Islam. Some -- but hardly all -- of the money quotes:
Yep. That just about sums it up. Anybody want to argue that they've ever lived in a Muslim society where they feel that they are safe to criticize Islam precisely because the Muslims run the country? Anybody? Come on, speak up, don't be shy......still waiting...
Posted by: Kenny | Sunday, April 08, 2007 at 11:36 PM
No one, not even the most rabid liberals, who have discovered that Christian bashing gives meaning to their lives, hence have made Christian bashing the focal point of their existence, can point to one thing that Jesus Christ ever said or did that has caused harm to anyone or motivates anyone to cause harm to another. Clearly, the same cannot be said for Mohammed or even Buddha. I can point to two volumes (Koran and Hadith) attributed to Mohammed and filled with hate, malice, murderous exaltations, and viciousness. The problem the liberals have with Christianity is that they want to have and exercise freedom, but not recognize the truth that underlies it — the idea that freedom comes with responsibility, one of which is giving account of ones actions to God. As Aldous Huxley, wrote:
The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.
As GD’s arguments clearly and consistently suggest, the dialectics that GD refers to is not really the honest systematic reasoning or exposition that seeks to investigate and objectively resolve opposed or contradictory ideas – conflicts of ideas supposedly intended for the same end. Rather it is more the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite – in plain speak it is called perversion. The Hegelian process (a myth) stressed the importance of the “Other” in the coming to be of self-awareness (such as the master-slave dialectic). Hence, the notion that there are many ways to truth and many ways to God and that Christ is not the only way to God and not the only truth and light. Some of the ecumecical movements appropriate this philosophy.
It derives from Hindu and pagan concepts, such as the both-hands logic. Aspects of these concepts are the notion that all men are created unequal, something the American Declaration of Independence expressly and pointedly contravenes. The ranks in Hindu society come from a legend in which the main groupings, or varnas, emerge from a primordial being. From the mouth come the Brahmans—the priests and teachers. From the arms come the Kshatriyas—the rulers and soldiers. From the thighs come the Vaisyas—merchants and traders. From the feet come the Sudras—laborers. Each varna in turn contains hundreds of hereditary castes and sub castes with their own pecking orders – establishing that “other” — a point of reference to self awareness. Nevertheless, the Hegelian process or dialects, fail the fundamental laws of reason or logic – non-contradiction and rational inference that drove some aspects of the so-called Age of Enlightenment.
The theology of liberal Christianity was prominent in the Biblical criticism of the 19th and 20th centuries. The style of scriptural hermeneutics within liberal theology is often characterized as non-propositional. This means that the Bible is not considered an inventory of factual statements but instead documents the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing—within an historic/cultural context. Thus, liberal Christian theologians do not discover truth propositions but rather create religious models and concepts that reflect the class, gender, social, and political contexts from which they emerge. Liberal Christianity looks upon the Bible as a collection of narratives that explain, epitomize, or symbolize the essence and significance of Christian understanding.
GD: Show us some respect…cut it off; I mean the “cut and paste exercise”. Everyone knows how to get to Wikipedia. The movement you allude to was made up of some of the same people who disingenuously, perhaps in delusion rejected the very idea of language actually referring to something or signifying an actual existing thing. Some of them contributed in laying the foundation of postmodernism, rejecting the inerrancy of the Scripture -- believing instead that the act of speaking gives reality to things and ideas, and that the language of the Scripture is not a pure description of reality.
Nevertheless, it is clear that under the guise of seperation of church and state, the liberal protagonist are determined to replace Christianity with humanism – the the religion of the liberals. In their growing disdain for Christians they will do anything to goad and persecute Christians. Taking any position that goes against Christianity, even if such positions intrinsically hold certain potential threats to their conceited ambitions, as patronizing and rationalizing the baberism being comitted by Muslims in the name of Islam. Hence, the are quick to invoke and revise history, as if history is meant to read backwards, to antogonise and detract Christians, rather than argue the issues – it is effectively a witchhunt. The liberals are catering to Muslims — essentially promoting Islam by constantly making excuses for Islam and Muslims, while vigorously deriding Christianity and Christians. Clearly the applications of the constitutional provision of separation of church and state has become covert attacks on Christians. They are ever willing to turn the proverbial blind eye, bend the rules, even abandon them, so longs as it undermines Christians and the cause of Christ -- ever willing and passionate to use the law to marginalize Christians.
All liberal atheists will eventually come to the same realization that their predecessors had, but in addition they will have to deal the with the moster (Islam) they help bring alive in the West, in their foolish application of pluralism. Nietzsche, perhaps the most famous nineteenth century atheist and zealot in seeking to do away with Christianity and Judeo-Christian morality, proclaimed that “God is dead”, claiming that religion —specifically Christianity, was a human creation and a myth, only to turn to Ancient Greek mythical gods, Apollo (god of clarity and form) and Dionysus (the god of orgiastic ecstasy) to connect with “the deeper reality” that modern science alone, as proposed by the likes of Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley could not express. He drew from the detached Apollonian consciousness and the “conflicting, passionate Dionysian force of unreflective being”, and of course, a constant stream of LSD, to create what is now known as postmodernism (moral relativism) – the political philosophy of liberals. Nietzsche, a neo-pagan, existed in an induced perpetual hallucinatory world where chaos made perfect sense, where reason can be found in meaninglessness. That should surprise no one, given his dependence on LSD for levitation, something every drug addict knows very well. It will not surprise me at all that some of our many liberals may be of similar disposition. I have often heard drug addicts give, as the reason for their addiction, the search for that elusive thing they experienced the first time they did drugs. Nietzsche called it “The Will to power” or infinity diversity.
Ultra liberals, such as GD, as those before them, disdain the notion of standard morality espoused by the Judeo-Christian principles -- the “authority exercised by collective and objective norms over the individual perspectives and drives at the core of life”, according to Rüdiger Safranski. They believe that the battle in morality boils down to the power of definition, “a question of who allows himself to be judged by whom” or rather who allows himself to be controlled by whom. The abusive application of the power of definition through the so-called ruling ideas—thought, language, politics, and morality is very appealing to them – the same thing they claim to fight. It is now all too clear in their effort to steamroll every “dissenting view”.
Nofate: I am humbled and wish to say that the same goes here.
Kenny: You have a wonderful family. I cannot imagine how you find time to comment so scholarly and thoughtful as much as you do here. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: slowtrain | Saturday, April 07, 2007 at 04:19 PM
Off topic: some a****** has hacked Aaron Weisburd's indispensable site for monitoring Muslim-extremist/jihadist websites, internet haganah (internethaganah.org.il) . I know so little (and therefore feel helpless and frustrated) about tracking down cyber-sociopaths (the Muslim extremists have hated Weisburd for years and have sought to destroy his online presence because he is so effective at tracking down ever-shifting Muslim-supremacist/jihadist websites and having them taken down...they have also threatened to kill him OFFline. These people are total shits. I'm not feeling very peaceful tonight in spite of the fact that it is the Sabbath of Passover week. I hope these "people" rot in hell and I hope Weisburd is back up and running soon and exposing them for what they are; they make Charlie Manson look like a choirboy. If any of you out there know anything about hacking and counterhacking and can help Weisburd, please do so! I only say, tonight, because I end each post this way, with EXTREME reluctance, Shalom, Mac Brachman
Posted by: mac Brachman | Friday, April 06, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Hand me the dice Kenny
Nice piece, except Liberal theology simply means that one accepts allegorical versus literal interpretation of the Scriptures; understand nuance, historical context and the fact that application has to be interpolated from ancient to modern times.
The fundamentalist/literalist simply denys the existential conditions in which scriptural revelation is manifest. There is no knowledge of God or God's will devoid of human perspective, historicity and temporality, with its defining condition mortality.
The conditions of the manifestation itself can an should be used in order to understand the revelation.
Interestingly, the fact that the Bible has managed to inspire a minimum of 2000 identifiable confessions and denominations of Christianity tells us quite a bit about Man's relationship to God.... while the semi-political drive by Constantine to actually produce one Bible attests to human desire to truncate the process of revelation itself..... I would say that rather than Christianity, there are Christianities.... and that in the act of consolidating one Bible, by exclusion and later persecution, modern Christianities actually conceptually reified like so many tombstones on the graves of the living Christianities they crushed.
23:33 And when they were come to the place which is called Calvary, they crucified him there; and the robbers, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
23:34 And Jesus said: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." But they, dividing his garments, cast lots.
THE HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST ACCORDING TO ST. LUKEÂ
Â
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Friday, April 06, 2007 at 09:25 PM
Mac,
Thanks, I'm pretty proud of that bunch, all things considered.
KP
Posted by: Kenny | Friday, April 06, 2007 at 09:13 PM
I don't think the flaw in sola Scriptura has to do with who picked the canon. (I always find it mildly amusing, by the way, when people say the canon was chosen by "the Roman Catholic Church," considering that the "Catholic" canon was settled some six centuries before the Great Schism. I suppose one could argue that it was a Western synod that settled it and that that makes it "Roman." But I digress.)
The real flaw in sola Scriptura, and the fundamentally disastrous weakness of the Reformation, is that while it's usually clear what the Bible says, it's not at all clear what the Bible means. And where there is a disagreement about what the Bible means, then for practical purposes you often have to pick one of the interpretations and live by that one. So how do you pick? I'll tell you one way you don't pick -- you don't pick by Scripture alone. The whole point is that Scripture alone isn't enough to nail down the meaning. So you fall back on some other authority to tell you what the Scripture means in that case.
You might, for example, fall back on logic (which is generally my default first shot). Or you might depend on Church tradition. If you are a gullible redneck fundamentalist, you might depend on what your preacher says; if you are an even more gullible liberal Christian, you might be insane enough to depend on what a "scholar" from some postmodernist Department of Religion (e.g., Elaine Pagels) dreams up. If you are of charismatic (in the sense of Pentecostal / Assembly of God) temperament, you might pray about and depend on what you believe God has told you it means. But whatever approach you take, your final authority isn't really Scripture -- it's the person who tells you what Scripture means.
The Reformers assumed that it was obvious what the Bible means -- it obviously means what they thought it meant, because it was obvious that it means that. In some cases, I'd say that you actually can be that confident about the Bible's meaning. (Just to take one example, such extreme intellectual contortions are required to convince oneself that the Bible does not condemn homosexual practices, that I think it reasonable to say that a person who can talk himself into that position is capable of convincing himself that the Bible means whatever the hell he wants it to mean.) But in other cases, it is certainly true that reasonable people can disagree.
I personally don't see any reason to think that interpretation of Scripture is that much different from the interpretation of any other form of verbal communication. What matters, clearly, is the original author's intent, and the degree to which we can be confident that we know how the author would respond to our own situation given what we know that he said to certain people in their own situation. Some of the time both the intent and the applicability are clear beyond reasonable doubt. Sometimes the intent in the original context is clear but it's not necessarily clear how the author would respond to a modern situation. Sometimes there's one interpretation that is clearly more likely to be accurate than the alternatives, but there's certainly a significant possibility that one of the alternatives is the one that's actually correct. Sometimes it's a pick-'em. And in a few cases there are passages where we all look at each other and say, "Do you have any idea what that's supposed to mean?" and then we all answer each other, "Not a clue."
If you genuinely accept the authority of Scripture, then in the places where you believe the meaning to be unmistakably clear, you will not only act in obedience to the Scripture, but you will say firmly that people who disagree with you are wrong. But by the same token, the more seriously you genuinely respect the authority of Scripture, the less willing you will be to insist that others have to accept your interpretation of difficult passages -- precisely because you will recognize that such a demand is much more a demand that others respect your authority than that they accept Scripture's.
But if you are one of those people who believe that religion is not a matter of Fact, and that whatever interpretation Works For You is therefore "True" for you (precisely because religious "truth" is not a matter of factuality), then you may well be bursting at the seams with the desire to tell me that it's a mistake to think that Scripture has a "correct" interpretation in the first place. You may be clamoring to object that telling somebody else that his interpretation of Scripture is wrong, is Intolerant. Or, as my Princeton classmate Gary put it long ago one night in my dorm room, "Christians [meaning Fact-oriented conservative Christians, not Results-oriented liberal Christians] think that they're right, and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong -- and that's wrong!" (He appeared to me to be completely unaware that there was any potential irony in his very sincerely and deeply felt outburst.)
But I personally don't see how, in that case, you can possibly really pretend that Scripture has any genuine authority over you. If Scripture means whatever you find it useful to believe at the moment, then how can it ever tell you that you are wrong? I don't mean this as just a theoretical complaint; modern "scholarship" from professors of religion is a morass of self-contradiction and appallingly self-indulgent lack of anything remotely resembling sound, professional methodology. As D. A. Carson put it, such an attitude toward Scripture -- the Results-oriented, that-may-be-true-for-you-but-it-isn't-true-for-me approach to Scripture -- "lead[s] to epistemological solipsism and a complete inability to hear any word from God with which we cannot agree. It becomes a way of denying, through the back door as it were, the authority of the Scriptures over our lives."
I've wandered a ways from my original point, I guess. Sorry about that. Sort of stream-of-consciousness here...and I should be writing about Easter, anyway.
Posted by: Kenny | Friday, April 06, 2007 at 07:58 PM
oH My I'M everso mIsuNDeRstOOd..... sigh, whine :(
I'm afraid of Americans
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Friday, April 06, 2007 at 05:11 PM
from GD By the 11th century, in their zeal to establish Christ's kingdom, the Roman popes ("pope" is an ecclesiastical office that is the very antithesis of the New Testament ideal of a local church pastor) began utilizing a new tool -- the Crusades. At first, the Crusades had as their object the conquering of Jerusalem and the "Holy Land". Along the crusaders' paths, thousands of innocent civilians (especially Jews) were raped, robbed, and slaughtered.
from gringoman GD, is right. I mean, here again she proves that it's unfair to call her stupid. True, her "research" often amounts to scholastic inanities, or historical duplicity. But stupidity? I think not. A staggering ignorance? I suspect not. For example, take this latest banality about the Crusades (and let's grant the absolute fact-based veracity of it.) Here she demonstrates one of the favorite techniques of the hacks putting down the "Islamophobes" who they feel threaten their "non-extremist" Libtopia. She's not lying. She's not being obviously deceptive or dishonest. We'll grant that, won't we? But what is the "drift," the sly suggestion,the imputation of her platitude-based "research"? The muslims are the victims of the imperialist Christians---you know, those bad, bad Crusaders.
This is not the time to examine the Crusades, or the pc version of the Crusades. Let's just focus on the GD method, one banality at a time. Her hack reference to the Crusades will leave the naive reader unaware that the first Crusaders were in fact the "victimized" muslims. This is not the time to cite all the Christian lands these "victims" invaded and converted to Islam after the Romans (and Persians) degenerated into wimp wonders. (Even Nancy SF Pelosi may have had an inkling of this when she put on the head scarf in muslim Syria the other day to look at the alleged head of the decapitated Saint John the Baptist.) Let's just leave it to a brief mention from The American Thinker....
633 The Muslim Crusaders, led by Khalid al—Walid, a superior but bloodthirsty military commander, whom Muhammad nicknamed the Sword of Allah for his ferocity in battle (Tabari, 8:158 / 1616—17), conquer the city of Ullays along the Euphrates River (in today's Iraq). Khalid captures and beheads so many that a nearby canal, into which the blood flowed, was called Blood Canal (Tabari 11:24 / 2034—35).
634 At the Battle of Yarmuk in Syria the Muslim Crusaders defeat the Byzantines. Today Osama bin Laden draws inspiration from the defeat, and especially from an anecdote about Khalid al—Walid. An unnamed Muslim remarks: 'The Romans are so numerous and the Muslims so few.' To this Khalid retorts: 'How few are the Romans, and how many the Muslims! Armies become numerous only with victory and few only with defeat, not by the number of men. By God, I would love it . . . if the enemy were twice as many' (Tabari, 11:94 / 2095). Osama bin Ladin quotes Khalid and says that his fighters love death more than we in the West love life. This philosophy of death probably comes from a verse like Sura 2:96. Muhammad assesses the Jews: '[Prophet], you are sure to find them [the Jews] clinging to life more eagerly than any other people, even polytheists' (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004; first insertion in brackets is Haleem's; the second mine).
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_truth_about_islamic_crusad.html/
Conclusion: Give her the benefit of a doubt. She must have some awareness of historical fact, even when she dabbles with "Crusades." We know she is not an abject ignoramus, How then to pinpoint her methodology? She's not really stupid. She's not that ignorant. She's not an outright liar or blatantly dishonest. As she will tell you, she's not an extremist of fundamentalist.
How then to describe her "Crusading"? What's left? Insincere? Cynical? Naive?
GD, Ghost Disingenuous? Extremely so? Fundamentally disingenuous?
Posted by: gringoman | Friday, April 06, 2007 at 04:30 PM
--Ghost: Because for human beings, the actual book or idea they use to excuse and justify violence is irrelevant.
-----------------
I am only gonna grab one of your quotes there, because the rest that you shared pretty much shows how your mind thinks on the scripture of the bible. Although I will add that the bible does teaches us, that All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (II Tim 3:16)
I am not going to turn this into a "Is Scripture breathed from God" or just an artifact of Man's effort thingy with you, because it's just another distraction that you use to avoid the source of jihad which is THE KORAN/QURAN's teachings of Muhammed.
The reason I chose this particular quote of yours about irrelevalence is to show others that are reading how you don't get it! It's all meshed together in one bigt blurred muck for you because you haven't read the koran! So this topic surely is irrelevant because you haven't even read the two books to understand the comparison! It's very much like discussing the gospel with Muslims, because bless their hearts, they haven't heard the true gospel, and for many, all they know of Jesus is the distorted false Christ that is portrayed in the koran! Many can't understand why or how Jesus could or would died on the cross for their sins, since the ONLY Jesus they know is "Isa" and the perverted story they got of him is that He was never crucified and is not the Son of God. So in their deception, they cannot get a true reference point until they go back and learn who Jesus really is and that is by reading or hearing the truth in the Gospels. It's amazing when they do because thats when the questioning starts because they can see the flow of the story from the Old Testament to the New and it finally starts to make sense, and after that, when they go back and then re-read the koran's versions of things, they can then see how twisted the story of the koran's Jesus and their salvation has been presented. I share this with you Ghost, because honestly, discussing the source of the koran with you is not much different. You don't have a reference point and so I suppose I just have to come to the conclusion that you don't understand those reference points of the sources yourself, and so it's all irrelevant to you because how can one compare the two if they do not know the content or sources of the two? How can you comprehend the 'meaning of the koran' to muslims if you can't even be bothered to know what the book teaches??
For you to say that I am asserting a linear logical connection between Islamic extremist terrorism and violence, and the Koran shows that you don't understand the meaning of the koran to the Islamic faith. If must perplex you so much when you see the rage in muslims when their korans get desecrated eh? Because you don't understand what it means to them because the koran to them' is literally' the word of Allah to them, meaning they don't see it as man's words at all....its totally literal to them, and they think Muhammed was the last messenger so that his teachings trump all before him and that the "other books" were distorted by the Jews and Christians. This serves as a real barrier to communication, because their hearts are suspicous immediately to hearing the true gospel because their Allah has already laid the grown work to decieve them away from the truth before they have even had the chance to hear the truth! It's such a horrible curse because they have this force working against them right off the bat. I use to think there was no good place for atheism but I have come to conclude, when watching how much some struggle to know the truth, that they have to almost use atheism as a stepping stone out of their past brainwashing...kinda as a cleansing of the spiritual slate to be open for taking in the gospels. It's amazing how many walk away from Islam into atheism and the skeptic views. I think this is the place they actually for the first time they feel free to get to be skeptic and ask questions!
But as for you Ghost, I don't see you searching for that truth of where the source is to this jihad madness, because you have already made up your mind that it can't possibly come from words from a book or from teachings of a man that was a false prophet. The words and teachings are irrelevant to you because they have no deeper meaning. You think true meaning is somewhere in between over here and over there. Words do have power Ghost...Even on a human level, I think all of our words have a bit of persuasive power on others on a daily basis. Words are more than letters, symbols or sounds, and the way we use them is important; especially since we will all be accountable for even our idle words in this life, and that is where you might want to keep an open mind Ghost, because behind every word is a visual object or action/adjective that we connect it to, and once we hear those words our brains start processing them into meaning and sorting them in truths and non truths, and when truth is distorted on sacred ground, it breeds evil. So you may think the words and teachings of the koran are just as flukey as how you may feel about the power of the words of the Bible to you, since it's all irrelevant and one big ball of wax to you. Just remember that everyone's truth has a source of authority and when one truly seeks to examine that source, there they will find not only the inspiration, but also the power of the meaning behind the words and teachings of principals and powers that "morph" us all into the believers or non believers.
Posted by: Liquid | Friday, April 06, 2007 at 02:21 PM
That's not "blaming" Christians Liquid.... that's showing the parallel. You are asserting a linear logical connection between Islamic extremist terrorism and violence, and the Koran. I am showing you that there are sufficient exceptions to the rule that such a linkage cannot be supported.
If you, as you tacitly do, assert that the Koran is a "bad book" that begets terrorism and violence, how do you account for the Bible as a "good book" begetting terrorism and violence?
Also, if you assert, as you tacitly do, that the nature of the Koran necessarily begets terror and violence, how do you account for Muslims who do not engage in terrorism and violence, yet use the Koran.... or entire traditions in Islam that are mystic in nature and involve the spirituality of the individual?
Again, I'm not "blaming" Christianity.... I'm challenging the absolutism.
Because for human beings, the actual book or idea they use to excuse and justify violence is irrelevant. Human history is a litany of violence under many flags, in the guise of many religions and philosophies. It is a combination of zealotry about "something" within a psychosocial context in which the desire for hegemony reaches critical mass..... there are leaders and followers, but the specific "cause" (really the specific excuse) is malleable.
If we had a theocracy in America headed by the Pope, and we returned to a previous time when the majority masses believed it absolutely essential to maintain and defend the "purity" of the faith, protestants would suffer generalized oppression, and possibly formal governmental sanction and repression.... as would Muslims, Hindus, Buddists and Jews.
It is because Liberal Theology and Philosophy had its advent in the Enlightenment resulting in concepts for Liberal governance has it been possible for chunks of the West to transcend nearly continuous wars of religion.
All of the major modern religions, and the religions of antiquity had their roots in concepts of god(s) and God that was warlike, used man as an instrument of war, and was invoked by man to assist in war.
The Bible, interestingly, from Old Testement to New reflects a general change in the Judeo-Christian concept of God..... the message of Jesus was that in many ways that humanity just didn't/doesn't "get it" when it comes to God.... and maybe cannot "get it" completely by virtue of human nature. The Sermon on the Mount was a challange to Mankind to change its ways.... go against its very nature.
Somehow God morphed from an entity who helps out in wars if you carry this crate around to the rich, omniscient and merciful God of the New Testement, and even there the transformation isn't complete, with occasional glimpses at the old vengeful God of antiquity displaying His wrath to those who do not accept His Son.
So are Sacred Texts really about God, or are they about our misunderstanding of God?
The Catholic Church may be correct in a very fundamental way when it rejects the notion of Sola Scriptura.
Is the revelation of Sacred Scripture a revelation only of God to Man, or is it an historical documentary of Man's relationship to God? I would say the Bible reveals more about the nature of Man than God. And then, as I noted, Jesus appears to be saying that given all that, we got it wrong most of the time.... and perhaps formal religion itself, and the scriptures are more an instute and artifact of Man, often twisted to the purposes of Man.
Mohammed may have been a Prophet, but he was also a human being who ended up leading armies and fighting horrible wars.... this seems very much in the tradition of Man.
Did Mohammed, regardless of his spiritual insight and personal revelation once again, as a human being miss God's point?
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Friday, April 06, 2007 at 07:50 AM
--Ghost
"I don't believe the Koran causes terrorist activity. I think the reason that you do is because you are probably a fundamentalist Christian that believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible, and assume that all Muslim extremists are simply motivated by the literal words of the Koran.... certainly the literal interpretation of the Koran seems to lend itself to this type of activity, however, there is much much more involved, and there are many many Muslims who do not interpret the Koran literally, just as there are many Christians who believe in the allegorical interpretation of the Bible..... including the Mother of the Bible, the Catholic Church under the Roman Emperor Constantine.
------
------
Ghost, I believe that the source of jihad which we are experiencing all over the globe is indeed from the koran. Why? Because I have read it!! I also have interacted enough with muslims to understand how seriously they do take it. Again, you make this statement about why I understand this concept and try to minimize it as a fluke because "I am Christian" instead of maybe perhaps I have actually read the material we are discussing, now on the other hand, you cannot say such because again...we all know you have not read the koran.
And what is always most interesting about you Ghost is when anyone actually shows you this you immediately fall into switching the light off of Islam's Jihad by always immediately diverting the attention to blaming Christians. As we see here when you say, "Given that, and demonstrating that the violent or non-violent nature of the scripture does not directly cause terrorism.....there has been plenty of terrorism by Christians"
Why is that?
The reason you cannot see the truth on the source matter Ghost is because you can't stop long enough from lumping Christians and Islamist together! You also lump the koran and the bible together which is a joke. Have you even read the bible? You go on to make statements like "So the proposition that the Koran is the cause of the terrorism is difficult to maintain." which is a ridiculous to say because it's not difficult to maintain Ghost, especially when the terrorist themselves hold up the koran and SHOW everyone how they justify it! It's not difficult to maintain Ghost, if you would ever take the time to read the koran and see it for yourself, but no, you would rather not be bothered with the truth as you continue to make statements as if you know for certain that jihad terrorism didn't grow out of the teachings of Muhammed, and yet you don't even know what those teachings are!! Why? Because you haven't read the koran!
Then you sum it all up with, "I am refering to a larger political context in which much evil takes place." which IMHO, really points out how you don't get it Ghost, because the Islamist are inside that rhelm of "political Islam" and the goal is the Islamization of the world! It's those that are involved in the political part of Islam that are bullying the muslims that just want to worship their god in peace! But you don't get that! Because you do not and probably never will understand what is in the head or heart of a jihadist! How can you make comments about the koran when you haven't read it Ghost?????
Posted by: Liquid | Friday, April 06, 2007 at 06:49 AM
Mac, I find it continuously perplexing that many people as obviously intelligent as GD can get so wrapped up in espousing a party line that all historical fact and reason go out the window. As a social and fiscal conservative, I too believe in the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. If GD can find the minutia she comes up with regarding the atrocities of the state sponsored religions of the middle ages, then she is certainly aware that the "wall of separation" used so freely by the modern "liberals", was a phrase used by Jefferson in a letter to the Baptists, that the moderns have found convenient to use as policy.
I get tired of "debating" posters like her, I give you all a lot of credit for the time you spend and your obvious patience.I think Liquid's link to How Modern Liberals Think is one of the best explanations for GD. I also think that there is a refusal to see reality, as pointed out by Dr. Lyle Rossiter in a link by Red Violin near the beginning of this thread. We have all been over the early subjugation, slaughter, and coerced conversion of early Christian, Hindu, Budhist, and other societies by the muslims with GD. Yet still, she continues to morally equilibrate past state sponsored religions run amok, with the evangelists as they exist today, as if they were equal to the islamofascists. I, and others are not abusing or ridiculing GD, but pointing out inconsistencies that her mind will not allow her to see. And, BTW, what is it when she comes back and essentially tells us how "insidious" we all are for undermining the "liberal" constitution and "liberal" way of life in the U.S? Her definition of "liberal", as we have pointed out before, and she has difficulty acknowledging and refuting, is a twisted far cry from the liberalism of the founders.
Sowtrain: you and your site are anything but slow. I've enjoyed reading what you offer.
Kenny: good to see you back.
Alexandra: I knew you were still there.
Posted by: nofate | Friday, April 06, 2007 at 03:36 AM
CONTRADICTIONS OF THE KORAN
The text of the Koran is so contradictory, rough and bad-written, any observant layman is going to identify countless abundant, internal contradictions in the sacred book of the illiterate and ignorant barbarians. The site The Religion of Peace examined each one of those incongruous discrepancies. The contradictions are more than one hundred. That for stayed alone in the internal contradictions, in that certain stretches affirm exactly the opposite of others .
A amateur, pig work, that alone reinforce the suspicions about its real authorship. Everything indicates that Mohammed ordered several persons to write the book verses, but as the organizer did not know to read, the different approaches stayed uncompatible like a literary Frankenstein. Doubtless, it is the already written most monstrous book. In the form and in the content:
1. Can Allah be seen and did Muhammad see his Lord? Yes [Sura 53:1-18, 81:15-29], No [6:102-103, 42:51].
2. What was man created from? A blood clot [96:1-2], water [21:30, 24:45, 25:54], "sounding" (i.e. burned) clay [15:26], dust [3:59, 30:20, 35:11], nothing [19:67] and this is then denied in 52:35, earth [11:61], a drop of thickened fluid [16:4, 75:37]
3. How many angels were talking to Mary? When the Qur'an speaks about the announciation of the birth of Jesus to the virgin Mary, Sura 3:42,45 speaks about (several) angels while it is only one in Sura 19:17-21.
4. How many days did Allah need to destroy the people of Aad? One day [54:19] or several days [41:16; 69:6,7]
5. Heavens or Earth? Which was created first? First earth and then heaven [2:29], heaven and after that earth [79:27-30].
6. To Intercede or Not To Intercede? - That is the Question! The Qur'an makes contradictory statements whether on the Day of Judgment intercession will be possible. No: [2:122-123, 254; 6:51; 82:18-19; etc.]. Yes: [20:109; 34:23; 43:86; 53:26; etc.]. Each position can be further supported by a hadith.
7. Where is Allah and his throne? Allah is nearer than the jugular vein [50:16], but he is also on the throne [57:4] which is upon the water [11:7], and at the same time so far away, that it takes between 1,000 and 50,000 years to reach him [32:5, 70:4].
8. The origin of calamity? Is the evil in our life from Satan [38:41], Ourselves [4:79], or Allah [4:78]?
9. Does Allah command to do evil? No [7:28, 16:90]. Yes [17:16, ]. Two examples are also given, where Allah clearly commanded or permitted indecent actions [2:229-230, 2:187].
10. Do not say, "Three"!? It is impossible to recite Sura 4:171 without transgressing the command contained in it.
The infinite loop problem Sura 26:192,195,196: "It (the Qur'an) is indeed a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds, ... in clear Arabic speech and indeed IT (the Qur'an) is in the writings of the earlier (prophets)." Now, the 'earlier writings' are the Torah and the Injil for example, written in Hebrew and Greek. HOW can an ARABIC Qur'an be contained in books of other languages? Furthermore, it would have to contain this very passage of the Qur'an since the Qur'an is properly contained in them. Hence these earlier writings have to be contained in yet other earlier writings and we are in an infinite loop, which is absurd.
etc etc etc...
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/#internal
Posted by: Ernesto Ribeiro | Friday, April 06, 2007 at 01:48 AM
Now, this is an excellent piece.... a homily indicting the Roman Catholic Church for its inquistions, especially against "Bible Believers".... which of course is the euphemism the author uses for Protestent dissent into the error of Sola Scriptura.... and error which plagues the Protestant Christianity to this day.
Remarkably, in this paragraph he touches upon the essential flaw in the theology of Sola Scriptura:
You of course guessed the problem.... the Bible that the Protestants were solely "believing" in was actually the compilation of codices brought together as the Bible under at the direction of the converted Roman Emperor Contantine under the supervision and authority of the Church of Rome.
The author writes:
Which of course begs the question..... if the Roman Church was the original editor of available codices, performed the translations and claims authority in their interpretation, wherein lies the basis for the claim of Sola Scriptura? The editor and translator does not claim "absolute" dogmatics based on literal interpretation, how can anybody else?
One can see the problem.... anyway, I was really interested in the Jesuits and how a Roman Catholic theocracy would look in America.
The Roman Catholic Church has long since renounced such activity..... so I'm sure things would be better now.
However, as I said, for those who would like the abrogate Liberalism and the separation of church and state, I should like to propose my preferred Theocracy..... I suspect Pat Robertson may have some trouble ascending that particular throne.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 09:45 PM
Kenny- What a beautiful family! Happy Easter to all of you. GD: I would like to hear YOUR arguments- not your cut and paste arguments by others- addressing Kenny P.'s points. I can quote a thousand texts, too; that says nothing about my ability to think and draw conclusions INDEPENDENTLY.
A recent book by former NYT journalist Chris Hedges (he left the Times to because he didn't get enough freedom in that venue to spout his far-left-wing opinions, especially when he was writing a weekly column in the news- yes, the news- pages of the Times denouncing anybody slightly to the right of Nancy Pelosi- it says something in this age when a journalist feels the Times is too right wing) argues what you say, GD: that "Christofascists" pose a great a danger to pluralism/democracy/freedom as Islamic fascists.
Now, I have outed myself in recent months as a moderately liberal Democrat: I believe in separation of church and state, pro-choice, ending the futile war on illicit drugs in favor of other solutions, etc., and mostly break with the left on Israel and the issue of free trade/globalization (they're agin, I'm fer, in both cases). I have little use for the likes of Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, or Pat Robertson. And people who think taxpayers should foot the bill for government-subsidized expressions of religion (such as former Judge Roy Moore in Alabama, trying to force displays of the 10 Commandments at govt., i.e. taxpayer, expense In govt. buildings and stone monuments) make me mad as hell. But there is a difference between this type of political discourse and what the Islamofascists practice. The worst Christian extremists mostly are content to tell me I'm going to hell if I do not change my perfidious ways- AND THEN THEY LEAVE ME ALONE. Islamofascists, at least in this day and age, believe they have the RIGHT to kill me and anyone else who does not accept Islamo-imperialism/Sharia law worldwide, in my country, in my hometown, in my bedroom. Do you not see a distinction, GD? I ask respectfully, mindful of my three-and-one-half month old pledge, not so far knowingly broken by me, not to abuse or ridicule you on this (Alexandra's) blog.
Kenny- I think you could do a great post! Please reconsider.
Shalom, Mac Brachman
Posted by: mac Brachman | Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 09:33 PM
They've got the Republican Party by the gonads Kenny.... Modern Republicanism is a symbionic arrangement between corporate plutocrats with fundamentalist/evangelical/dominionst version of christianity as a fig leaf of morality. These are the christians that would have argued the Bible in support of Slavery and Segregation in a bygone era.... mad at Liberalism because the Liberal Constitution of the United States did not honor their parochial views, and therefore natural allies of corporatists who argue "government IS the problem", because without government, the default rulers are the corporations.
They are indeed a more insidious threat that Muslim extremists.....they're in the White House. Bin Laden is going to have a little more fighting to do before he "takes over".
In terms of moral equivalency, if that is how you'd like to put it, it is based on an absolute psychosocial parallel..... religious zealots not in individual spiritual pursuit of God, but in pursuit of power and domination over others.
It is really the dominionist ideas that has crept into the fundamentalist/evangelical realm.... however it is there.
And let me tell you somethin' Kenny.... if there is gonna be a theocracy in America, it is gonna be MY theocracy and MY Pope.... maybe the Society of Jesus can be re-enlisted into its old chores showing heretics how Christians deal with heretics. :)
Maybe they'll get a clue that when they speak, they don't speak for ALL Christians..... and maybe they're not even Christians at all.
Know any snake handlers Kenny?Â
Â
Â
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 08:29 PM
Alexandra,
I'm flattered and humbled. Alas, I honestly don't think I have anything particularly perceptive to say about Easter. But I will devote some thought to it and see what I can do.
Can I have until Russian Orthodox Easter to write it? ;-)
In the meantime, please keep my new young ward Natasha in your prayers, if you wouldn't mind. (That link actually includes a recent family picture of Clan Pierce, albeit without Natasha in it.)
Posted by: Kenny | Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 07:35 PM
The Muslims have never been apologetic for causing the Crusades, have never accepted responsibility for any their wrong doings, since 622 AD till now, whether Jihad or slavery. They don't have to, because the Koran lacks the intrinsic essentialities necessary to rouse that virtue in a person. Besides, they are very good at playing victim, while they commit atrocities with impunity. Moreover, they have people like Ghost Dancing to patronize and rationalize their barbarism.
Posted by: slowtrain | Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 07:28 PM
Ghost,
There’s a fundamental problem I have with your and other liberals’ habitual equation of “Christian rightists” with Islamofascists because they are both “religious extremists.” That is, I have a fundamental problem with what you’re constantly asserting, but it’s one of two possible fundamental problems and I don’t know which of the two it is.
You’re constantly emphasizing the moral equivalence of “Christian rightists” and Islamofascists because they are both religious extremists; and you constantly talk as though “Christian rightists” were as grave a threat to American liberties and the American ethos as are Islamofascists. But the former is valid only if you adopt such an extreme definition of “Christian rightists” that the number of them in America is vanishingly small, and the latter is invalid no matter what verbal and definitional gymnastics you perform. So either your definition of “Christian rightist” is so extreme as to be practically useless; or else your accusations are not merely false, but outright slanderous. I don’t know which of those two explanations is the correct one; but either way your conclusion about the seriousness of the “Christian rightest” threat is absurd and, if you’ll excuse my bluntness, a clear example of religious bigotry.
Let me try to make my point by analogy.
I happen to think Scientology is an amazingly stupid religion, a transparent scam masquerading as a religion and hardly even troubling to hide its scamminess. So I look at somebody like John Travolta and shake my head and think, “That guy’s crazy.” Which is a proposition I would defend, albeit with a cheerful lack of concern for whether or not I actually convinced anybody. At any rate, in this discussion, for the sake of illustration, let’s say I’m quite correct that Travolta is crazy in the mild sense in which I’m obviously using the term.
Now Son of Sam, Hannibal Lector, the Houston woman who drowned her kids in the bathtub, Hitler -- those people are also crazy. We would all agree with that. But think how perverse I would have to be to say that because John Travolta and Hitler are both “crazy,” therefore (a) John Travolta is the same kind of person as Hitler was, and (b) Scientologists like John Travolta are as big a threat to your kids and grandkids as are serial killers; so the cops should quit wasting so much time worrying about serial killers and start doing something about all those crazy Scientologists. Even if you agreed with me that Scientologists were in a sense “crazy,” wouldn’t you think my conclusions were...well, crazy?
I do not know of a single case since 1776 in which an American “Christian rightist” has sawed off a living victim’s head with a knife. Even the Klu Klux Klan lynch mobs were less inhumane than that; and the Klu Klux Klan is the sort of thing that in modern America nobody can admit to having been associated with without being socially shunned (unless, of course, he is a Democratic Senator, as association with the Democratic Party is apparently considered by the Left to be slightly more efficacious in the acquisition of absolution than is baptism, confession and Extreme Unction). There may still be “Christian rightists” who want to keep sodomy illegal; but can you point me to any actual Christian rightist of significant political influence who wants sodomy to be a capital offense? Lots of “Christian rightists” think wives should be subject to their husbands, and many of them probably don’t think woman should be combat soldiers; but can you point me to any real live Christian rightist of significant influence who so much as wants to take the vote away from women? or to require women to keep their faces covered in public? or to start stoning women who claim to be raped if they can’t produce four witnesses to the rape? or who think that a man who permanently and horrifically disfigures a woman by throwing acid in her face, should pay no penalty more severe than handing over twenty or so goats to the girl’s father? or who (like the Ayatollah Khomeini) encourage fathers to marry their prepubescent daughters off to men decades the children’s seniors because (they claim) the Prophet’s example proves there’s nothing wrong with pedophilia?
Perhaps most of all, can you point me to any “Christian rightists” who not only claim the right to kill anybody -- man, woman or child -- who does not accept their religious creed, but who also are in full control of a country that is within months of possessing nuclear capability? I mean, I think most of us would agree that the most threatening “Christian rightist” group in America over the last twenty years or so has been William Pierce’s (no relation!) National Alliance, whose high point came with the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 -- which killed 168 people. You could stretch a point and blame “Christian rightists” for the death of 74 people at the Branch Davidian compound, though it was the rightists themselves who died, and a good case could be made that Janet Reno’s ham-fisted ATF was almost as much to blame as were the rightists. You could try to include the 900 dead from Jonestown, though again it was the rightists themselves who died. You could try to include the 39 Heaven’s Gaters, but again it’s the rightists themselves dying, not killing other people. Yet even counting literally hundreds of rightists themselves as victims of “Christian rightism,” we’re not close to the number of people killed by Islamofascists on 9/11 alone -- and 9/11 is just one in an interminable series of Islamofascist murders that have been going on all over the globe in all kinds of different societies for years and years and years.
Finally, there are approximately 100 million Muslims in the world who buy into the basic tenets of Islamofascism. Even if we conservatively cut that by 75% and say there are 25 million Muslims who think God rewards Muslims who kill people in the name of religion -- do you seriously think you could find 25 million “Christian rightists” or Christian “religious extremists” whose religious views were violent to that extreme?
If you define “Christian rightists” in such a way as to restrict its meaning to only those soi-disantes “Christians” who are as lunatically violent and bloodthirsty as are the Islamofascists and their supporters, then you are talking about a group of people whose numbers are so tiny that they have not the slightest chance in hell of influencing American politics; and thus it is ludicrous to pretend that “Christian rightists” by that definition pose the same threat as the petrodollar-funded terrorist organizations ceaselessly spawned by the inbred Wahabbite Saudis or the soon-to-be-nuclear Iranian regime. But if by “Christian rightists” you mean even a marginally significant American political movement, then it is grossly slanderous to pretend that “Christian rightists” by that definition are on the same moral plane -- are the same kind of people -- as are Islamofascist terrorists and regimes.
The problem, Ghost, is that you are grotesquely lacking in any sense of proportion. And without proportionality, there can be no justice. It is unjust of you constantly to rhetorically equate “Christian rightists” with the Islamofascist butchers and woman-oppressors, and irrational in the extreme for you to pretend that the two groups represent equally serious threats to the American ethos. I mean, it’s fine for you to dislike Jerry Falwell as much as you dislike Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, because that’s just subjective personal emotions. But you can’t seriously pretend that they are in objective fact moral equivalents, or equally serious threats to American liberty.
Listen, I grew up in the mountains of Oklahoma among hard-shelled Baptists and Pentecostals who never went to movies or played cards or danced or -- if female -- wore trousers, and who certainly thought that our country should be a Christian country and that things that God says are immoral ought generally to be illegal. And I will tell you here and now that to equate those people with the death-cultists who roam the world dealing death and destruction in the name of Islam, is the vilest of slanders. I mean, I certainly think my Pentecostal and Baptist friends have some wrong-headed ideas about government. But that hardly means that they are of murderous intent. And it doesn’t mean they aren’t my friends, or that I don’t get tired of hearing them incessantly and uncharitably and most of all unreasonably bashed by religious bigots of the left. And if you seriously think that Christian rightists pose even remotely as serious a threat to us as do Islamofascists, then you, my dear Ghost -- much as I like you -- are a religious bigot.
So cut it out, eh?
Posted by: Kenny | Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 07:27 PM
I am sick and tired of hearing people rationalize the murderous terrorist acts being committed in the name of Islam, even as we speak, by flippantly invoking the memory of the Crusades as if it were a moral injunction for Islamists to murder people wherever they please – Jerusalem, London, Madrid, Amsterdam, New York, Washington DC, Nairobi, Dar es Salem (Tanzania), Beirut, Somalia, Cairo, Jos (Nigeria), Moscow, Manila (Philippines), Bali (Indonesia), Kabul (Afghanistan), Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and indeed all over the world. Whatever atrocities were committed in name of the crusades and there were atrocities committed -- no one denies that, Muslims committed even greater atrocities and were responsible for the whole conflict, as they are now. Had Islam not been expanded by force, had Muslims not sought to conquer Europe and the world for Islam by the sword, there would have been no Crusades to begin with.
Mohammed’s triumphant return to Mecca in AD 622 was a bloody affair and he extended his reign of terror to Jerusalem and beyond. Since the establishment of the Islamic empire in AD 634, Muslim forces have conquered lands stretching from the borders of China and India to Spain’s Atlantic coast. All of these conquered lands were forced to convert to Islam, and as a result, many, if not all, have become Islamic states. In the book Islam and the West, historian Bernard Lewis wrote, “For almost a thousand years . . . Europe was under constant threat. In the early centuries, it was a double threat—not only of invasion and conquest, but also of conversion and assimilation. All but the easternmost provinces of the Islamic realm had been taken from Christian rulers, and the vast majority of the first Muslims west of Iran and Arabia were converts from Christianity. North Africa, Egypt, Syria, even Persian-ruled Iraq, had been Christian countries, in which Christianity was older and more deeply rooted than in most of Europe. Their loss was sorely felt and heightened the fear that a similar fate was in store for Europe.”
In 1983, in a speech marking the dedication of an Islamic Center in Stockholm, Sweden, an Islamic leader declared, “In the next fifty years, we will capture the Western world for Islam. We have the men to do it, we have the money to do it, and above all, we are already doing it.” In December 2002, a leading Sunni sheik, Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, posted a fatwa in response to a reader’s question on the on http://www.islamonline.net, wrote of the “signs of the victory of Islam,” citing a well-known Hadith: “. . . The Prophet Muhammad was asked: ‘What city will be conquered first, Constantinople or Romiyya?’ He answered: ‘The city of Heracles will be conquered first’—that is, Constantinople. . . . Romiyya is the city called today ‘Rome,’ the capital of Italy. The city of Heracles [later to become Constantinople] was conquered by the young twenty-three-year-old Ottoman Muhammad bin Morad, known in history as Muhammad the Conqueror, in 1453. The other city, Romiyya, remains, and we hope and believe [that it too will be conquered].”
Sheik Al-Qaradhawi said “This means that Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor, after being expelled from it twice—once from the South, from Andalusia, and a second time from the East, when it knocked several times on the door of Athens.” (Source: Vancouver Independent Media, http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/23883.php).
The West and the Christian Church have accepted responsibility for the mistakes made during the Crusades and have expiated for them. As with the trans-Atlantic slavery, the West, on account of Christianity realized that it was wrong and stopped it and has continued to expiate for that atrocity. But the Muslims, who engaged in the trans-Saharan Slavery, long before the trans-Atlantic slavery and for much longer, have never renounced slavery or expiated for it. In fact, as we speak, indigenous Africans are stilled being enslaved in Sudan and other places as bounties for Jihad.
To the ears of a skeptic, words are redundant and to the mind of cynic, reason is redundant. Out of this condition, ideologies based on metaphorical pustulencies and irrational analogies emerge to cast shadows on truths, thus confusing people even more, in an already chaotic atmosphere.
Posted by: slowtrain | Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 07:13 PM
Unpleasant indeed.... But it doesn't have to be taken literally, should be contextualized into the historic period in which it was written and of course the scripture could be revealing Man's craziness as much as God's will.
The historical interaction of Islam and Judaism started in the 7th century CE with the origin and spread of Islam in the Arabian peninsula. Because Islam and Judaism share a common origin in the Middle East through Abraham, both are considered Abrahamic religions. There are many shared aspects between Judaism and Islam. Because of this, as well as through the influence of Muslim culture and philosophy on practitioners of Judaism within the Islamic world, there has been considerable and continued physical, theological, and political overlap between the two faiths in the subsequent 1,400 years.
Actually the Judeo-Christian tradtion and scriptures predate Islam.... influenced Islam.... acknowledged in Islam.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 06:54 PM
SOME QUOTES FROM THE KORAN PROVING THAT TERROR IS WITHIN.
THE KORAN IS A TERROR DOCUMENT.
(Quran 5:49-51): When your Lord revealed to the angels; I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I WILL CAST TERROR INTO THE HEARTS OF THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE. THEREFORE STRIKE OFF THEIR HEADS AND STRIKE OFF EVERY FINGERTIP OF THEM.
(Quran 8:12-14): O YOU WHO BELIEVE! DO NOT TAKE THE JEWS AND THE CHRISTIANS FOR FRIENDS.
(Quran 4:89): THEY DESIRE THAT YOU SHOULD DISBELIEVE AS THEY HAVE DISBELIEVED, SO THAT YOU MIGHT BE ALL ALIKE; THEREFORE TAKE NOT FROM AMONG THEM FRIENDS UNTIL THEY FLY THEIR HOMES IN ALLAH'S WAY; BUT IF THEY TURN BACK, THEN SEIZE THEM AND KILL THEM WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE NOT FROM AMONG THEM A FRIEND OR A HELPER.
(Quran 5:33): The Punishment for those who oppose Allah and his messenger is: Execution or Crucifixion or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land.
(Quran 9:5): Then when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.
(Quran 8:12): Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them."
(Quran 2:193): "And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah.
(Quran 76: 4): Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers chains, yokes and a blazing fire.
(Quran 47:4): When you meet the disbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.
(Quran 56.60) We have ordained death among you and We are not to be overcome,
(Quran 33.61) Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering.
(Quran 9.29) Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
(Quran 9.30) And the Jews say: “Uzair is the son of Allah”; and the Christians say: “The Messiah is the son of Allah”; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
(Quran 9: 123): O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you and let them find harshness in you and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).
(Quran 2.191) And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
(Quran 25.36) Then We said: Go you both to the people who rejected Our communications; so We destroyed them with utter destruction.
Page after page of hate.
The HADITH are also considered holy accounts of the prophet. I won’t list all the hateful passages as there are soooo many.
The hadith are full of the glorification of beheading captives, killing old men, pillaging and having sex with whomever Mohammed fancied such as a 9 year old girl.
It is full of hatred and vile uncivilised acts praised by muslims.
There is page after page of this evil.
http://www.coranix.com/beastycult.htm
Posted by: Ernesto Ribeiro | Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 05:06 PM
Sorry: a mistaken friend email me that today. By now, I checked that info source. There are two translated versions for the Koran in 9:11
It seems a hoax. I've got from this link:
http://www.jesusisaliberal.org/Z_091705_9-11_Koran_Hoax.html
Posted by: Ernesto Ribeiro | Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 03:56 PM
I agree with you there Liquid.... you and I differ on the cause of the terrorism.... and make no mistake, savagery of the kinds you are discussing, both physical and psychological are terrorist tactics.
I don't believe the Koran causes terrorist activity. I think the reason that you do is because you are probably a fundamentalist Christian that believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible, and assume that all Muslim extremists are simply motivated by the literal words of the Koran.... certainly the literal interpretation of the Koran seems to lend itself to this type of activity, however, there is much much more involved, and there are many many Muslims who do not interpret the Koran literally, just as there are many Christians who believe in the allegorical interpretation of the Bible..... including the Mother of the Bible, the Catholic Church under the Roman Emperor Constantine.
Given that, and demonstrating that the violent or non-violent nature of the scripture does not directly cause terrorism.....there has been plenty of terrorism by Christians, and plenty terrorism perpetrated by Christians claiming to be defending their faith...... and easy example in modern times is Northern Ireland between the Catholics and Protestants.
So terrorism can be perpetrated by religious people even if they have a "nice" book like the Bible. And some of those who read the "violent" Koran are not led to terrorism. So the proposition that the Koran is the cause of the terrorism is difficult to maintain.
You were right..... I am refering to a larger political context in which much evil takes place.Â
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 03:52 PM
Ernesto Ribeiro what version of the koran are you getting that from? I have read the koran and I don't ever remember that verse. Could you share what koran/quran translation that came from? I would be much interested.
Posted by: Liquid | Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 02:58 PM
Happy Pesach and Easter to all!
I got an at least curious information:
Knowing that America is represented by an eagle, so how Bin Laden interpreted the following stretch of the Koran? :
(... "That one described as the son of Arabia will be cornered by a frightening eagle.
The claws of the eagle will be felt along all the Lands of Allah and Lot, when some of the peoples will tremble in the despair and in the joy.
When the claws of the eagle will clear the lands of Allah, then will have Peace.")
- Koran (9:11)
Have you paid attention to the number of the verse of the Koran? ... 9:11 (September, 11)
Posted by: Ernesto Ribeiro | Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 02:28 PM
Alexandra, great to know you are doing well, and by all means don't feel pressure to come back until you are comfortable and your real life with family and goals is secure and happy. I think the idea of Kenny writing something scrumptious for Easter will truly be a treat. I have said it before, He is a 'must read' always and if time is willing for him I second the motion that He "get busy writing" Ha Ha
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ghost, as for your "ism" of "far right Christianist" comparison, I am like Slowtrain here, I don't understand your comparison to them with the Islamist! The only comparison perhaps is the ideology factor in full swing of all things political, but as for as Jihad and holy war upon infidels with butchery and savagery of mutilation and humiliation as some tribal connection to the teachings of Muhammed, you just can't find that connection in Christianity via it's source. Now again, I am not comparing to the horrible things in the past done in horror by the churches, again, I will point out that the last few popes have gone out of their way to have patience and a repentative heart for such things, the appologies are heartfelt and are part of the healing of man's actions but again, you won't find that in Islam. No, even in our midst are Friday prayers of Hate for America and Israel in mosques. Again, I suggest you learn about the teachings of Muhammed and then take another look at the islamist and get some deeper understanding of how and why their mind works the way it does. You cannot find that same connection of Christians emulating Jesus Christ! Because Jesus never sinned! I have always tried to get you to look at the source of authority on this issue. The truth will lie in the source! Don't think I don't understand your stance on this Ghost, because I know others that have the same type of fear. They fear Christians as much as they do Islamist because they don't understand the source. I understand the fear of men with any kind of power Ghost, but Liberalism and Secularism can also be in that same boat as "isms" to manipulate to an extremist ideology. Now, It's true that all men are capable of evil, and humans have a tendency to try to bring God down to their corruption. But if you will look at 'the sources' of both Christianity and Islam, you will see that the sources of both are different; where one teaches love and compassion to their brothers and their enemies while the other teaches humiliation and murder to all the non believers of Allah. The ones that get confused on this issue most I think are the athiest that don't truly grasp the comprehension of a God anyway. It's way over their heads. So they lump all into one pot as potential threats because they cannot see the fruit of truth anyway.
-------------------
BTW Slowtrain, I enjoy your post...your points are a good contribution!
Posted by: Liquid | Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 01:54 PM
oops!
I apologize for the double posting. I had difficulty posting my last comments; I was getting page cannot be displayed error. Apparently, the several attempts I made to post the comments resulted in duplicate posting. I have asked Alexandra to delete the posting before the last.
Posted by: slowtrain | Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Ghost Dancing:
Again, I have to say that your comparisons are still baseless and contrary to reason — analogically and intrinsically. Show me anywhere on this planet or any other, where Christians, however extremist they may be, hack off the heads of non-Christians or pack themselves with explosives walk into crowded trains, buses, airliners, or Market places and explode themselves for the purpose of killing as many people as possible and make a political statement. Show me anywhere in the Bible or on the planet where Christians who converts to Islam or any other religion are required to be put to death.
The psychosocial consciousness of all Christians, including your so-called “rightists”, lies within the bounds of the following injunctions:
*Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. (Matthew 5:6)
*Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Matthew 5:7)
*Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. (Matthew 5:8)
*Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Matthew 5:9)
*Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:10)
*Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. (Matthew 5:11)
*You have heard that it hath been said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. (Matthew 5:38)
*But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: (Matthew 5:39)
*And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him. (Matthew 5:40)
*And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two. (Matthew 5:41)
*Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away. (Matthew 5:42)
*You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy. (Matthew 5:43)
*But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: (Matthew 5:44)
*That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust. (Matthew 5:45)
*For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? (Matthew 5:46)
*And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? (Matthew 5:47)
*Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48)
*Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another (John 13:34).
*Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28).
*Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse (Romans 12:14).
Anybody who has any understanding of the Bible would know that an “extremist Christian” or as your terminology “rightist” would suggest, is someone who would most be like Jesus Christ – one who adheres more closely to the teachings of Jesus Christ – the injunctions listed above and more. Conversely, any Muslim who aspires to most be like Mohammed would adhere to his injunctions listed below and more:
**Believers, do not choose the unbelievers rather than the faithful as your friends. Would you give Allah a clear proof against yourselves? (Koran 4:144)
**The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is Forgiving, merciful. (Koran 5:33-34)
**Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrong-doers. (Koran 5:51)
**Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels and those who were given the Book before you, who have made your religion a jest and a pasttime... (Koran 5:57)
**Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them." (Koran 8:12)
**Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last day, nor hold the forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jiziyah with willing submission. And feel themselves subdued. (Koran 9:29)
**Fight those who do not profess the true faith (Islam) till they pay the jiziya (poll tax) with the hand of humility. (Koran 9:29)
**Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolators wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (Koran 9:5)
**Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their Home: an evil fate. Koran 9:73
**When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Then grant them their freedom or take ransom from them, until War shall lay down her burdens. (Koran 47:4)
I cannot imagine how anyone can arrive at such a conclusion; that there are essential psychosocial similarities between Christians and Muslims or between the essentialities of the extremist, rightest or leftests adherents.
“Any governmental form that takes as its starting point power derived from God, Allah, etc..... where the potentates answer only to a supreme being and not the people is not Liberal Democracy.”
For a just government, such as the founders sought to establish in America, it is not either God or the people; that is the genius, the miracle, as it were, of the idea -- indeed the providential ideal called America. When a government is just and the people are upright, it by design and implication answers to God and the people. Two of the most defining events in the American history –- the Declaration of Independence and the Civil Rights movements, which gave birth to America and established a “more perfect union”, all derived from this ideal. Consider the following excerpt from the declaration of independence:
“When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Ever wonder, why the West is more attuned to democracy than any other society on earth?
Posted by: slowtrain | Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Precisely why I have in the past danced around even referring to christian rightests as Christians.... I think they are heretics and blasphemers, let alone blatant hypocrits. I gave you a link to the dominionists and dominionist theology..... you are correct, it is difficult to see how they justify their goals an positions from the Holy Scripture. But they are there, they are active and they influence other fundamentalist and evangelical Christians in subtle ways that even they don't realize. Ask them how they justify themselves in scripture..... they certainly think they do with their Pharisee-like megachurchs and broadcasting networks.
And rest assured, if this type of thought ever took over in America, it would be the end of Liberalism and Democracy..... we would get to revisit some very ugly periods of human history..... we would have the opportunity to rediscover why Chist was so great in the first place.
Read above to Liquid. Liberalism as a political philosophy is rooted in Christianity. It is a product of the enlightenment which was heavily influenced by ideas arising within a Christianized Europe..... Ideas like every individual has Human Rights bestowed by God, not just Kings, and that government should serve the people.
However, Christianity and its Church (churches) were also used to bestow upon many despotic actions an alleged concordance with God's will..... these too were errors and un-Christian in the most profound sense.
Liberalism is the flower of Christian thought implementing Christ's message of love and tolerance for all insofar as that can be achieved within that imperfect condition called Human Existence.
Islam can exist within a Liberal secular context, however it must abandon its aggressive evangelizing by violence and show how it is a religion of attraction rather than coercion.
That Liberal condition of government with a few versions of Judism, 2000 or so variations of Chritianity, several variations of Islam, Buddism, Hinduism and others is not unprecedented.
We should insist upon Liberal conditions in the West. Following the dictates of Islamic extremists for Muslims is analagous to reverting to the Christianity of the Dark Ages in the West.... that would not be acceptable for Christians, nor should it be acceptable for Muslims.Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 04:55 AM
Mac,
Happy Pesach and Easter to all!
I am here...and itching to continue. Time won't allow it until I am done with some goals I have set myself, and you know I won't dish out half baked cookies on ATB...
Getting hundreds of e-mails from anxious readers. I am grateful everyone is sticking in there, and I thank you all for your endless support. Keep us all posted as you have been doing, I won't be much longer. I am away for the whole week following Easter with spasmodic internet connection allowing me to simply keep an eye on the comment section, but hope to be back in action soon after.
I am going to send an e-mail to Kenny and see if he has time to write an Easter post for me for a change of pace.
Posted by: Alexandra | Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 03:49 AM
Ghost Dancing:
Again, I have to say that your comparisons are still baseless and contrary to reason — analogically and intrinsically.
The psychosocial consciousness of all Christians, including your so-called “rightists”, lies within the bounds of the following injunctions:
*Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. (Matthew 5:6)
*Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Matthew 5:7)
*Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. (Matthew 5:8)
*Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Matthew 5:9)
*Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:10)
*Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. (Matthew 5:11)
*You have heard that it hath been said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. (Matthew 5:38)
*But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: (Matthew 5:39)
*And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him. (Matthew 5:40)
*And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two. (Matthew 5:41)
*Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away. (Matthew 5:42)
*You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy. (Matthew 5:43)
*But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: (Matthew 5:44)
*That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust. (Matthew 5:45)
*For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? (Matthew 5:46)
*And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? (Matthew 5:47)
*Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48)
*Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another (John 13:34).
*Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28).
*Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse (Romans 12:14).
Anybody who has any understanding of the Bible would know that an “extremist Christian” or as your terminology “rightist” would suggest, is someone who would most be like Jesus Christ – one who adheres more closely to the teachings of Jesus Christ – the injunctions listed above and more. Conversely, any Muslim who aspires to most be like Mohammed, would adhere to his injunctions listed below and more:
**Believers, do not choose the unbelievers rather than the faithful as your friends. Would you give Allah a clear proof against yourselves ? (Koran 4:144)
**The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is Forgiving, merciful. (Koran 5:33-34)
**Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrong-doers. (Koran 5:51)
**Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels and those who were given the Book before you, who have made your religion a jest and a pasttime... (Koran 5:57)
**Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them." (Koran 8:12)
**Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last day, nor hold the forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jiziyah with willing submission. And feel themselves subdued. (Koran 9:29)
**Fight those who do not profess the true faith (Islam) till they pay the jiziya (poll tax) with the hand of humility. (Koran 9:29)
**Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolators wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (Koran 9:5)
**Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their Home: an evil fate. Koran 9:73
**When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Then grant them their freedom or take ransom from them, until War shall lay down her burdens. (Koran 47:4)
I cannot imagine how anyone can arrive at such a conclusion; that there are essential psychosocial similarities between Christians and Muslims or between the essentialities of the extremist, rightest or leftests adherents.
“Any governmental form that takes as its starting point power derived from God, Allah, etc..... where the potentates answer only to a supreme being and not the people is not Liberal Democracy.”
For a just government, such as the founders sought to establish in America, it is not either God or the people; that is the genius, the miracle, as it were, of the idea -- indeed the providential ideal called America. When a government is just and the people are upright, it by design and implication answers to God and the people. Two of the most defining events in the American history –- the Declaration of Independence and the Civil Rights movements, which gave birth to America and established a “more perfect union”, all derived from this ideal. Consider the following excerpt from the declaration of independence:
“When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Ever wonder, why the West is more attuned to democracy than any other society on earth?
Posted by: slowtrain | Thursday, April 05, 2007 at 02:19 AM
Ghost, "The comparison isn't in my case between Islam and Christianity. It is rather highlighting the psychosocial simularities between the extremist, rightest adherents of each.
And the psychosocial simularities between rightests and leftests..... and how Liberalism is in fact none of the above, and the only way to moderate extremists.
Sharia would never be the law in a Liberal Democracy because it is antithetical. However, Liberal Democracy is also antithetical to any number of extremist world views including Christofascist world views.
---------
You constantly are comparing right extremist to the Islamist and yet you can't find the sacred scriptures of the "far right" or really lets be honest, "far right Christians" because all though you don't say that...its what you mean eh? Where are those far righties's sources via scripture that justify any beheading or holy war of commands to murder all non believers until there is only one religion or that all bow down by force one way or the other to worship one god? Eh? But if you are honest, you will look and see that the Islamist not only hold up their koran to show you...they make it easy for you to source their inspiration.....because it's there for all to see!
As for shariah law will never be here in America, well, Ghost, lets be honest about that too, democracy here is about the majority's vote eh? The people will have the vote eh? Well, if we eventually end up like France, and those voting in our the right blocks can get the majority vote, what do you think is gonna happen?
This is why we must start implementing laws now that will not have any loopholes on ever allowing shariah law in our country! We need to start now and get the laws on the books, that way even if the majority wants shariah...it can't be put into place. But then again, do they need any written infidel law? Hell no, because again, Allah's desire trumps all man made laws.
As for theocracy, well if secularism continues to form into it's own "religion" that can bully any religion at all, and be used in the same breath to protect it's chosen "religions" then where is the final authority of it's truth going to come from? Athiest? How will the "secularist" stand up against the Islamist, which will die for their god? Can you see the future problems of the "secularist" down the road when they decide they want to say NO to Islam? Wow...what will the "secularist" do then when they are called Bigot or Racist? Will they clench their constitution with white knuckles as they are forced down on their knees and forced to worship Allah? Because once all the Jews and Christians and Hindus and Buddist are silenced....guess who is next???????
Posted by: Liquid | Wednesday, April 04, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Alexandra- Where are you? Ou etes vous? Donde usted? Happy Pesach and Holy Week/Easter to all and sundry. Shalom, Mac Brachman
Posted by: mac Brachman | Wednesday, April 04, 2007 at 10:17 PM
The comparison isn't in my case between Islam and Christianity. It is rather highlighting the psychosocial simularities between the extremist, rightest adherents of each.
And the psychosocial simularities between rightests and leftests..... and how Liberalism is in fact none of the above, and the only way to moderate extremists.
Sharia would never be the law in a Liberal Democracy because it is antithetical. However, Liberal Democracy is also antithetical to any number of extremist world views including Christofascist world views.
I the case of Liberal Democracy, neither the Koran nor the Bible nor any other religious artifact would be placed above the Constitution..... because a Liberal Democracy is by definition NOT a theocracy.
Any governmental form that takes as its starting point power derived from God, Allah, etc..... where the potentates answer only to a supreme being and not the people is not Liberal Democracy.
If one argues that Christian Theocracy is needed to defeat Islamic Theocracy, I would dispute that.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Wednesday, April 04, 2007 at 09:16 PM
People, when it comes to movies, baseball, football or basketball, it is OK to act as if the world begins and ends in America and that everything to be known or learned reside right here at home — on our television screens. It is not OK to have similar views when it comes to global political ideologies and dynamics. In the latter, ignorance can and have proven very deadly, even as unwitting sedation in the dying process of a once thriving idealism.
I find it very troubling, indeed dangerous, when Americans who were not born in Islamic countries, never really lived in Islamic societies, never been Muslims, never read the Qur’an or understood it, never been Christians, never read the Bible or understood it, make comparisons and offer opinions that are patently false and misleading, to say the least. The irony is that the perception of many people around the world, particularly Muslims, is that Americans are largely ignorant of other cultures and anything that obtains beyond the shores of America, and here we are living up to that notion to the benefit of those who view Americans as ignorant.
I am recommending that some of our pundits who suggest that Islam and the Qur’an are moral equivalence to Christianity and the Bible or that the teachings and actions of Mohammed (The Hadith) are morally equivalent to teachings and actions of Jesus Christ (The New Testament), to get out of their comfort zones — the freedom established by the imperatives of the self-evidentiary truths in the providential ideal “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, and move to Islamic societies where Shariah is the law, live therein for at least ten years — not in some expatriate and diplomatic green zones, but in real Islamic societies, before they can credibly make claims on the Qur’an or comparison between Islam and Christianity. Until they are brave enough to undergo this necessary education, they are not qualified to make the claims or the comparisons they make between Mohammed and Jesus Christ, the Qur’an and the Bible or between Muslims and Christians, and all such claims and comparisons are nothing but uninformed or disingenuous arguments.
Posted by: slowtrain | Wednesday, April 04, 2007 at 08:17 PM
Maybe we should Rock the Casbah
And maybe we should Stop the Clash of Civilizations
And maybe we Saved theWorld Today
Â
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Wednesday, April 04, 2007 at 07:38 PM
Osama bin Laden citing the quick exit from Beirut Lebanon that followed the 1983 barracks bombing and America’s quick exit from Somalia in 1993 after the Black Hawk incident, said “The American people don't have the stomach for the fight in Iraq.”
It took radical Islam 30 years to patiently raise a new breed of Muslims in the mold of the 622 AD and 632 AD Islamic pioneers, infiltrate Europe, acquire a critical mass, engineer the proliferation of radical Islamic tenets, hobble and capture Europe -- in the culminating dynamics all over Western Europe engendered by Islamic terrorism and intimidation. Throughout history, in the war of ideas, the patient and the strong willed emerge victorious, the impatient and weak willed are always defeated.
“At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reaches us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” -- Abraham Lincoln, January 27, 1838.
The apparent lack of unity and will in America, particularly for political exigencies, in response to America’s sworn enemies primed on a totalitarian ideology that has ambitions far beyond Iraq, and will seek to make Detroit, New Mexico, New Jersey or Chicago the next base of operation similar to London, Amsterdam or Madrid for the future battle ground, after we retreat from Iraq, is a bad omen. In 1786, in a meeting in Paris, the ambassador from Tripoli informed Thomas Jefferson that Muslims are bound by duty, according to both the Qur’an and the Hadith, to wage attacks (jihad) on all who refuse to acknowledge Muslim authority. And so it was, so it is and so shall it be.
Posted by: slowtrain | Wednesday, April 04, 2007 at 06:33 PM
Ghost, we can chant all we want that we want and have free speech and we demand freedom of religion because our constitution says so. If we took an honest vote tomorrow, no one would want suicide bombers amongst us- lying in wait- to spring up and die a martyer with the blood of the infidels on their hands, but again, if we are not enforcing our rights, which political correctness has and is stripping away from us, what good is it? Take a look at anyone that speaks out against Islam today....what happens?
Ghost, this jihad movement is raging around both in the public square via protest and civil court cases, along with immigrations, etc. but not only that, there is a sneakiness in some of their agendas, although many will be straight up about their intentions. What I am trying to say is that the constitution is being used against us...it protects the rights of those that want to undermine us and hurt us. Just like secularism 'can in some' turn anti-Christian over night, we are seeing in many venues how good is being called evil and evil is being taught and called good. Common sense is being suppressed because when someone tries to admit there are problems with Islam's influence today, they get called bigot or racist! You don't see that when anyone speaks out against Christianity or Judaism. In fact, it's become a global pastime to blame everything on the Jews. It's disgusting and no one is even trying to stop it!
It's also the mindset like that of yours ghost, that of fear of Christians as much as Islamist that is being manipulated to the hilt. Sure, it's used in the 'extreme fish bowl of examples' so not to offend, but can't you see how many hide in that bowl? The haters of all things Christian and Jewish? I understand the comparison of Jim Jones and other fanatics and also past injustices in the political/religious churches of the past, which you gotta add that even the popes have tried to redeem those acts with apologies and a change of heart, but I truly think that even after that repentance 'those that lump Christians and Islamist together' would - IF the Islamist threat were to subside- would turn in a quick flash to persecute all things Christians/Jewish. Because its all things religious that bother them...not only extremist, because the extremist are a given easy example. Many that hide inside secularism, like athiest that hate any religion and communist activist alike sit back and gleam at the growth of Anti- Christianity/Judaism and Anti-Americanism in the world. They cheer it on. Because what bothers them the most is the power that America has and in that power sits the largest Christian nation that supports Israel. Today that support is being targeted. So many are not fooled by it at all...they know that alot of the Anti Americanism is part of the spirit that desires to destroy all things Christian and Jewish. They seek to sever that bond.
I hate to say it, but I can see in the future when it becomes so secularly blurred with political correctness at the front of the parade, marching down a road that has managed to destroy all free speech 'that could' criticize and expose Islam for what it has politically become, that mosque will fill the Americana skylines and probably even helped funded by the secularist community and probably our own govt and then as Islam thrives in our multiculturism, shining safely under the protection of religion inside America; a place where democracy is the majority and where the people will rule via by numbers, Christians and Jews will no longer feel safe. Just like in France! Perhaps that is when many Jewish folks will head to Israel because no western nation will feel safe by then and I bet many Christians will join them. Of course many of freedom's enemies that will be hiding as secularist will smile at that; it will be good riddance to the free thinkers that cannot tolerate any kind of religion, but what will be the biggest suprize to them then will be that sharia law will flip it's ugly head if voted in by the majority and even if not, it will be done like it is now, not officially the law but enforced just the same.
If that moment comes, the people that have rallied behind the tolerance of Islam all along will suddenly be victim to it but it will be too late to do anything. The only protest allowed to speak out then will be those that wish to express their dismay over some insult to Islam or Muhammed since that will be a crime. Just take a look at the UN and see the future!
Posted by: Liquid | Wednesday, April 04, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Ghost, Muslims are Satanists.
And the Koran is full of torture, terror, slavering and mass-killing orders.
SHARIA = EVIL
JIHAD = NAZISM
KORAN = MEIN KAMPF
MO THE PEDOPHILE = HITLER
ALLAH = SATAN
MUSLIMS = DEVILS
ISLAM = HELL
plain and simple.
Posted by: Ernesto Ribeiro | Wednesday, April 04, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Well we're questioning it right now. Sharia is not going to be the law of America, and if Europeans and the West accept it as law, they are making the same mistake the Weimar Republic in 1930's Germany did when it undermined its own Liberal Democracy for Fascism.
Some people don't like the term Islamofascism..... I think it is perfect. I am wary of fascists of every ilk. Corporate fascists, Religious fascists, Political fascists.
What I often like to point to is the fact that we have insidious rightest influences right under our own nose..... I will not submit to Christofascist or the political philosophy of modern Republicanism either..... political philosophies that seek to gain political power, then undermine the Liberal Constitution and Bill of Rights.
There are those who would like nothing better than to see a global "holy" war or both sides, which they then use to radicalize the populations to rightest positions.
The only way America and the West will lose in the conflict with Islamofascists, is if we abandon our Liberal principles.
Liberal principles require a certain amount of conformity and civility in the practice of all religions.
Just as America will not tolerate Catholics burning down Protestant churches, or vice versa, or explicit Christian hegemony in our Constitution and Law, so to will be not tolerate hegemonic behavior from Islam.
DominionismÂ
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Wednesday, April 04, 2007 at 05:03 AM
Perhaps secularism is also being modernized Ghost....maybe it's there that political correctness is choking us eh? Striking a balance is important, but if you allow any religion to be exempt from scrutiny, then what does it matter? Where is the freedom inside secularism gonna shine? If the UN's vote to protect Islam from defamation, and that mindset becomes some kind of given global policy then if anyone speaks out or questions it, then what does it matter ghost? We can all sit back and talk about freedoms, but its like any of the other laws, if it's not exercised and enforced then it don't mean much does it?
Seriously Ghost, Islam's sharia law is "your" version of liberal's worst nightmare!
Posted by: Liquid | Tuesday, April 03, 2007 at 11:04 PM
You're right Liquid..... more like evil wannabes..... Christian rightests would drag America down the same sewer pipe as Islamic rightests if they had the chance. America has the Liberal architecture and tradition of the Constitution and Bill of Rights grounding secular government.
As you can see, Pakistan does not, and theocrats have their way.
Anyway, here is an interesting article I found:
Liberal Values in Tunisian Islamic SchoolbooksBy: M. Feki and N. Maruani
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Tuesday, April 03, 2007 at 08:57 PM
--ghost, "wish those Islamic extremists were Liberals. There is a fundamentalist/literalist theological undercurrent there that is just dragging them down into the dark ages.... no room for questioning or criticizing.... much like modern Republicanism....no way to transcend the violent roots of the religion."
-------------
Ummmmm,I just don't know how you can compare republicans to Islamic extremist ghost, because dang, they are not beheading in the name of their God--I think you are distorted on that. After witnessing and reading about all the vile savage cruel things the Islamist have done and continue to theaten to do...I can only compare them to demon possessed. Sometimes it's not hard to identify pure evil. So I wouldn't put "republicans" in that category at all.
Posted by: Liquid | Tuesday, April 03, 2007 at 08:21 PM
I see what you mean Liquid. I wish those Islamic extremists were Liberals. There is a fundamentalist/literalist theological undercurrent there that is just dragging them down into the dark ages.... no room for questioning or criticizing.... much like modern Republicanism....no way to transcend the violent roots of the religion.
 I read in Time Magazine how the Taliban are at it again in Afghanistan and Pakistan (thanks to Dubya's incompetence).... talk about knuckle-draggers.
They put out leaflets in a village warning women to wear full burkhas, and the town to follow sharia.... then the decapitated bodies start to appear with notes citing the crimes.... usually collaboration with the infidels or other infractions.
It can be different.... there are other traditions. In fact the Islam of the Taliban was not homegrown in Afghanistan.Â
Taliban? Pakistan? Interesting.... and what about Pakistan? Here's a thought:
As I said, it could be different:
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Tuesday, April 03, 2007 at 07:41 PM
Don't miss Robert Spencer's article in Frontpage...
The idea of the caliphate itself also needs to be thoroughly understood by those of us who don’t wish to live under one. Why do they want to establish a caliphate at all? It isn’t just so that they can establish the rule of Islamic law: Saudi Arabia itself today is governed by Islamic law, but not by a caliph. The caliph was for Sunni Muslims, who make up 85 to 90 percent of the Islamic world today, the successor of the prophet Muhammad as the spiritual, political and military leader of the Islamic community. The great Islamic empires of the Middle Ages were ruled by caliphs.
But in 1924, the new secular government of Turkey abolished the caliphate. This is identified by jihadists today as the source of all their troubles. Western influence, disunity, laxity in Islamic observance – all this has been traced by jihadists to the loss of the caliphate.
The Goal of the Jihad
Posted by: Liquid | Tuesday, April 03, 2007 at 03:46 PM
--ghost, God gave us all minds with which to think, progress and improve....we should use them.
However, I also doubt that "....roast Assyrian babies if the parents don't pay the kidnap ransom...." is part of anybody's religion or law, unless they are Satanists.
-----------
Ghost, again, if you understood the mind of those that follow Allah, you would understand exactly why there is and has always been chaos in the middle east. Allah is not a rational god that allows muslims to think! Because to think in Islam or to improve in Islam is to question the Koran and that is NOT allowed!
As for what is in the mind to justify the murder or savage act upon an inidel, again Ghost, you gotta understand that many of these muslims that have chosen to take up militant jihad, have been taught that we are all from monkies and apes! To them, we can be slaughtered, bought or sold, slaved, raped, etc.
Holy war mode for Allah -in their most radical way- entitles their minds to have all power to dominate, which trumps any man made law, especially that of an inidels. If you think anyone is going to stop muslims from killing other muslims, you might want to share your strategy with the world, because one sect of Islam or the other is always seeing the other sects as infidel, meaning since their own internal schism, one is always proving who is more "true" muslim than the next in their power struggles. Ghost, that is why many said we should have put saddam back into power, since this muslim on muslim savagery could only be controlled under fear and dictatorship. Part of what the world is seeing in Iraq, is that battle inside Islam and how many are justifing their continued power struggle plus tribal payback, etc. and doing it all in the name of 'fighting the infidel' via the term "occupation" Same mentality as Arafat....in other words, the militant warrior of jihad doesn't really want peace...they don't want democracy, because the chaos and terrorism is big buisness to them. They are commanded via the koran to strike fear into the hearts of the non-believer and kill all the non-believers! The goal is to make the only religion in the world Islam.
Posted by: Liquid | Tuesday, April 03, 2007 at 09:58 AM