I'd like to buy Derb a drink

I hope he, Derb, chokes on it, the drink you're wanting to buy him.

A woman goes into a hostile situation for the purpose of teaching and we're surprised she'd have a twenty five year old son who would say this, "I don't want the verdict to lead to any anti feeling towards Muslims. ... One of my fears, and I imagine my mother's also, will be that this results in any sort of resentment towards Muslim people."

That's not sniveling or evidence of cowardice. If anything it's evidence of the lack thereof.

He's his mother's son, the perfect example of "what would Jesus do? That's coming from me, an anti-theist no less.

"[T]he perfect example of 'what would Jesus do?'" Really? Are we talking about the same Jesus who had absolutely no qualms about harshly criticizing people who laid claims to religious purity and imposed stiff penalties on those who didn't match up?

Sorry, Harvey, I think you're just wrong here.

Richard

You got your Jesus Richard, I got mine. I borrowed that one from a good man and friend, BillH. His Jesus would have said, "forgive them Father for they know not what they do." Talking about Derb and Rod of course.

So is John Gibbons going to disown his mum and make a personal apology by prostrating himself to all the gathered imams amd mullahs demanding Mum's head on a platter?

Ole Jon can even make a plug for renewed cooperation (appeasement) by Western powers with Muslim countries by participating in stoning Momma...

If I were his Mum, I'd disown sonny boy once I got my freedom.

God help me when I say that too many of the British have lost the fire in their blood and the backbone in their spine...

When you are agreeing with Derbyshire, it's time to walk away from the computer for awhile.

Derb's reaction is not surprising for him; his writing has always given the sense that he would view the cross as a scandal. The only quote I can find from Gibbons on the BBC website is ""I don't want the verdict to lead to any anti feeling towards Muslims", which to me seems rather unassailable as an expression of hope that the misdeeds of a few (or even many) adherents of a religion be the impetus for indiscriminate hatred towards all. Nowhere can I find him expressing sympathy or even forgiveness for the actual perpetrators of the acts Erin describes. I would hate to imagine what a 1st century Palestinian Derb might have said. Whatever bad things Harvey may be accustomed to saying about religion, this time he's right.

All due respect, sj, but I didn't say he did express sympathy or forgiveness toward his mother's actual persecutors, only that some expression of that might have been the sort of Christian expression Harvey was describing, as opposed to the vague words Mr. G. did say.

And alkali, I would think that a person still very concerned for his mother's well-being would keep his mouth shut and refuse to comment at all, given the riots and all. He probably hasn't helped his mother any by commenting regardless of what he said.

In your earlier post, Erin, you seem to say that expressing the hope that the things that have been done to one's mother by some adherents of a religion will not lead to hard feelings against all members of that religion "can only be the reflexive appeasement of someone who has been trained to believe that he is always more in the wrong than anyone who offends against him, and that no crime is worse than thinking ill of any group of people (except Christians, of course) no matter what they have done."

To me, hoping that the innocent should not be punished for the actions of the guilty can actually be something other than "reflexive appeasement", perhaps just common decency. Certainly I would see it as an attribute of a Christian.

I really do have to laugh at someone who earlier today posted "Religion is bad" at least twice on this blog, suddenly having an, er, come to Jesus moment when it suits his purposes. Posted by: Rod Dreher

Ah yes, you can see the silliness of religion when you look at someone else's can't you?

Sig, I guess there are self righteous in the Christian community just like there are self righteous in any faith. Heck, I think I can even recall, faintly of course, of meeting a self righteous athiest once.

Harvey: You've got their demonizing them because they're not us down girl, you got it down!

And also Harvey:

Ah yes, you can see the silliness of religion when you look at someone else's can't you?

It's not the silliness of religion that I'm looking at, pal o' mine.

Yes, Harvey, I'm afraid self-righteousness is a universal human tool that we use to make ourselves feel better. (And I do include myself when I say "we.") Last night I was just flummoxed by the encounter with so much spite being dumped on a man who has not done any of us any harm, and who might reasonably have felt that he had a claim on our sympathy. I didn't mean to imply that Christians are uniquely self-righteous. I guess because they are my people and I grew up among them, I foolishly expect them to mean what they say they believe, more than I would expect it of others. This, alas, is folly, I fear.

Most hostile reactions against others are a result of fear. That being so, it's interesting to see that there is so much free-floating fear around here, so much that it can easily be tapped for these kinds of outbursts. I wonder if it's really fear of Muslims, as such, or if it's some other kind of fear that is being directed against Muslims because that serves the ends of certain right-wing political groups.

I was hunting for a quote from C.S. Lewis, where he chides people who secretly want to believe accounts of atrocities, because it will justify their hatred. I couldn't find it. But I did find this in his letters, which I think applies to the current situation:

Anyway the question, "Who is righteous?" (in a given quarrel) is quite distinct from the question "Who is in the right?"--for the worse of two disputants may always be in the right on one particular issue. It is therefore not self-righteous to claim that we are in the right now. But I am chary of doing what my emotions prompt me to do every hour; i.e. identifying the enemy with the forces of evil. Surely one of the things we learn from history is that God never allows a human conflict to become unambiguously one between simple good and simple evil?

The practical problem about charity (in one's prayer) is very hard work, isn't it? When you pray for Hitler or Stalin, how do you actually teach yourself to make the prayer real? The two things that help me are (a) A continual grasp of the idea that one is only joining one's feeble little voice to the perpetual intercession of Christ who died for these very men. (b) A recollection, as firm as I can make it, of all one's own cruelty; wh. might have blossomed under different conditions into something terrible. You and I are not at bottom so different from these ghastly creatures.

Cleveland writes: "It's not nice to talk that way about the Democratic Party leaders.

Calumny alert!

"Erin, what makes you think the vast majority of Muslims support what's being done in Sudan? Seriously."

Jim, I think that there are varying levels of "support"--the support of those actually rioting for the teacher's head on a silver platter, the support of those whose virulent anti-West hatred comes out at the earliest opportunity, and the 'support' of those who are too afraid for their own families' lives and safety to speak out against this or any other manifestation of violent radical Islam.

When Fred Phelps gets up to his tricks, you can find lots of Christians publicly denouncing him. When a so-called Christian shoots an abortionist, Christians shove each other out of the way getting to the microphone where they can loudly (and rightly) denounce this violence and disassociate themselves and their caring pro-life ministries from it. When Muslims murder, riot, destroy property, and demand executions of those who in their mind have slighted their religion, the silence from the Muslim community is deafening.

Now, if lots and lots of good-hearted anti-radical Muslims are regularly trying to get the message across that this sort of thing is unacceptable, and the media simply isn't reporting this, then it's not the fault of those who are protesting the violence and barbarism of their co-religionists. But I see no evidence to suggest that.

I understand the trouble with the "qui tacet consentit" way of looking at things, but in the absence of a significant number of members of the Muslim community openly rebuking those who take part in these violent actions, how are we supposed to gauge whether or not they support the actions or disapprove of them?

When Muslims murder, riot, destroy property, and demand executions of those who in their mind have slighted their religion, the silence from the Muslim community is deafening.

I'm with you on this one, Erin. In spite of some isolated instances, pretty much no one says anything. I think we're supposed to imply exactly what you're implying.

Oh Puleeze! The kids were certainly not "underprivileged muslims" but Coptic Christians and their wealthy Arabic cousins from an elite private academy using a version of the UK national curriculum ... and the educator in question unnervingly ignorant in her choice of second career after divorce.

Could the tipoff, not as first assumed from "offended" parents, but from a secretary in the school's administrative offices, perhaps be signs of "covert" state power looking for a "first strike" "pre-emptive war" against its detractors?

Buzz is that the Pope's latest letter to all men and women of good will cites the life of a native enslaved black Sudanese convert to explain the virtue of hope...

From the mindset of the Islamists that's explosive stuff... why not avert the eyes of one's dumb populace with a gentle broadside about "insults" and teddy bears? And keep the Western Press Corps preoccupied with debating international etiquette rather than the tyranny of relativism?

St Josephine Bakhita pray for us!

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11130

The story is a yawn. But the reaction here is laughable.

Libs: well, it's not fair, but we have to respect multiculturalism!
Cons: how terrible liberal reactions are!

My reaction is neither:

1) Muslim culture is stone age, and everyone knows it. There are many cases of Westerners getting whipped before this on stupid, trumped-up charges. There are no fair trials, no rule of law. Go work there without living in a western compound, you take this risk.

2) You are a white female teacher in a culture that hates people iike you. WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? Perhaps this might knock some sense into her head about just who she is hanging out with.

3) Liberals of course are going to "honor" multiculturalism - Bloom explained this concept of relative morality back in '87. Conservatives, just quit trying to convert them. They won't learn that Muslim culture is different until they get lashed themselves. It's called relativism, you can't break into its illogic.

4) Conservatives, try to be realists for a change. Why do you even care about Mulim injustices? We don't have to live there, or even trade with them. They have a right to be as stupid as they want, and lash as many westerners as they want who are stupid enough to go there. Admitting we can't control the world is not the same as saying it's good.

5) Ignore the media! Why should we care about anything that goes on there like this? Once you know the culture, forgo all the details. I save my energy for things that go on in my country, things I have at least a small say in.

But as it is, Mr. Gibbons comes across as being more concerned that his British neighbors might snub a Muslim shopkeeper or two over this incident

To you and Derb, perhaps. And it's true that there's always been no lack of individuals sneering at anyone who at anytime has had enough guts to let the Gospel run his life.

Sheesh! Why are Christians all such milksops? Never used to be.
Derb for Pope! Blessed Saint Shrapnel.

You are a white female teacher in a culture that hates people iike you. WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?"

Hmm . . . I wonder what M_David is really saying here. He has in the past suggested that I "twist" his words, so I guess I'd better show my work here, and explain how my abysmal lack of comprehension comes to be. It sounds to me as if he's expressing exasperation with the teacher, which would only make sense if she were doing something inappropriate or wrong. Therefore, one might infer that he thinks women (white women especially) have only themselves to blame if they venture out of some special area where they could consider themselves safe. (I wonder where that would be, too--surely he doesn't mean Alaska? I never thought of our northernmost state as Women's Country.)

It also sounds as if he thinks that people (especially white women) should not try to help anyone whose culture differs from theirs. Teaching is a bad idea, apparently. Does that also cover medical assistance and missionary work? What about if you're a soldier and you go on a mercy mission to win some hearts and minds? If you get blown up, will M_David tell you that you should have expected that? Or is that only if you're a white woman?

Really, it is kind of confusing. It sounds so very much like the Christian version of "The b---- had it coming." Surely he can't actually mean to imply that. Perhaps I am entirely wrong in my interpretation. But if so, what can he have been trying to say?

Sig I heard somewhere sometime ago, second grade maybe? When threatened animals choose fight or flight. Human beings are animals I guess but with the ability to reason.

Reason is interesting. It's reason that makes us stop and wonder why.

The why is even more interesting if you ask me. Now why would a son not wish ill on a faith because some radicals of that faith are wanting to kill his mum? Could it possibly be because she'd discovered that the average Muslim she was interacting with was kind and generous? Could it possibly be because the average Muslim she was engaging treated her with respect and appreciated her personal sacrifices to be a teacher for their children? Could it be because she'd passed on this information and how she felt about her new Muslim friends to him?

Could the why of his statement be about understanding that the Muslims she'd learned to love would be victims of Christian hate just like his Mum was the victim of Muslim hate? A darn near Christ like position, if you believe Christ was truly a forgiver of sin, right?

2) You are a white female teacher in a culture that hates people iike you. WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? Perhaps this might knock some sense into her head about just who she is hanging out with. MDavid

Ghandi, King, Jesus Christ, etc and so on.

Sometimes people expect to make a difference by interacting one on one. Most Peace Corps volunteers will attest to the power of that.

Oh, I blame Islam too. So Harvey, this is a case in which you were more perspicacious than either of us knew!

Plenty of blame to go around.

Hey, a gal at a Hells Angels party has the right to not be assulted even if she goes gets drunk and goes topless.

I have the right to ask, "What the heck did she expect?"

Hey Sig, gotta question for you. Do you think for a minute the Muslims who are demanding her head are a lot like some of the Christians here in the States to afraid of evolution being taught in public schools?

Isn't it one and the same, the fear I mean? The Muslims are striking out at anything that presents another perspective besides their theology. The Christians here are doing the same thing, right? What blows my mind is if you have the ultimate truth then why are you so afraid of ideas?

Yeah, I know. The Muslims are wanting to kill and Christians want just to hug those who don't believe in Jesus just like they do. Tell that to the witches of Salem or Romney about Joseph Smith's demise.

Harvey, I think you and I pretty much agree about most of these questions. I'm not sure from your last post if you think I disagree with you or not. I don't see any reason at all for people who think they have the ultimate truth to fear ideas. I guess if they're afraid of ideas, that would indicate that they aren't really so secure about knowing it all.

I've also never understood why, if people think they have a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and eternal, they would feel a need to defend this almighty being from having his feelings hurt. God seems to have his feelings hurt by some funny things. Having a teddy bear named after him. Having a character named after him, in a book. The sight of naked women, even though God sees us all naked all the time. It's especially weird when defending God from things that can't possibly hurt him, because he's impervious and eternal, involves hurting and killing poor puny humans who have only one short life, in which they can suffer a subjective eternity of torment and sorrow, thanks to God's best friends [/sarcasm].

Christians no longer kill people because they live under secular law that no longer allows them to. I do believe that over the years, many Christians have moved on to a better way of seeing that allows them to understand the insanity of killing for the sake of God. However, I think that if we/they still had the power to kill, some among us would find reason to use it. Just as I'd once hoped that western democracies were moving on from the belief that we had the right to use war and torture as tools of policy--but, since we still have the power, we've found reasons to use it.

Conservatives love tradition, right? So here's a traditional fable from Aesop that illustrates my point:

The Wolf and the Lamb

Once upon a time a Wolf was lapping at a spring on a hillside,
when, looking up, what should he see but a Lamb just beginning to
drink a little lower down. "There's my supper," thought he, "if
only I can find some excuse to seize it." Then he called out to
the Lamb, "How dare you muddle the water from which I am
drinking?"

"Nay, master, nay," said Lambikin; "if the water be muddy up
there, I cannot be the cause of it, for it runs down from you to
me."

"Well, then," said the Wolf, "why did you call me bad names
this time last year?"

"That cannot be," said the Lamb; "I am only six months old."

"I don't care," snarled the Wolf; "if it was not you it was
your father;" and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb
and---WARRA WARRA WARRA WARRA WARRA--ate her all up.

But before she died she gasped out
"Any excuse will serve a tyrant."

Hope this answers your questions, Harvey. And I hope you'll stand by my side when the Molotov cocktails start falling around us. : )

"Yeah, I know. The Muslims are wanting to kill and Christians want just to hug those who don't believe in Jesus just like they do. Tell that to the witches of Salem or Romney about Joseph Smith's demise."

Harvey, if someone was criticizing Christians, would you jump in and say the Muslims are just as bad? Or would you only do the comparison when it's the Muslims being criticized?

Christians kill innocent people = Bad Christian.

Muslims kill innocent people = Good Muslim.

I think we're supposed to imply exactly what you're implying.

JD, I think you meant to say "we're supposed to inferwhat you're implying." ;^p

>>>
How should we call an act of cutting her head off?
A rude thing to do?

You are such moral relativist, you cannot tell a murder from a verbal insult.

Posted by: mik_infidel | December 1, 2007 6:58 PM
>>>

Please note that mik_indidel has set up a strawman by assuming how I would characterize 'an act of cutting her head off', knocked it down, and then made the assertion that I can't tell a murder from a verbal insult.

I stopped my characterization at 'calling for execution', mik extended it to the actual execution and then used his own projection of what my characterization would be to insult me.

Shame on you, mik_infidel - you were not being intellectually honest in your reply.

I perceive this mans comments consistent with the situation. They have his mom. They can do what they want with her. The saudis recently sentenced a 19 yo girlto 200 lashes from being a rape victim, her sentence had been less, but after her appeal became public, the increased the penalty.

I don't think he is a victim of political correctness gone awry. I think he is a prudent man with a bit of diplomatic sense who realizes what the consequence of his speech may be.

Poor guy. Damned if you do... damned if you gon't

Aw! Harvey, you humble me. Praise from a good man is like gold, and I've had more than my share lately. You're right--I was born smart. But compassion is something you have to learn every day. I'm sure some of the recipients of my sly jabs realize that I was not born with it! I can be more smart than kind on occasion.

You are so right that those who have compassion, who have learned it and practiced it, whatever suffering may have been required to get there, are the most fortunate among humans. It's so hard to explain that, but once you experience it, you don't forget. Compassion changes everything.

I heard a story that I won't forget, and will probably tell again, from a dear friend who was an atheist in high school. He was a big guy, but awkward and skinny. His father was an alcoholic, out of control and mean. The kids would sometimes find him passed out on the floor in the morning, and step over his body on their way to school. They ate ketchup sandwiches when the cupboard was bare. My friend didn't learn to read till late in high school. He didn't see much reason to believe in God, and said so.

After school one day, a group of boys followed him. "We heard you don't believe in God," they said. He could have lied to get them off his back, but he affirmed the truth. No, he didn't believe. They proceeded to beat the crap out of him. They beat him to the ground, and kicked him once he was down. As he lay there, semi-conscious and bleeding, they shouted, "NOW do you believe in God?"

True story. The irony is mind-blowing. Another friend--my best friend for life--was an atheist too. Her parents had been through the Holocaust, and she couldn't understand how a God could exist, if such things were allowed to happen. We had many debates and discussions, but never any debate about our love for each other. That was non-negotiable. She once wrote to me some words I'll always treasure: "The biggest miracle in my life has been 35 years of loving friendship." Christian or not, you can give someone a miracle, any time, any day. You just can't do it by kicking them in the head.

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I don't think it is, really.

Will, I've finally been truely outed. I am a SINO.

;-)

I stopped my characterization at 'calling for execution'

How will YOU call an act of cutting her head off?
So far you avoided naming that act.
Common John E., don't be shy.

You don't think it is rude to cut people heads, what do you think about it?

How would you call it?

>>>
How will YOU call an act of cutting her head off?
So far you avoided naming that act.
Common John E., don't be shy.

You don't think it is rude to cut people heads, what do you think about it?

How would you call it?

Posted by: mik_infidel | December 2, 2007 4:53 PM
>>>

I think you mean how 'would' YOU call an act... she hasn't been executed and it seems very unlikely that such a thing will happen.

But if such a thing did come to pass, I would call it an unwarranted, disproportional act by a barbaric people.

Also, why do you put the words in my mouth that I don't think it would be rude to cut people's heads off? It is definitely rude to cut the heads off of people who have not committed an offense proportional to such a severe punishment.

So...we need to have more compassion and understanding for the Sudanese Muslim mob howling for that lone Christian teacher to be put to death? I don't get it. Posted by: meh

Fair enough question, in fact I like it, tough, but fair.

The Sudanese Muslims in that mob deserve our compassion first and foremost because they are us and we are them. If you and me were deprived of our eduation, I know, I know I never got high school diploma which Rod figured out years ago, if we were deprived of our education and our supportive community and raised in the very same circumstances as they have been, well, we'd by in that mob screaming, maybe even a little louder, allowing for our outgoing personality.

We also have to give them a little slack because they've been blinded by their faith. We see the same thing here, people blinded by faith, parents too afraid to talk to their children about things so they pray about it. Is that stupid or what? The kid needs a talking to and the parent slinks off and has a one on one conversation with themselves. That's as bad a blinding by faith as calling for the slaughter of a stranger because they insulted your God.

I also believe we need to accept that our good fortune is the big difference between us and them. Someone real famous, it'll come to me in a minute, I'm at that age where sometimers is verging on alltimers, once said, "to whom much is given much is expected" or something like that. You wouldn't expect and demand the illegal alien mowing your yard to help your son with his calculus problems. Hopefully you wouldn't demand and expect a Sudanese Muslim to accomodate your perceptions of faith for the same reasons.

Hope this helps.

Well, when the mob comes for me and I open fire on it I will do so with regret and compassion. Posted by: Max Schadenfreude

Bless you my son.

Count your blessings, you could be an Apple sales manager in Big D in the A.M.

It is definitely rude to cut the heads off of people who have not committed an offense proportional to such a severe punishment.

Sadly your moral development stopped at age 4.

Good news:

KHARTOUM, Sudan - A British teacher jailed after she allowed her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad was released Monday hours after Sudan's president pardoned her, a British Embassy spokesman said.

Hallelujah. I'm so glad she's going to be all right. I feel sorry for those children who used to be her students, though. Someone will have to explain this whole mess to them. I wonder what they're going to say.

And will we now hear praise for the president's wise action, and for the diplomatic processes that resolved the situation? Will there be rejoicing throughout the land? Does the teacher have value as a person, or was she only important when she was a good excuse to verbally beat up on Muslims?

Well, Simon, I'm glad you're so easily convinced that everything is okay in the Muslim world. I'd never say something quite that optimistic.

You do realize, I assume, that if Muslims get slammed by you no matter what they do, you're giving them no particular incentive to pay any attention to your demands and remonstrations.

I guess that's kind of a moot point in any case, since the chances that any Muslim, anywhere, is paying attention to the carryings-on here are slim. Which brings up the question, what exactly is the point of all the ranting? It won't convince Muslims they are the spawn of Satan and bring them to their knees in humble recognition of Christian righteousness. It won't convince any Muslim government to change its mind about policy. It won't save any victims of Muslim theocracy--and apparently it isn't even intended to, since the victim and her family received almost as much scorn as her persecutors. So what was the point?

Sig,

This is about getting swords into the hands of Christians to defend Christendom. Cause, you know, I think Jesus urged his followers to pick up swords to defend the faith, wasn't it something like that?

To quote Derbyshire: "My biggest fear is, that there are enough whimpering poltroons like yourself in the Western world to turn our civilization to mush, the way political correctness has turned your brain to mush."

Or to quote Bruce Thornton from the earlier "ROP" post (what *is* ROP btw? I am acronym-challenged): "that the West is spiritually dead, its Christian faith in the hands of those who will not defend it, even in print" (I love how Thornton accuses the dialogers of not defending the FAITH, as if European history and the scorecard of conflict between countries was part of our FAITH in some way. How would Thornton have us understand all the war between England, France and Germany? Brotherly spats?

Let's see if I can unravel some of the logic here.
Muslims are evil because they attack innocent Christians . . . even though . . .
The victim is evil because she should have known better and deserves what she got . . . .
The Sudanese government is evil because they are going to commit an atrocity . . . even though . . .
They let the (bad) victim off . . . but they're still bad because they're still Muslim . . .
And the Sudanese people are a bunch of vile, ravening Muslim savages . . . but wait . . .
No, now they're the innocent victims of LIBERALS who are responsible for their oppression . . .

Thus, striving earnestly to lash out in all directions at once, M_David and friends tie their own tentacles in a knot and envenom themselves with their own barbs, like squid on crack.

Unfortunately, this situation makes all muslims look like dangerous crackpots. And overheated responses only add to this perception.

Neither Rod nor (alarmingly!) Erin seem to grasp just how vile and un-Christlike their scorn of this man seems.

Scorn sells newspapers and advertising. Turn the other cheek is a ratings killer.

You are distoring the issue though: Derb's post and Rod's attaboy is scorn of a man who seems IMHO to be striving to be Christ-like in the face of a personal trial. Neither Rod nor (alarmingly!) Erin seem to grasp just how vile and un-Christlike their scorn of this man seems. Sig did a great job calling them on it

I was responding more to the comments on this thread than to the original post, and I wouldn't be anywhere near as hard on this guy as Derbyshire is. Not again, however, that Derb is a non-believer who has little use for Christian morality, so I doubt he would care whether the man is being Christ-like or not.

What troubles me about some of these reaction, though, is the tendency to confuse forgiveness (which is truly Christ-like) with a refusal to make value judgments (which isn't Christ-like at all).

For example, a relative of a 9/11 victim who expresses forgiveness for the perpetrators of that act and prays for them is truly, heroically Christ-like. But that's not the same sentiment as "I hope this event doesn't lead people to think badly of Islam," which sounds more like Multiculturalist pablum, words which it is hard to imagine emanating from the heart of Christ.

Again, I'm not pounding on this poor woman's son, who was speaking under extreme duress and probably doesn't deserve to be held up personally as an example of flabby multiculturalist thought. But since we're dissecting those particular words, let's not hold them up as especially "Christ-like."

I welcome the more moderate comments coming forth in response to Jim's excellent reflections.

For instance, acknowledging that Muslim does not equal "evil" is not the same thing as pretending that there aren't very serious problems involved in reconciling Islamic faith with reason and the rule of law.
I agree with that, Simon. Please entertain the thought that acknowledging that there are serious problems with the outward workings of Islamic faith also is not the same thing as pretending that pre-emptive war and calls for intransigent condemnation of every Muslim will solve those problems.

For the sake of accuracy, I point out that Mr. Gibbons did not actually say "I hope this event doesn't lead people to think badly of Islam." He said I don't want the verdict to lead to any anti feeling towards Muslims. ... One of my fears, and I imagine my mother's also, will be that this results in any sort of resentment towards Muslim people.

I think sj covered that very well, above, when he said:

To me, hoping that the innocent should not be punished for the actions of the guilty can actually be something other than "reflexive appeasement", perhaps just common decency.

Erin's spin of this into a backhanded condemnation of one's neighbors is unfair, I think.

OOPS. I meant to say,

As a political moderate and a Christian agnostic, I am much more concerned about radical Islam than I am about fundamentalist Christians in the U.S.

What is a Christian agnostic?

"Pardoned."

As in, "we release her from her punishment for her heinous crime against the person of the Prophet [sic]."

Well, huzzah. Bra-vo.

[Two seconds of golf clapping.]

Mrs. Pringle:

A Christian shoots a doctor outside an abortion clinic. The doctor's son says in an interview, "I hope this doesn't lead to any anti feeling towards Christians." He would be absolutely right, he would be hailed as a sensible, peace-loving man, and only the looney left fringe would be calling him a sniveling, whimpering poltroon.

That's a very good analogy, and it's changed my mind on this one. While there's an overload of sniveling poltroonery (I'll lift that, thanks) regarding Muslim misbehavior, I no longer think this is an example of it.

Thanks, Dale. And Ostrea, I think that Flannery O'Connor was onto something when she said (I think it was to Mary McCarthy) that if Communion is only a metaphor, "To Hell with it."

That's why I maintain my agnosticism. I'm not sure if I would ever stake my life on Jesus, (because I'm a fearful human who believes I could be that courageous, but hasn't actually been tested) but I sure as Hell won't stake my life on "a metaphor."

But it does seem more possible to stake my life on a mystery than on a metaphor.

Come to think of it, maybe we'd be better off if religion weren't "a matter of life and death." But, that is not the way the world appears to work...

Please entertain the thought that acknowledging that there are serious problems with the outward workings of Islamic faith also is not the same thing as pretending that pre-emptive war and calls for intransigent condemnation of every Muslim will solve those problems.

sig, I not only entertain that thought, I share it. Preemptive war is unjust. The Iraq invasion was unjust (as well as grossly imprudent). And blanket condemnations of all Muslims are both unjust and counterproductive.

None of that requires a belief in cultural relativism, however.

Islam's inability to reconcile itself with reason -- and to include a role for natural law -- is specific to Islam. For Muslims, God is radically inscrutable and His most important attribute is His power. His will, reflected in a sacred text which is His unmediated word, must be obeyed even when arbitrary or patently unreasonable.

This is a theological problem, which must be worked out by Muslims themselves in the context of their own religious tradition, if Muslims are ever going to live at peace in the modern world. But the problem has real, practical consequences -- as we see in this case, where the fact that the "insult" to the Prophet is both trivial and unintentional doesn't even mitigate the Sudanese Muslim public's demand that the "perpetrator" be punished, even decapitated.

Too many secularists make an easy equation of Islam and Christianity, or suppose that according to some sort of meta-historical process Islam is simply where Christianity was 600 years ago. It isn't Christian triumphalism (or lack of charity) to point out that such beliefs are utter nonsense. The nutjobs who demand the death of Ms. Teddy Bear or obscure Danish cartoonists reflect a very real, theologically-rooted problem that is unique to Islam. Treating all Muslims as some sort of enemy does not address that problem, and probably exacerbates it. But westerners who refuse to acknowledge the problem are indulging in a dangerous fantasy.

to quote Bruce Thornton from the earlier "ROP" post (what *is* ROP btw? I am acronym-challenged)

May I gently suggest that a person who does not know what ROP means AND the same person cannot and would not use Google for self-education, that person should not embarass himself discussing fine detail of Mohammedian religion.

Good post, Simon.

It occurs to me that the reason many of my liberal friends at my church have so much trouble understanding radical Islam is that many of them really believe that religion, is "only a metaphor" and they can't truly understand why anyone would regard a metaphor as a matter of life and death.

Hence, when my friends, whom I believe are very well-intentioned, perceive the actions of radical Muslims, they assume that these actions must be rational, and based on some rational reasons. The idea that people could regard their religion as something so serious that they would willingly kill or die it for does not enter their consciousness.

Nor that large groups of ordinary Muslims could behave so irrationally as to call for genocide against Europe over a bunch of cartoons, or to kill a teacher for allowing a Teddy Bear to be named Muhammed, or to fly planes into buildings, or to sentence a victim of gang rape to 100 lashs. Nor to riot, burn churches, murder civilians, and chant "Down with Beauty" because the Miss World Pageant selected your country as the site for its annual contest.

Yo, Erin!

Did you catch the part about the two English Muslim clerics flying to Sudan to intervene in the teacher's behalf?

Just checking.

Muslims are/were human beings first. In fact I'll bet the ring against the bell that if we did a CAT scan of the most radical Muslim we could find we'd see a one hundred percent human being.

Brilliant observation.

Would do you think about German Nazis?
You think their were space aliens?
They did manage to murder more than 10 million people.

How about Stalin and his gangs? Were they Marsians?
Those folks murdered about 20 million people.

Good luck with you CAT brain research.

it isn't about faith but a political reaction to real and perceived persectution.

Another brilliant observation.

Are you planning to patent you pearls of political wisdom?

What crime cannot be explained by this nonsense?

Accordingly to this brilliant theory we must assume that Mao perceived persecution (by whom?) and unleashed Cultural Revolution.
Thousand dead, about a million displaced and sent to labor camps.
But if you conduct your CAT scan research on Mao's brain you will find that he is totally human.

Mohammedians in Arabia must have felt persecuted by Hindus in India, so they were propelled to invade. Since Hindus are not people of the book and must covert or be killed, dhimmi option is not available to them. Apparently (tens?) millions were killed.
We cannot say for sure since all invaders are long dead, but we can assume that they were human.
Evil, but human.

Accordingly to this brilliant theory we must assume that Mao perceived persecution (by whom?) and unleashed Cultural Revolution.
Thousand dead, about a million displaced and sent to labor camps.
But if you conduct your CAT scan research on Mao's brain you will find that he is totally human.

Mohammedians in Arabia must have felt persecuted by Hindus in India, so they were propelled to invade. Since Hindus are not people of the book and must covert or be killed, dhimmi option is not available to them. Apparently (tens?) millions were killed.
We cannot say for sure since all invaders are long dead, but we can assume that they were human.
Evil, but human. Posted by: mik_infidelos

Okay I get it. You had me going for awhile but now I understand. You're working this around to the evil of Christianity in conquering the New World, aren't you?

Harvey,

In other words, people who are oppressed bear no responsibility for their actions? And because a people have been wronged, that makes gulags, concentration camps, terrorism, and calling for the execution of people who allow schoolchildren to name a teddy bear "Muhammad" somehow less evil?

Like I would presume the majority of folks on this blog, I cannot for the life of me find any reasonable excuse for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and I decry any attempts to make blanket assertions about Islam or any other religion. I would even go so far as to say that the U.S. bears a fair amount of culpability in terms of the hatred and enmity felt by radical Muslims toward us. But to say that gives them a blank check, and that if we were just nicer to them, they wouldn't be so prone to violent extremism is naive in the extreme.

Ministry of Silly Walks

"You never cease to amaze, Cleveland. Who then is competent to pass moral judgment on this preemptive war?" Will

Will, here are snippets from a Nov. 13, 2007 statement from a politically liberal, anti-war organization, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:
"We do not have specific competence in political, economic and military strategies and do not assess particular tactics, but we can, as teachers, share a moral tradition to help inform policy choices. Our Catholic teaching on war and peace offers hard questions, not easy answers...Our nation cannot afford a shrill and shallow debate that distorts reality and reduces the options to ‘cut and run’ versus ‘stay the course.’... Our nation's military forces should remain in Iraq only as long as it takes for a responsible transition, leaving sooner rather than later....The Holy See and the Conference remain highly skeptical of the concept of 'preventive war.'"

If you hang around this blog long enough, you may learn to open your mind a bit.

Thank you, Rod, for getting my above reply to Will released.

"Cleveland, you seemed to be saying in your earlier post that no one was competent to pass judgment on preemptive war." Will

Will, I said I welcome Simon's OPINION on whether or not this preemptive war is "just", but that not even the Pope claimed the war was "unjust." The term "just war" has a very special theological meaning to Catholics. That's why even the politically liberal, anti-war USCCB, acknowledging its incompetence to judge this particular war, feared to go as far as Simon did. In fact, it did not feel competent to offer even it's opinion on that discrete point.

"Are you implying that no one, Catholics or secularists, is competent to judge the war?" Will

Of course not. I was telling Simon, whose opinion as a Catholic I hold in extremely high regard, that it was uncharacteristic of him to mix fact with opinion couched as fact in a matter as serious as war.

I believe you are as free as a bird to climb up on your roof and scream that the war is unjust. The point is, Will, your opinion would hold no moral authority for me because you have no special theological or military or political competence to bind my conscience.

It is my opinion that it is imperative for my Government to kill the terrorists over there for moral, military, economic, and international and domestic security reasons. But it's just an opinion. Simon holds the opposite opinion, but it wasn't couched as an opinion--that was my only point. I hope that I am not being too obtuse for you.

"...Cleveland. I'm a little disappointed that you have such low regard for my competence." Will

I have high regard for your competence in all socially and politically liberal matters. Feel better?

"Who has more gravitas, more ethos, than the Pope?" Will

On matters of faith or morals, no one. So, Will, why hasn't the Pope said the Iraq war is morally unjust? Point, game, match.

On matters of faith or morals, no one. So, Will, why hasn't the Pope said the Iraq war is morally unjust? Point, game, match.

Before you start backslapping yourself, Cleveland, John Paul II came out against the invasion of Iraq before it started. And I'm not even a Catholic.

Now I understand why so many of your posts are held for approval.

Cleveland,
It's obvious you think the war and/or Bush is morally just. I don't. The Pope, Wendell Berry, Jim Wallis, scads of Methodist bishops, a portion of our own intelligence community, and millions upon millions of ordinary citizens around the world believed the preemptive war was morally unjust then. Nothing has changed my mind, even if you've convinced yourself the Pope has done a 180 and endorses the war.

So, to your continued consternation, I declare myself competent to judge this purely elective, preemptive war and subsequent occupation morally unjust, illegal and criminal. And I find myself in excellent, distinguished company.

So spare yourself the next message approval cycle.