Oh, get over it already
Thursday September 14, 2006
Honestly, the thin-skinnedness of many Muslims is getting awfully tiresome. How on earth are we ever supposed to be able to have a dialogue if the non-Muslim side has to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the wounded sensibilities of...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Top Features
- Seven Patron Saints for Healing and Comfort
- A Prayer for Children Going to School
- Accidental Blessings
- Inspiring Barack Obama Inauguration Quotes
- Don t Take Away My Coffee
- Other People s Beds
- We Have It All
- Multifaith Mealtime Prayers
- Man in the Mirror
- John McCain: Constitution Established a 'Christian Nation'
"As I say to intemperate gay-rights advocates all the time, "You hate me! You hate me!" is only a valid argument, or an argument at all, in the minds of 13-year-old schoolgirls."
As someone who plays the "Orthodox Christians are victms" and "religious liberty is in jeopardy" card on a fairly frequent basis, you might want to take your advice to heart.>
I try to back up my claims with facts and arguments, Susan, not non-falsifiable emotional claims. You might note the distinction.>
When the words are hateful, does it matter the intent behind them?>
How can the words be hateful if the intent behind them isn't? Isn't that what we mean when we say that words are hateful?>
I remember the flap several years ago when an employee of a media organization (I think it was the Washington Post) got into trouble because he used the word "niggardly" in a conversation, and some African-Americans got upset because they assumed that this was the same as the N-word, to which it has *no* etymological connection. When it was pointed out to them that he had in fact *not* said the N-word, and that "niggardly" is a perfectly legitimate word that has absolutely no connection to the N-word, that did not matter to them. They asserted that they had a right to be offended because, well, they just were. Not only did it not matter that the employee had not intended to give offense, it did not matter that he had not, in fact, said anything actually offensive. The aggrieved people were taking offense based upon THEIR MISPERCEPTION. In other words, they were WRONG to be offended. (I know, I know; try telling "offended" people nowadays that they're wrong to be offended.) That did not matter to them. And the person's employer took this complaint seriously! In other words, the *facts* of the case did not matter; all that mattered was that the aggrieved party felt "offended", even though the "offense" was created entirely by their own misconstruction.
That's the problem with the whole "victim" mentality in our culture. If people see themselves as "victims", then that is somehow supposed to absolve them of any responsibility. Even if their supposed "victimization" is entirely a product of their own imagination.
***
GOTV:
When the words are hateful
If the words, "I disagree with you" and "I think you are wrong because ..." are going to be considered "hateful", then I think we can flush any kind of intelligent conversation down the toilet.>
Before asking if words are "hateful," you should ask if they're true.>
That was a good essay, Rod, however your meeting may go. Thanks for posting the link. I think I will get a copy of The Looming Tower from Amazon.>
David - it was a member of the DC Government under Anthony Williams. He offered his resignation, it was accepted, but then after the media picked up on it, Mayor Williams brought him back.>
How do we define what words are "hateful?" If John is gay, and I say homosexuality is a sin, does that mean I hate John? What constitutes "hateful speech," exactly?
God bless.>
Bravo for Benedict! What he's actually doing is subtly challenging the legitimate religious authorities in Islam -- such as the theologians at Al-Azhar, the most prestigious Sunni seminary in the Islamic world -- to confront the barbarians in their midst. If Islam is truly the "religion of peace" that it claims to be, then its more responsible leaders should have no difficulty issuing fatwas against bin Laden, Zawahiri, suicide bombers, anti-Semitic imams who preach violence, etc.
Unfortunately, we haven't seen much of such sanctioning, have we, boys and girls?
Benedict's approach is a breathtakingly refreshing change from JPII's policies of indulgence and appeasement.
As far as the whining from Islamic quarters goes, remember that the Nazis existentially felt they were victims, too -- of the Versailles Treaty, of the Jews, of the West, of the Jews, of capitalism, of the Jews...
Sound familiar, anybody?>
If the words, "I disagree with you" and "I think you are wrong because ..." are going to be considered "hateful", then I think we can flush any kind of intelligent conversation down the toilet.
If only those were the words we heard on a daily basis.
"Turn from your wickedness or face hellfire" is a hate filled statement. It can be said with the most loving of intentions, but pre-supposes a superiority that dehumanizes the receiver by sheer dint of definition.>
May your meeting go well. Is the public invited? I can always walk down to Belo to cheer you on (silently in prayer, of course!).>
The fact is both sides are pretty hateful toward one another, and both sides level the same claims against one another of intolerance. Neither side much wants to back down. Both Islam and Christianity have a doctrine of dominance and both have killed whole peoples in their quest for religious hegemony.>
Both Islam and Christianity have a doctrine of dominance and both have killed whole peoples in their quest for religious hegemony.
Please. Christianity killing whole peoples for hegemony? Sure, Christians have went to war, but you are mixing politics and religion to slant your point.
Back on planet earth in our time, for real "doctrines of dominance" (just considering this century):
Russian Revolution (secular)
Russian Empire under Stalin (secular)
Nazi (secular)
Chinese Revolution (secular)
Cambodian Pol Pot (secular)
All these doctrine driven movements targeted and killed Christians by the millions.
Doctrines of dominance? You are very selective; try examining your doctrine of selective history.>
i have to say that this sounds a lot like how Christians react (over react?) to any criticism, or any art, or tv/movie that paints us in a unfavorable light.
the lesson here for me and i think for those of us in the Christian faith is to see how rediculous and sad this kind of touchiness is and learn not to behave in such a way.>
Hernan Cortez: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hern%C3%A1n_Cort%C3%A9s
Holy Roman Emperor Charles V: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_V%2C_Holy_Roman_Emperor
The Crusades: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
Secularism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
You make statements against secularism, but without secularism your point cannot be made because you do not have the luxury of seperating religion from politics. However, in all fairness you cannot seperate religion from politics in old Europe because the church WAS the state. Colonialism for the past 500 years has been justified by spreading "Christendom", conquering Christian missionaries bringing the true faith to the heathen.
If you deny that tons of rape and murder went down in the service of the church, then you'd be one of the few who does. I know very few Christians who would even agree with you on that point. And if you are going to absolve Christianity saying "That wasn't Christianity it was politics.", then why not just say, "That wasn't Islam it was just politics."?>
About the only merit I can see in "don't hate" cant is that there really are some influential nuts in this country who justify torture and pre-emptive nuclear strikes. Too much emphasis on the evils of Islam can dehumanize people and make atrocities easier for us to commit and to rationalize away.
Further, litanies of atrocities tempt us to despair of reconciliation with Islamic peoples and even to despair of their redemption.>
"However, in all fairness you cannot seperate religion from politics in old Europe because the church WAS the state."
Quite the exaggeration here. You could separate secular politics from ecclesiastical politics, and many pre-moderns did. There was constant jostling among bishops and religious orders to get both secular and church government to annoy/persecute their opponents and to reward their friends, and the secular government would often try to do the same in the reverse direction. In some ways, this even foreshadows the US government's theoretical balance of powers.
The kind of integrist one-mindedness you claim to describe was the exception, not the rule.>
I see it as more of a fluid dynamic. Yes sometimes the secular concerns were bigger, but it went back and forth. One of the biggest problems Islam has with the west is the seperation of church and state. I tend to agree because I don't really see how one can seperate a holistic worldview into parts. If your system is a whole system of morality then it impacts every thought and action you ever take. So if one is a Christian are they a Christian from 12:20 to 12:40 but from 12:45-1:00 they are secular? Western society is in some ways kind of schizophrenic in the way it seperates it's economic concerns from it's spiritual concerns. I think that is how a supposedly Christian society was able to propagate some of the harshest oppressions the world has ever known.>
However, in all fairness you cannot seperate religion from politics in old Europe because the church WAS the state.
No, this is not correct. The Church and the state were separate entities pretty much from day one, and have often been at odds with each other throughout the past two millennia.>
Rod, regarding the suggestion that the Pope could and should have used a less stark quote, I disagree. I'm not in communion with the Pope, but he is nonetheless dead-on in raising the issues he raised in such stark terms. He has an obligation to his own to defend them from the Wolf. The Wolf is currently telling them the lie that Islam really is peaceful, that jihad means something other than what it appears to mean. The Roman pontiff seems to be working to correct this misconception.
The thin-skinned types taking offense at his comments would be better off denouncing violence done in the name of Islam. Then, we might actually take them seriously in an argument such as this. As it is, we take them seriously only to the degree they have us at gunpoint.>
I think that the Pope wasn't thinking when he used that quote.
"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
I agree that spreading faith by the sword is not of God. I would guess that Muslims had trouble getting past the words "evil and inhuman" that the Pope used to describe Muhammed(their prophet-you know-the guy appointed by Allah to bring them their faith. The guy who's holiness doesn't permit drawings that depict him favorably/unfavorably). I don't know if the Pope writes his own speeches, but he really should find one who's not suffering from senility.
Qutb might be important in terms of spreading jihad by the sword. CAIR says that jihad is "to strive, struggle and exert effort. It is a central and broad Islamic concept that includes struggle against evil inclinations within oneself, struggle to improve the quality of life in society, struggle in the battlefield for self-defense (e.g., - having a standing army for national defense), or fighting against tyranny or oppression."
Maybe, Rod, you should ask the Muslims at the meeting how they do jihad and share that with your readers. I'm sure there's tons of jihad going on all around us in the Muslim community that's very much like the jihad done by famous Christian leaders(MLK?).>
OK, maybe it's not quite at the level of MLK. But my point is that Rod's article doesn't educate his readers in a balanced sort of way. Are there any Muslim writers at the paper that could share with the same readers what most Muslims do in terms of jihad?>
"Jihad was not about spreading Islam with the sword"
Then what is it about? Spreading Islam with the bomb? Unless Gamdi is talking about the Fremen over throwing the Emperor to take control of Arrakis in order to control the spice, then I have no idea what he is referring to.
I am cheering for you Rod, someone reasonable needs to communicate with Muslim leaders to help them understand that there is indeed dangerous anti-democratic strands of belief in the modern Muslim world. It takes a religious person to fully understand the power that religious forces can have over the perception of truth, and I think you are one who can. Hiding the problem under the vale of offensive speech only propagates the problem.>
I think that the Muslim leaders understand that there are problems within Islam. When I look at CAIR's website, I see fear. Fear that Americans are going to paint all of Islam with one broad stroke of "evil and bad." Fear that Americans are going to start treating Muslims in the American community badly out of misplaced fear. They've chosen "education" as a means of jihad. Rod dismisses them as being in some form of denial because he's afraid.>
Watsy,
Rod is afraid of the Muslims, is that your point?
Now we know Rod is afraid of stuff: Wal-Mart, shoes that cover your toes, McMansions, deep fried pralines...but Muslims?>
Watsy:
When I look at CAIR's website, I see fear. Fear that Americans are going to paint all of Islam with one broad stroke of "evil and bad." Fear that Americans are going to start treating Muslims in the American community badly out of misplaced fear.
Yes, exactly. What do you think denial is? It's the embodiment of fear. But it's a crippling way, because it's not going to help avoid anything of those things from happening. In fact, CAIR is helping along what it most fears by its denial.>
No, jb. Sometimes I'm not good at expressing myself and getting to the point. I apologize for that.
Rod is afraid. Radical Muslims who subscribe to jihad through violence are very real and need to be taken seriously.
Rod's essay doesn't distinguish between followers of Qutb and most Muslims. I bet that most of Rod's readers know nothing of Islam. American Muslims are correct in being concerned about those kinds of writings because it's fear of Islam that will make Americans lash out at Muslims.
Why did we go into Iraq? We were AFRAID that Saddam would help the terrorists(at least, that's what Cheney says when you listen to all of his words). Why do we justify violating the rights of Muslims and even using torture in Gitmo? We're afraid. We can't tell who's our friend and who isn't, and it's better to be safe than sorry.>
Mike wrote, " have to say that this sounds a lot like how Christians react (over react?) to any criticism, or any art, or tv/movie that paints us in a unfavorable light."
I just don't see this. When Muslim leaders or Hollywood figures speak or write offensively about Christianity, you just don't - - anywhere - - see MOBS of Christians taking to the streets and burning things, etc. I saw a photo of Muslims burning papers in response to the Pope's comment (or, more likely, in response to what some jackass of a mullah told them about the Pope's comments, or coverage on aj-Jazeera, etc.), and I thought - - These grown men look like silly boys. It reminded me of the kind of silly posters I used to see in the high school hallways before a football came - - "Hammer on the Pirates" or whatever, with sill caricatures.
Problem is that these Muslim street-boys (of whatever age) don't go in just for verbal violence.
What a pack of losers!>
Eilleen,
I'm not sure what you mean by helping along with what it fears most by it's denial.
CAIR is protecting Muslim Americans from fearful non-Muslims who will break the rules and justify things that are wrong in the name of protecting oneself.
I don't know how care is helping to deal with the real problems within Islam. My guess is that they work with our authorities to report things that might be being said in certain mosques that support violent jihad. It's a question that Rod could ask at the meeting.>
Lutheran reader nails it.
When Christians encounter direct blasphemy (Da Vinci Code, Last Temptation of Christ, etc.), they protest peacefully. When Muslims encounter the slightest intellectual criticism they riot and burn people in effigy. To equate the two is facile and insults the intelligence.>
CAIR is protecting Muslim Americans from fearful non-Muslims who will break the rules and justify things that are wrong in the name of protecting oneself.
What a load of hooey. Where is the evidence that Muslims in America need "protecting" from "fearful non-Muslims"? Where is violence against Muslims taking place?
The fantasy of dangerous rednecks constantly on the verge of doing something awful to law-abiding Muslims hasn't the sligthest basis in reality. It is indulged only by those who refuse to open their minds and question the multiculturalist dogma that all civilizations, cultures and religions are equal.
.>
Rod,
Please, please, PLEASE stand your ground in this formal meeting with CAIR -- even if (as I pray will not be the case) your superiors undercut you.
The whole world -- and I use that phrase quite literally -- is sick to death of the hypersensitivity of Muslims who demand to be judged and analyzed by a different standard from anyone else.
Whatever the editors of the Dallas Morning News may say in response to CAIR, the public is with you overwhelmingly and all the way. Give these CAIR creeps no apologies, no concessions, and no weasel words.
.>
Rod - -
Oriana Fallaci is dead, but before you meet these CAIR joes, take a look at what she wrote about Islamofascism. Not that you need it, but that'll put blood in your veins.>
So what should we look forward to, now? To "prove" that Benedict's comments about Islam were false, Muslims will probably issue death threats and start burning...something...anything.
The Holy Father was right and the quotation he used was spot-on.
But thanks to Susan for pointing out that Islamic murderers aren't the real problem; the real problem is that Rod is allegedly playing the victim card.
And for all you junior Historians out there: the atrocities perpetuated by Christian armies (e.g. Constantinople) are recognized for what they are. The bloody swath that Islam cut through Europe is rarely mentioned, and then only as "tit for tat."
Personally, I'm glad the Crusaders prevailed at the Gates of Vienna and at Lepanto. If you don't think so, feel free to turn toward Mecca and pray. And of course, all the women in this combox should be quiet forever, lest you offend the superior males.>
If this makes Muslims made wait until they hear about Popes Urban II and Innocent III.>
David - it was a member of the DC Government under Anthony Williams. He offered his resignation, it was accepted, but then after the media picked up on it, Mayor Williams brought him back.
Mike | 09.14.06 - 7:58 pm | #
Mike, thank you for correcting me on the details. As you can tell, I remembered the general circumstances of the flap, but not the particulars. I should perhaps have done some double-checking just to be accurate.>
Jesus said to "love your enemies." Jesus said to "put that sword away. Don't you know that those who live by the sword will die by the sword."
Was he just joking?
I don't remember seeing any rioting in America by Muslims. Rod was writing to American readers. He wasn't painting Islam in America accurately. American Muslims have the right to be upset.>
I am in complete agreement with Benedict's speech ruing the increasing disconnect between reason and faith and also agree with the voice of the Byzantine emperor re Mohammed insofar as his only original insights were evil and his virtues were an unoriginal mish-mash of insights he picked up from Jews, Christians, Persians, etc. without a single breakthrough in moral consciousness.
ON THE OTHER HAND, it has to be asked whether blunt truthtelling, in this context, hurts or helps the dialogue of cultures that Benedict seems to sincerely desire. While it is true that dialogue based on falsehoods and white lies are inevitably bogus and doomed to failure, truthtelling will not foster dialogue if the truth is given in a format where it humanly cannot be or is not received. The short term augeries are not good - it has emboldened Muslim and leftist ideologues to focus on the supposed insult to Islam to the exclusion of the larger points that Benedict made in his address that had little to do with Islam itself.>
I don't remember seeing any rioting in America by Muslims. Rod was writing to American readers. He wasn't painting Islam in America accurately. American Muslims have the right to be upset.
watsy | 09.15.06 - 11:24 am | #
American Muslims haven't in any large measure denounced 9/11 or Hezbollah or Hamas. Silence = complicity and/or support and/or agreement and/or fear due to the fact that to speak against Islam is indeed to prove that Islam is death-dealing to its critics.
Compare this to how Christians publically go ballistic on each other when one side says or does something the other doesn't like - everything from the Episcopal gay and bishop crisis to the Southern Baptist anti-tongues-speaking resolution to any number of issues on which Christians agree or disagree. The debate is vocal and public and published in the press.
But when it comes to American Muslim denunciation of Islamofacists or Islamic terrorists, the silence is ... well, silence.>
Good luck on your meeting, Rod. Your piece made no overt criticism of Islam as such, merely a review and critique of Qtub. One would hope that we all can see the difference. You should ask the Muslim representatives in your meeting how they feel about Qtub characterizing them as jihali. I have to hope that there are plenty of well-intentioned Muslims out there who are as concerned about Qtubism as we are.>
Hey Christians:
if only those were the words we heard on a daily basis.
"Turn from your wickedness or face hellfire" is a hate filled statement. It can be said with the most loving of intentions, but pre-supposes a superiority that dehumanizes the receiver by sheer dint of definition.
Hatred is not defined by making someone feel bad. This troll's statement is a perfect exemplar of the problem - it reveals exactly the pathology that prevents the secularists from enagaging in rational dialogue. Everything to them revolves around the matter of their subjective emotional states (specifically their fragile self-worth) and their (non-existent) "right" to never have them perturbed. In this they are like the Muslim tantrum-throwers Rod mentioned (though they do behead people and support said actions far less often).
Jocasta: ON THE OTHER HAND, it has to be asked whether blunt truthtelling, in this context, hurts or helps the dialogue of cultures that Benedict seems to sincerely desire.
Dialogue presupposes that both sides are sincerely attempting to reach the truth. That is impossible in this case. The Muslim tantrum-throwers are reacting to a perturbation of their ego that has no connection to any legitimate claim to respect and dignified treatment; they are not connecting with the reality of the situation but are manufacturing a fantasy world for themselves in which the widely-influential writings of Qutb are somehow as marginal as the ultra-Calvinistic theonomy of R. J. Rushdoony (the intellectual force behind Reconstructionism; note that even he did not advocate forcible seizure of power in non-Christian societies, as Qutb does for Islam's part).
btw - you know "Meretrix" means "whore", right? Not a criticism.
watsy: Jesus said to "love your enemies." He also called people vermin and beat them up on one occasion. Pandering to someone's feelings is not a matter of love when it is not to their good. This is THE problem with your kind - emotional immaturity. Jesus said to "put that sword away. Don't you know that those who live by the sword will die by the sword." No one (Christian) is killing anyone else here, so your point is irrelevant and manipulative. I wonder if you would allow such facile argument from Scripture in a discussion about the morality of gay sex? Or would the cry then be "proof-texting!" and "only the 'experts' can determine the Bible's meaning!"?
I don't remember seeing any rioting in America by Muslims. There aren't as many here as in France. Yet. Also, you might want to Google the meaning of the word "taqqiya". Rod was writing to American readers. He wasn't painting Islam in America accurately. Would that be the American Islam funded largely by petrodollars from the House of Saud, which espouses Wahabism and pays for it to be preached by mullahs of the same conviction here and around the world? Also, do you have any idea how influential Qutb has been? Probably not. American Muslims have the right to be upset. Not over the truth they don't - unless you mean "upset with themselves".
Erek: You make statements against secularism, It is rather difficult to criticise something you oppose without mentioning it, yes. but without secularism your point cannot be made because you do not have the luxury of seperating religion from politics. In English next time, please. However, in all fairness you cannot seperate religion from politics in old Europe because the church WAS the state. Read up about the Investiture War or the Guelphs and the Ghibellines. As to your "sources":
- Charles V 's army sacked Rome and beat the Pope up. And he refused to have Martin Luther killed after the Diet of Worms. Some mixture of religion and politics.
- Cortez was out for $$$$.
- The Crusades were defensive, and they were called for after the Byzantine emperor asked for help. How this equals spreading Christianity by force escapes me. Where, Erek, are the massive Christian communities that were forcibly converted by the Crusaders? They don't exist, and there is a reason for that.
- Your citation of secularism is bizarre.
Colonialism for the past 500 years has been justified by spreading "Christendom", conquering Christian missionaries bringing the true faith to the heathen. And here I thought that the British East India Company was a ... company. Nice to know they were a missionary society.
If you deny that tons of rape and murder went down in the service of the church, then you'd be one of the few who does. I know very few Christians who would even agree with you on that point. You are exposing your provincialism. You should spend time with Christians who aren't self-hating toadies for the leftist pseudo-elite. And if you are going to absolve Christianity saying "That wasn't Christianity it was politics.", then why not just say, "That wasn't Islam it was just politics."? Erek, we are saying it Because ISLAMIC THEOLOGY IS DIFFERENT FROM CHRISITIAN THEOLOGY ON THESE MATTERS. You and people like you persist in trying to rule out entire classes of statements about anyone (e.g. accusations that their religion is inherently violent) based on a grammatical similarity to other statements that have been proven false. What you don't get is that the false statements are false because their meaning does not accord with the facts, NOT because of the sort of meaning they have. Everyone and everything is not the same.>
radtrad,
Jesus told Peter to put away the sword when the Romans came for him and Peter chopped off the guy's ear. Was Jesus being "emotionally immature?" He gave us something to think about in terms of defending ourselves. I think that it's spiritually immature to pick fights. That's why I'm being so stinkin nice today. You know what? It feels good-my spirit likes it.
Don't call people who disagree with you "trolls." It's going to be hard for tv to come back now and be nice to you.
You can't be spiritually alive and be full of hate. It's impossible.
You have a nice day!!>
Eric,
http://www.cair.com/html/911statements.html
It's hard to get the microphone for any extended period of time with today's media unless you're being outrageous. That's why Limbaugh and Coulter and Robertson get so much press. When they do try to speak out, people accuse them of being in denial or playing into the hands of terrorists. What do you want them to do?>
It's hard to get the microphone for any extended period of time with today's media unless you're being outrageous.
Watsy, these commentators sound outrageous and out of the mainstream because the voice of the media itself is like your own voice--thoroughly secular and unfailingly liberal. For the first time in years, I picked up a copy of Time magazine today, and right inside the front cover I found a chatty little interview with Al Franken. The rest of the magazine consisted of articles he could have written.>
radtrad
Secularism is such a convenient foil for Christians in the modern era. It absolves the religion for the responsibility of any of the actions it's adherents take. I think this leads to the myth of purity that Christians like to uphold. Any evil done by members of Christendom was done in the name of economics. I see hate being spouted regularly from all sides, but Christians have this image of themselves as the pure warriors of the light, so it justifies any action against their enemy.
So let me ask you this: When you are praying you are a Christian but when you are putting someone to the sword you are secular?>
And here I thought that the British East India Company was a ... company. Nice to know they were a missionary society.
*laughs* Yes, the English record on evangelization was pretty dismal for a while, precisely because while some lipservice was paid to the need for evangelization, there were hardly any English missionaries, just commercial ventures like the British East India Company, the Hudson Bay Company, or the various original ventures on the American coast, like the Jamestown colony. Even religious-based colonies like the Puritans did a really poor job when it came to senidng out missionaries. They were very inward-looking. English missionary work really got its kickstart from the Methodists, who had that zeal for evangelization that you didn't find in the CofE. Once the Methodists were sending missionaries out across Canada, for instance, to convert the natives, the CofE finally got a move on and sent some missionaries.
My own native ancestors married fur traders, and they and their families were ministered to by both Methodist and Anglican missionaries, so I respect the hard work done by English missionaries, but on a whole, the English were never as much into missions as Catholic France or Spain.>
Now, Watsy, where might you be posting from? What schoolyard?
Just joking. My dear, you have the patience of a saint.>
Ron,
Are you saying that Coulter and Limbaugh and Robertson make a lot of sense to you? You don't think that they're outrageous?>
watsy:
It's hard to get the microphone for any extended period of time with today's media unless you're being outrageous. That's why Limbaugh and Coulter and Robertson get so much press.
Are you saying that the Islamic community should model itself on Limbaug, Coulter, and Robertson? As a conservative who hates all three speaking for conservatives, all I can say is "Good grief!">
"btw - you know "Meretrix" means "whore", right? Not a criticism."
I am tearing my eyes out in shock.>
Eileen,
I'm not saying that at all. I was responding to Eric who said that Muslims haven't denounced 9/11. The link that I gave showed just how much Mulsim Americans did speak out against the terrorists and 9/11. I was saying that it's really hard for people to be heard if they aren't outrageous because it's outrage that seems to be popular. I don't recommend that anyone imitate the talk jock clowns. I think that we just have to recognize that not hearing something doesn't mean that it's not being done.>
Watsy, Jesus told Peter to "put away his sword" and told him that "all who live by the sword, die by the sword" because He appointed Peter to be the chief apostle, He knew Peter to be impetuous and hotheaded -- and He knew that He wouldn't be around to protect Peter from himself.
Jesus was no pacifist. If He were, He wouldn't have formed a weapon and assaulted people with it, like He did when confronting the moneychangers in the Temple. A pacifist solution might have been for Jesus to get His own set of doves and give them away to worshippers, or to join the moneychangers, use scrupulously honest weights and donate all profits to the poor. Instead, He adopted a violent solution to make a point: Jesus not only is a savior filled with grace but a judge who will judge those who exploit God for self-aggrandizing purposes.
As far as all this moral equivalence between Christian violence and Muslim violence is concerned, let's remember one thing: Christians aren't threatening today's world with violence or totalitarian oppression. Muslims are. Let's live in the 21st century, people, not the 14th.>
Joseph,
What you say may/may not be true. I think that it's impossible to read between the lines of what Jesus said and did in the temple and be certain that he'd use physical violence when we think violence is justified. Who doesn't always think that they're on the right side with God, therefore, those who think differently are not on the side of God.
I recognize that today's Islam has elements that are hostile to the west. I recognize that they aren't going away anytime soon. I just object to the lumping of all Muslims within that because it flies in the face of what I see in the world.
We need to find a way to get along with moderate Muslims. Treating all of them like terrorists and pointing to Muhammed as the source of all that is bad isn't the way to go about this.>
Question-
How do we find, connect with, and work together with "moderate Muslims?"
I mean this sincerely. It is a challenge, when the "face" of Islam is often those protesting, burning effigies, or bombing Jewish or Western targets.
How do we delineate between friend and foe, as individuals and countries?>
Folks like that radtrad make me sometimes wish "the terrorists" were really the threat these reactionary fear-mongers claim they are.
I sure wouldn't lose any sleep over *that* beheading...>
Ah, a telling observation from dear GIITV, saying that he/she would look forward to the execution of someone with whom he/she disagrees on a freaking combox.
Just like those bien-pensant liberals I wrote about in "Crunchy Cons" who were sipping wine one afternoon in my presence, talking about how happy it would make them if an Islamic suicide bomber drove a truck bomb into a well-known Baptist church in town.>
Joseph D'Hippolito
Christians are not threatening Muslims as much as Muslims are threatening others, but America is killing far more Muslims than Muslims are killing Americans, and the President paints this as a "Christian" struggle. The problem is when the secular power authority uses Christian rhetoric. The Christians not only do not denounce the rhetoric, but they will argue with those who conflate that secular power authority with a Christian one.
Can you see how this might be confusing?>
Meh - I'm also not going to lose sleep that crunchyboy thinks he's scored points.
Dreher, please, if you deign to come down from the mountaintop to grace us with your presence again, explain to me how you wishing death on your ideological enemies is somehow morally superior to me wishing the same on mine?>
But, of course, when the Coulters, the O'Reilly's and the Hannity's wish the NYT building be bombed or the Golden Gate Bridge, well, just pay them no mind.>
nicely played, tovart ;)>
Erek,
How exactly is the President painting this as a "Christian" struggle? I thought he regularly referred to the terrorists as "hijacking" a "religion of peace (i.e., Islam)."
Iran's Ahminejab (sp?) does credit "Allah" with the progress of Iran's "peaceful nuclear program," but I don't recall Bush (or other recent presidents) noting that "By the grace of God we were successful in this battle."
(I think Washington may have made some comments along those lines, but that's irrelevant to the present discussion).>
I'm not sure of the specifics, cs. But Rod is going to have the oppurtinity to talk with some of them. Maybe he could ask them what he/we could do.
People who are good at diplomacy at the national level might have some good ideas. Make moderates your friends by being kind to Muslims and isolate the extremists. When you treat everyone like an extremists, you make more people hate you.>
Jocasta, I like your style. Please, stick around, make yourself comfortable. 8)>
Bush uses Christian rhetoric in his speeches, getting Christians to like him. Megachurches are used as platforms to sell the war. Someone told me of seeing a video at a megachurch of F-16s flying over a hill with crosses on it. He calls himself a "Christian President", and says it over and over again, but his policies do not seem to reflect anything of the sort.>
Judy Woodruff has been doing a series of interviews of "young people" around the US, and yesterday and today NPR aired her interview of two Muslim women, sisters aged 20 and 18. They are first generation Algerian-Americans. They remember five years ago a SWAT team showing up to protect their mosque from anti-Muslim rioters. The women live with being Muslims in America everyday, and were admirably articulate and rational in their descriptions of both their beliefs and their experiences.
Any reasonable person will look to them as the face of Islam in the US, the mundane, mainstream people who try to live and work in a theoretically pluralistic society, but where the realities are often rather different from the theory.
Someone above asked: how do we talk to them? How do we open and maintain a dialogue with them? The answer is very simple: invite them to a neutral place, with due diligence to their customs, and keep asking until they accept your invitation. Then, sit down with them and ask them that very question: what do you need to hear from me to open and keep open the dialogue we must have to peacefully co-exist in a troubled world?
That's what I'd do.>
Franklin says: what do you need to hear from me to open and keep open the dialogue we must have to peacefully co-exist in a troubled world?
Perhaps you did not mean it this way, but the way in which you have worded the question leads me to believe that the one asking the question is implicitly in the wrong, and must adjust their thinking to be in the right.
Franklin further says: invite them to a neutral place, with due diligence to their customs
And why, especially if they are relatively new immigrants to a Western country, should they not be mindful of the customs of their new home?>
But, of course, when the Coulters, the O'Reilly's and the Hannity's wish the NYT building be bombed or the Golden Gate Bridge, well, just pay them no mind
Because no one but a fringe takes them seriously when they say these things, nor do very many people try to argue that they represent mainstream Christianity, or threaten to kill those who criticize them or disagree with them. Mainstream Christian leaders are quick to disavow such sentiments and claim that the Coulters, et al., don't speak for mainstream Christianity.
But when some imam shoots off his mouth, where are the Islamic voices saying that he doesn't speak for mainstream Islam?
(Silence. Crickets.)>
TV troll, you must enlighten us about Rod's homicidal tendencies. Amazingly, he's imagined to keep them wrapped up under cover until now, but your special knowledge promises to be most enlightening.>
Eileen persnickety fussbudget, Where've you been for the last 2 months? Rod's been practically... ahem... throwing a rod over the bodies of innocent dead Lebonese.>
Yeah, I know...
Persnickety Fussbudget isn't exactly *scathing*, but I figured "bitch" would be ... shall we say... intemperate?>
I agree that they don't speak for mainstream Christianity, David. Mainstream Christianity is a mix of democrats and republicans. I don't know if they speak for the religious right, but they're definitely all on the same team. I get AFA action alerts. I just like to keep tabs on the latest uproar. Now we're supposed to write to ABC to get an apology from Rosie and ABC. I didn't get an AFA action alert when Robertson called for the assassination of a world leader. I didn't get an AFA action alert when Anne Coulter said disgusting things about the 9/11 widows. Dobson, Perkins, Robertson, Falwell, Anne Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh are all on the GOP team with George Bush leading the charge. GO TEAM!! Go get those homos, nasty atheistic liberals, and Arabs.>
Todd,
I don't mean to go all expert-like with you, but allow me to introduce you to a some of the basics of conflict resolution:
1) Invite the parties to offer each other a respectful ear.
2) Explicitly leave your ego off the table; it invites the other to do the same.
3) Conflicts never get settled when pride is a pre-requisite.
It is much easier to deal with a person who thinks I'm surrendering up front, than it is to coax a person to sit down just after I've gotten in their faces.
The first step towards resolution is mutual understanding. It has to start somewhere.
As for accomodations of customs, and to take the opportunity to offer a small demonstration, I have a choice of responses to make to you: you are a typical ethno-centric American, unable and unwilling to offer basic hospitality; or, you are obviously just a bit ignorant of the niceties of diplomacy, where superficial gestures can go a long way towards breaking the ice.
Besides, would you put a plateful of steak and potatoes in front of a vegetarian? That's what I mean by accomodation.
After my brief introduction to conflict resolution, which answer do you think I should use to foster further discussion?
BTW, I myself am first generation. Common ground can be hard to come by; courtesy is a gentle invitation to returning the courtesy.>
Franklin,
I want to be just like you when I grow up.>
Franklin: Kudos on your combox comments, which are models of thoughtful and respectful dialogue. And I say this as a Christ-lover whose worldview is largely at odds with yours, and who frequently disagrees with your reasoning and its conclusions. Allow me to wish you well in this life by quoting another noble, hungry-hearted pagan of whom I'm a fan, Mr. Neil Young: "Long may you run." You don't mind if I remember you in my prayers, do you?>
IH,
You honor me, and in no way would I mind, that you offer me your prayers.
The etiquette amongst pagans is to ask before offering our version of prayer. It is rarely declined, but for a belief system that holds a strong belief in personal energy (magic) and personal accountability, it is a strong acknowledgement of courtesy. So, I hope you don't take my simple phrase as an understatement: I deeply appreciate your courtesy, in this and in all our encounters.
Be well. I'll be back no earlier than tomorrow evening.
Watsy, neighbor, send me an email: madfedor@yahoo.com. There will be an opportunity in the not too distant future for you participate directly in a conflict resolution exercise. I think you would enjoy it. That goes for anyone in the Philly metro area.>
Thanks for being the one person who is being courageous enough to point out the truth of the problem. If you say that the muslim extremeist are violent, they say "we're gonna kill you for saying that". If you make a movie blaspheming the divinity of Christ they say "we won't go to your movie". See the difference? anyone? anyone?
let me go further;
You make a CARTOON about muslims and they say "we're gonna kill you for doing that". You make an animated show that regularly depicts Christ in stupid ways (southpark), they say "we won't watch your show".
My only disappointment in the pope was that he appologized when there was no need.>
I think the minorities should be protected from the majority. Christians are the majority in US over other religions, but Jews, Muslims, Hindus are not. Anti-defamation League is trying to protect Jews, CAIR is trying to protect Muslim, etc.. from biased approaches.>
"As I say to intemperate gay-rights advocates all the time, "You hate me! You hate me!" is only a valid argument, or an argument at all, in the minds of 13-year-old schoolgirls."
And 15 year old school BOYS too, apparently...
"15 Year Old Guilty In Pride Day Attacks"
"A 15-year old boy faces up to 13 years in custody after pleading guilty to his part in the stabbing and beating of six men leaving San Diego's gay pride on July 29."
More at link...
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/09/091906sdTeen.htm
You've got to be carefully taught, as the song goes.>
Joey,
"How do we define what words are "hateful?" If John is gay, and I say homosexuality is a sin, does that mean I hate John? What constitutes "hateful speech," exactly?"
Good question and thanks for asking.
If yuo think the state of another being is "sinful", keep it to your self.
For example, I think the anti-gay crowd's constant bearing of false witness against God's gay and lesbian children is "sinful". Do I go around and suggest THEY not be allowed to get married? Do I go around and compare their marriages to beastiality? Necrophilia? Adultery? Rape? Child molestation? Polygamy? Pronography? Cannabalism? Incest? Do I go around saying they shouldn't be allowed to adopt? To be hired? To not be fired? To be denied the right to visit their other half in the hospital? To attend their spouse's funeral?
The answer to your question is, If it is demeaning, diminishing, debasing of another human, meant to cause that human to be seen as LESSer, then imnsho, it is hateful. If it is untrue (which all of my examples above, which are used frequently by the anti-gay side), it is hateful.
And, if it calls for harm to that human (not that all of the above doesn't cause spiritual harm), it is not only hateful, it should be illegal.>
C & C,
Freedom of speech is in the Constitution.
Gay rights aren't mentioned.
Nuff said.>
The only way to have any kind of free speech, or even open and honest dialog, is to set this ground rule: if what I truly believe, and forthrightly say, is offensive to you, your right is to forthrightly say what YOU believe, even if it offends me. None of us have a right not to be offended by each other's speech. I AM getting tired of those among the Muslim believers of the world who scream at every criticism of their faith -- just as I am tired of Christians who go to court to suppress production of any play or movie that offends them. As a Christian, I have many biting criticisms of the history of my own faith. We have tried to root out certain "fighting words" that are simply offensive and demeaning without any content: ethnic slurs, etc. Along the same line, I do object to Franklin Graham calling Islam an evil and wicked religion.>
Siarlys,
If you are a Christian than you must believe that "no one comes to the father but through Christ". There is only ONE way to heaven and only ONE savior. Right? So it means that all other beliefs are false, lies, deceptions, not a way to heaven but in the end leading to where????? wouldn't that be considered evil? What is the meaning of evil? Absence of God, so it becomes a pretty black and white issue, cold or hot there is no luke warm. Who would want to upset God's plan that none should parish but have everlasting life? Who hates mankind so much that he would lead them away from God? Unless your Christianity allows for multiple god's and many ways to get to heaven you have to face the reality that all other "religions" are satan's way of stealing people whom God loves away from Him.>
I would refer you to C.S. Lewis's The Last Battle, which I doubt Hollywood will get to in its Narnia movies. A Calormene prince who has deeply and sincerely worshipped a very evil idol (and Islam prohibit idols), is told by Aslan that Tash is so evil that any evil done in my name is really done for him, whereas anything good done in his name is really done for me. Jesus said much the same: "inasmuch as you did it to the least of these my brethren, you did it unto me." The Gospel teaches that many Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, maybe even a few atheists, will indeed be welcomed into heaven because of what they did for "the least of these my brethren," which was done "unto me," i.e. they come "through me." No, these religions are not Satan's way of stealing peopole whom God loves away from him. Don't you remember what Khomeini's name for America is? He may be wrong about that, but he clearly considers "Satan" to be evil.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.