Manning's Corollary
Tuesday December 11, 2007
Categories: Islamic terrorism
From the comboxes, here's (Erin) Manning's Corollary to Godwin's Law, which states that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Here's Manning's Corollary: In any online conversation about an incident...
Filed Under: Godwin's Law, Manning's Corollary
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
Hilarious, absolutely hilarious.
The only thing I can think of comparable to Erin's play on words would be listening to an eighty something discussing the morality of today's teenagers.
It's really dead on too. The Christians today are as close to being the Christians of yesterday as the eighty something's sexuasl appetite is to today's teen.
But, if we look back at circumstances where Christians had the opportunity and ability to act like, well, Islamists today, they did.
It's the nature of the beast, religion bad.
But, if we look back at circumstances where Christians had the opportunity and ability to act like, well, Islamists today, they did.
Harvey, your historical blindness in the service of Your God Atheism is proving the Corollary ...
Do you honestly not think that this very minute is a circumstance in which Christians today lack either the opportunity or the ability to, not simply do what the Islamists do, but go far beyond that ... like, say, destroy Muslim civilization?
Hint: It would only take pressing a few buttons. And about an hour. And there's nothing Muslims could do to stop us.
the conversation will inevitably devolve into claims that Christians commit the same type and degree of violent acts, regardless of how demonstrably false that is;
I think this clause needs to be amended or removed. "regardless of how demonstrably false" implies a degree of falseness, when it's either false or it's not.
The claim that I and others have made is not that Christians have committed equivalent acts of violence; that's Manning's Strawman. I and others claim that Christians have consciously committed acts of violence and vengeance that are obviously contrary to Christian teaching.
present-day Christians are morally incapable of denouncing current violence involving Muslims.
I would amend that phrase to "present-day Christian's denunciations are undermined by violent, unChristian acts committed by Christians in the past."
Harvey's back with his sweeping denunciations, "It's the nature of the beast, religion bad." This statement is sophomoric. According to Huston Smith, the premier authority on world religions, there isn't a society on earth that is without religious belief. Since every society on earth has religion, how can you make the blanket statement, "religion bad." Compared to what? The Martians?
What Harvey means is "Your religion bad, mine great." Anyone who has an "ultimate concern" has a religion.
Victor, the reason Christians won't do as you suggest is because our founding fathers knew them well enough to not ever let them have that opportunity.
It's simple as that, what saves us from your last days scenario is secularism inserted into our Constitution by some very wise men. I might mention some of them were real Christians also and they voted their conscience.
"regardless of how demonstrably false" implies a degree of falseness, when it's either false or it's not.
Nope. The phrase in question modifies the phrase "of the same type and degree." Nobody doubts that abortion-clinic bombings and attacks have happened, and that a handful have been fatal. Comparison of that to the last three decades of Islamist terrorism is still demonstrably false as a matter of type and degree.
I and others claim that Christians have consciously committed acts of violence and vengeance that are obviously contrary to Christian teaching.
Nobody doubts that as a plain-vanilla fact matter. What is galling (and frankly symptomatic of Christian-hate) is citing that fact **in the context of discussion of Islamist violence,** as Erin's intro clause stipulates. Bad things done by Christians is one thing; injecting the subject into a discussion of other subjects is something else.
I would amend ["present-day Christians are morally incapable of denouncing current violence involving Muslims"] to "present-day Christian's denunciations are undermined by violent, unChristian acts committed by Christians in the past."
I'm not persuaded that there's much of a distinction in practice between "morally incapable of" and "undermined." But assuming there is one, try to persuade others of this distinction. Erin's formulation is exactly how plenty of others argue, including ds0490 on "When the radical right stops making excuses for the violence and abuse in its own ranks perhaps those on the left will take your observations about the Muslim (or Pagan, or Athiest, etc.) community more seriously."
God forbid I should find myself agreeing with Victor Morton, but here he's right and Harvey is stupefyingly wrong. Harvey talks as though Christians are, at heart, just as ruthless and murderous as Osama bin Laden *because* they are Christians ("religion bad") and then, in the next breath, he utters the incredibly naive notion that ruthless killers bent on destroying all opposition would pause over an old piece of parchment and the opinions of some dead guys from two centuries ago. That's silly enough. But then, to cap it all, he *commends* "real Christians" for "voting their conscience" when, in the world of "religion bad" voting one's conscience as a Christian could only mean voting for something bad.
C.S. Lewis, in his preface to Paradise Lost, notes that Satan's rebellious proclamation "Evil be thou my good!" contains within it the idiotic corollary, "Nonsense be thou my sense." Harv's incoherent blurt "religion bad" is one manifestation of that nonsensical thinking. Even *he* doesn't really believe it, or he would not be prattling about "real Christians" and commending them for following their "bad" beliefs.
The attempt to rebut Manning's Corollary by pointing to Christians' past offenses is a classic example of the tu quoque or "You're another!" fallacy.
Contemporary Islamist violence is either wrong or right, regardless of the sins of, say, the Inquisition or the Crusades.
The implied argument is, of course, that Islamist is only a subset of religious violence, and that all religion, or all monotheistic religion, leads to violence. The problem is that recent violence by atheistic or anti-religious movements and regimes is far greater than any carried out by Christians.
Does that make Christians blameless and historic Christianity pure? Of course not. But it's demonstrably false that the rejection of religion prevents violence.
Moreover, Islam's teachings command violence, although some Muslims qualify and limit that command. Christianity and post-Temple Judaism do not command violence as an inherent part of their teaching.
What are you babbling about, Harvey?
Victor, the reason Christians won't do as you suggest is because our founding fathers knew them well enough to not ever let them have that opportunity.
First of all, like many atheists, you vastly overstate the secularism of the American founding. Yes, they set up a formally secular republic but under the assumption that it would be run by Christians.
Second, and please be exact and precise, what did the American founders do that would prevent George Bush (or Hillary Clinton or anyone you like) from unleashing US nuclear weapons on Dar al-Islam, given sufficient provocation (or no provocation, in principle).
Third, there is no historical standard ... none ... by which "Christianism" has ever been less influential in the US than it is now.
Fourth, you don't need to bring in Doomsday Scenarios. The nations of Christendom (not to speak of the evil Joooooz) have hegemonic military superiority over Dar al-Islam. If we chose to fight as they do ... well, the Muslims and Western dhimmis would know the difference.
Fifth, you do realize this contradicts any claims you may ever wish to make about past US or Christian sins, right? I mean, whatever the American founders may have done, it's been that way since 1800. In the period since, the US has used nuclear weapons, engaged in nation-destroying bombing campaigns, and repeatedly engaged in actions that would be called "atrocities" today though they were standard at the time. (Indeed, this is the essence of the other standard atheist fallback: "Christians were the same way until recently." Evidently those founders didn't do such a good job when THAT's the point you wish to make, huh?)
And sixth, you're shifting the focus. You said Christians merely lack "the opportunity and ability to act like, well, Islamists today." The US is only part of Christendom and the ability and opportunity are both plainly there anyway. Why US Christians choose not to use them is an important question, and one that the American founding is not unrelated to? But that's a question about the character of Christians and/or Christianity and totally unrelated to what you first claimed.
The fallacious comparison illustrated by Erin's corollary is:
a) Some Christians commit violence despite the tenets of their religion
b) Some Muslims commit violence because of the tenets of their religion.
The correct comparison is:
Some [religious label] commit violence and justify it with the tenets of their religion.
It's the false mixing of topical logic that is the culprit here, perpetrated by emotional reactions to the violence. It takes heroic effort, q.e.d., to discuss each separate topic -- especially without resorting to the fallacious comparisons... and this holds true for topical areas besides religion. :-)
Victor:
Yes, they set up a formally secular republic but under the assumption that it would be run by Christians.
With respect, you overstate the case. They assumed that it would be run by prudent and virtuous men, that those men would be chosen by local constituencies who would require their prudence and virtue, and recall them if they failed of them, but that no government that ignores the potential for ambition and corruption in men will survive. The Federalist Papers is full of contemporary and historical examples cited by the authors to support the establishment of a federal government. The men in the contemporary examples were as Christian as the founders.
The rebuttal to your claim, Victor, is Article VI of the Constitution of the United States: but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Harvey's view is bizarre for another reason. If we were to accept it, it would presumably mean that we, as Americans, are entitled to throw back into the face of the Brits, the Germans, and the French, criticisms that our actions in Iraq are imperialist. For, lo, all of these nations were once imperialist powers. And since Harvey apparently insists on imputing to 21st-century Christians the collective guilt of 20 centuries, I see no reason that even the Italians should be able to criticize us: After all, they are the direct descendants of those who created the model for all subsequent empires. Since Christians--even those brands of Christianity that have always condemned the Catholic churches and the great national churches of Europe for their departure from the true faith and their mingling of secular and religious power (say, the Anabaptists, for example)--in other words, those who have made a clean break from the history Harvey so heartily condemns--are, in his bizarre moral view, "undermined" in their criticism of Islamic violence, it would seem to follow that European critics of American foreign policy have little ground on which to criticize us.
Not that I expect Harvey ever to object when Americans or Christians are subject to similar criticisms by those subject to similar objections...
Franklin:
But "religion" is not a motivating factor of persons, but rather an abstraction of secular scholarship. I think it was CS Lewis who said that no person practices "religion" any more than any person speaks "language," as distinguished from English, French, etc. A comparison is exactly what your reformulation is NOT precisely because it attempts to flatten the difference between English and French.
"Christianity" can be a person's motivation, "secularism" can be, "Judaism" can be, "feminism" can be, etc. As I've implied by those examples, I understand "religion" functionally, as nothing more than one's ultimate value, the unanswerable "Because," and hence "religion" is not escapable. So on the one hand, since only particular religions actually cause acts, blurring the distinctions blinds one to actual motivation. While on the other hand, your reformulation is in a certain sense a tautology, because all men are religious, the differences being only about particulars.
Or to perhaps approach it from a different analogy: communism, conservatism, Nazism, liberalism, fascism, monarchism, clericalism, etc., are all "politics" right? It's indisputable in the same sense that Christianity, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, etc., are all "religion." But nobody thereby thinks that "politics-unmodified causes people to do bad stuff," while obviously true, is either very insightful or relieves us of the burden of judging certain political forms as superior to others.
Franklin wrote:
They assumed that it would be run by prudent and virtuous men
Yes, but was their understanding of "prudence" and "virtue" divorced from all religion? No.
that those men would be chosen by local constituencies who would require their prudence and virtue
Yes, but (in addition to the point I just made) that is a structural question of how to bring an end about, not an end in itself.
And Article VI is a formal-legal requirement. It doesn't speak to questions of the kinds of culture they presupposed and the society they thought necessary for a republic.
Some Muslims commit violence because of the tenets of their religion.
But they do. The killing of apostates is a legally recognized fact in all four Sunni legal schools and the Shia school. These are based on the ahadith, which is only a smidgin less holy than the Quran. It's an unchallenged fact of Islamic jurisprudence, and it's enforced in several Muslim countries. The subjugation of Christians and Jews is laid out in plain text in the Quran (9:29), along with wife-beating (4:34) and other things we'd find odious.
It's important to remember that these are not seen as dead letter or of historical interest, like the crueler commands of Leviticus are viewed by Christians, but live and enforceable commands from the mouth of God.
Now, yes, Christians did at one time execute apostates, but to do so required them to explain away verses instead of citing them. You can see this in St. Thomas' justification of executing heretics. This meant that religious basis of the Inquisition and other similar authorities was on rather shaky ground, and they were marginalized by other Christians citing Scripture back at them. Muslim reformers these days are in the opposite position. They're the ones who have to explain away verses. This makes a tremendous difference in the debate at the street level, and it's why a good number of Muslims living in Britain favor executing apostates.
The fallacious comparison illustrated by Erin's corollary is:
a) Some Christians commit violence despite the tenets of their religion
b) Some Muslims commit violence because of the tenets of their religion.
The correct comparison is:
Some [religious label] commit violence and justify it with the tenets of their religion.
Sorry, but leaves out two additional options.
c) Some Christians commit violence because of the tenets of their religion
d) Some Muslims commit violence despite the tenets of their religion
Your final statement is wrong because it says that no one ever does anything based on their religious belief, but only uses religion as an afterthought. Your view is the materialist view that all things are driven by physical needs with justifications tacked on. As a Christian I don't accept that. If your view is correct, then none of this matters because we can't escape the fact that we are only material in a material only universe and as such have no choices.
So, if a Muslim skips out on a car accident, (d) is most likely the reason. If a Muslim kills his daughter because she is an apostate, it's more likely (b).
Victor,
The short, easy rebuttal for you is this: Occam's Razor. ;-)
I don't disagree with the principles you describe, just your assertive conclusion from them. You appear to have miscontrued my logical statement: in no way did I intend or imply that [religious label] is a prima facie cause. It is an observation of fact that people will use [fill-in-the-blank] to justify their actions, particularly when they seek to absolve themselves of personal responsibility. Flip Wilson's "the devil made me do it!" is funny as much for his delivery as for its painful commentary on the human condition. We note this behavior in children; we often fail to see it in the adult mirror*. Speaking of simplicity, the comic strip Family Circle's creator has an excellent comment to make on this: a ghostly character named "Notme", invoked by the children in the strip when confronted by a parent seeking the culprit in some incident. :-)
We can argue in circles about the founders and their intentions. Again, I prefer the simplest approach, to take the wording of the Constitution at face value. It avoids the arguments concerning the differences -- gross and subtle -- between their circumstances and ours. Slavery was active, and the seeds of the Civil War were evident to some. The franchise had qualifications, including gender. There is a host of issues we face as the children of technology that they couldn't have imagined. One comparison is important to mention: they had no non-Christians to speak of, let alone with voices raised to object to being excluded.
As for your tautology criticism: please note that I used the qualifier some in all three statements. It was a deliberate choice.
* While reading before posting, I realize that the noted statement implies a bias, and to be honest it is there: my cynical view of my fellows is that they will much more likely attempt to avoid responsibility for their actions than step up and be accountable. Apply grains of salt as needed.
The phrase in question modifies the phrase "of the same type and degree."
You're mistaking grammar for meaning. At best the phrase is superfluous verbage - just say "false claims" and be done with it. "Regardless of how demonstrably false" is just petty ornamentation.
Bad things done by Christians is one thing; injecting the subject into a discussion of other subjects is something else.
In one sense, the corollary is correct - injecting the subject is inevitable, and necessary. Why are we discussing Islamic extremism at all, if not to understand it and do something constructive about it? In my opinion, thoughtful people, religious or not, would discuss extremism with desire to understand at least a couple of basics; why does this extremism exist, and what can we do about it?
I see from the posts on this board alone that some nominal Christians long ago decided that Islam is irredeemably flawed and that perpetual, armed warfare or annihilation is the only viable solution. I think we're smarter than this, or we should be. Understanding the extremist impulse in one religion is key to understanding extremism in another, that's why the subject is inevitably injected. If perpetual, blood-soaked, warfare is the solution to radical Islam, then we have truly lost already, and this is not a corollary but an epitaph.
Victor Morton: "Yes, but was their understanding of "prudence" and "virtue" divorced from all religion? No."
Many of the Founders were quite clear about what they felt about religion in the lives of the leaders of our nation. They were equally clear about their feelings regarding the leadership of the churches of their day. They were also quite clear about the matter of non-Christian religions within their midst.
Thomas Jefferson is one of the more prolific writers on this subject. In a letter penned in 1814 to Horatio G. Spafford he wrote this regarding the clergy: "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." He wrote the following in his autobiography concerning the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
James Madison, in his "Memorial and Remonstrance," speaks harsh words concerning Christian clergy and churches throughout history:
"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
Further, in a letter to Robert Walsh in 1819 Madison stated:
"The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state."
Modern day theocrats often point to John Adams as their great hope for justification of their statements regarding the founders. Yet, he fails them. In a letter to a Dr. Price in 1785 he writes:
"We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society."
And in one of his more controversial statements, he writes the following in a letter to F.A. Van der Kamp in 1816:
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
The most bloody religion that has ever existed...quite a statement from a scholar such as Adams.
I'll close with these words from Adams' letter to John Taylor in 1814. I think the words apply today as much as they did in his day.
"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
Swarm away folks.
Yes, Derek, and some Muslims are willing to at least implicitly forego those tenets: how many ex-Muslims in the US are threatened with violence by their former co-religionists? Of those, how many are actually injured or killed?
I forget which thread I wrote it in, but here it is again: if you ignore culture, you ignore at least half of the discussion.
Derek Copold: "Now, yes, Christians did at one time execute apostates, but to do so required them to explain away verses instead of citing them."
Actually, it didn't. All they needed to do was read their Bible.
Deuteronomy 13 - Entire Chapter
If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a] both its people and its livestock. Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. None of those condemned things [b] shall be found in your hands, so that the LORD will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, because you obey the LORD your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.
Now, go ahead and explain this away. But remember, there are Muslims who will explain away the portions of the Koran that you cite regarding violence within their religion. Are you going to join them, or are you going to admit that the Bible teaches exactly the same thing as the Koran when it comes to apostates?
Chris, with respect, you make the exact mistake defined in Erin's corollary. She sets the logical boundaries in her statement, and I am restricting my commentary to those boundaries. I "left out" other options for the simple reason that they are irrelevant to the logical space defined.
If you wish to disagree that my (a) and (b) are an accurate restatement of the corollary, by all means have at it. I'd enjoy reading it.
This may have been mentioned already, so forgive if this is a repeat.
Harvey is of corse wrong to say that all religion is bad.
MAN is bad. Some religions make him worse.
Which ones?
Hhhmmmm...
For starters, how about Islam, and the religion of Stalin (communist athiesm), Mao (communist athiesm), Pol Pot (communist athiesm), & Hitler (occult fascism).
All that murdering and such by Christians is in SPITE of Christian teaching.
Can'ts say that of Islam, communism, athiesm, and naziism.
dso490, double doggone darn, you know some smart folks.
If we were bakers we'd suggest at this point that the proof is in the pudding. We'd see if the same ingredients created the same gobblygook.
Islam and Christianity are two legs of the three legged stool (use any definition of that word you choose) that is the Abrahamic faiths. They have the same Creator, same Adam, save Eve, same Noah, same flood and the same Abraham. If you look at the crime and punishment codes of all three we see one and the same, well, except where secularism has injected some common sense and mercy if you will.
I'll answer ds0490's query: "Now, go ahead and explain this away." For Christians the Old Testament is descriptive, contains relevant archetypes and prophetic glimpses of the cross, but isn't prescriptive. The New Testament is prescriptive.
In NT theology, kill the heretics becomes love your enemy and, at most, dissociated from the heretic. If you read 1st, 2nd and 3rd John you'll see John saying over and over again that you've got to love people to make this religion work. Vengeance belongs to the Lord.
Victor Morton, I agree that the U.S. is unlikely to solve its Islamic problem by using nuclear weapons to wipe out the Islamic states. The civilizing influence of Christianity may have something to do with this, but I think you have vastly overstated it as a restraining factor. One need look no farther than practical and political considerations. First of all, a nuclear strike on oil-rich lands would not be a really good way to deal with our current oil anxieties. Even without that difficulty, large-scale nuclear weapons strikes have global consequences. Poisoning Israel and our European allies, for instance. And then there are the political consequences of an unprovoked nuclear attack. India and Pakistan both have nuclear capacity, but neither one of them is likely to take the other out. They certainly are not restrained by Christian charity. I'm sure you are more conversant with realpolitik than I am. You must have considered these things.
Max, before you get all warm fuzzy over the love of Jesus you might read Matthew chapter 11. Skid down to the lower middle and see how much forgiveness and Jesus had for those who were presented His best and refused it. Remember, He was the one that said that those who didn't believe in Him were going to burn in an everlasting non-consuming fire when they die.
And you thought your ex-wife was a vindictive, well, not nice person.
Hmmmmmm, scratching head one oh one....
I'll answer ds0490's query: "Now, go ahead and explain this away." For Christians the Old Testament is descriptive, contains relevant archetypes and prophetic glimpses of the cross, but isn't prescriptive. The New Testament is prescriptive.
In NT theology, kill the heretics becomes love your enemy and, at most, dissociated from the heretic. If you read 1st, 2nd and 3rd John you'll see John saying over and over again that you've got to love people to make this religion work. Vengeance belongs to the Lord. Posted by: reddopto
So, you're saying the Christians haven't a leg to stand on when they want the Ten Commandments in public places? being descriptive and prescriptive and all that.......
Now, go ahead and explain this away. But remember, there are Muslims who will explain away the portions of the Koran that you cite regarding violence within their religion.
I already have. You just decided not to pay attention to what I actually wrote so you could whip out your hand verse.
Old Testament commands such as these are not seen as operative in light of the New Testament, which preached a rather different message. Yes, there were and are Christians who attempt to use these verses to their end, but they have to get around Jesus' Sermon on the Mount to do so, which puts them at a rhetorical disadvantage.
Now harvey points out that Jesus didn't deal with dissenters well, and that's true, but the punishment he had in mind was reserved for the afterlife.
So, you're saying the Christians haven't a leg to stand on when they want the Ten Commandments in public places? being descriptive and prescriptive and all that.......
Jesus repeated the Decalogue in a number of places, not all ten at once, but all get a mention--save perhaps the graven image[?]. There're a number of other verses he cited from other sources. He distilled a more quietist and otherworldly theology from it.
Paul addressed this in a letter to Timothy where he noted that the law is useful, but you shouldn't let the letter kill the spirit, or something to that effect.
Derek Coppold: "Old Testament commands such as these are not seen as operative in light of the New Testament, which preached a rather different message. Yes, there were and are Christians who attempt to use these verses to their end, but they have to get around Jesus' Sermon on the Mount to do so, which puts them at a rhetorical disadvantage."
So rather than placing the Decalogue in public places, maybe we should place the Beatitudes there instead? Can you imagine a courthouse that had the Sermon on the Mount emblazoned in brass on its walls?
So, you're saying the Christians haven't a leg to stand on when they want the Ten Commandments in public places? being descriptive and prescriptive and all that....... (harv)
Jesus repeated the Decalogue in a number of places, not all ten at once, but all get a mention--save perhaps the graven image[?]. There're a number of other verses he cited from other sources. He distilled a more quietist and otherworldly theology from it.
Paul addressed this in a letter to Timothy where he noted that the law is useful, but you shouldn't let the letter kill the spirit, or something to that effect. Posted by: Derek Copold
Hmmmm, Derek I'm getting a little confused here. The other day right here in Crunchyrodville Margaret explained that Jesus didn't come to change the law but to fulfill it. Now you're saying He distilled it?
A little word for the wise here. Ya'll Christians need to get your act together. It's a little difficult to discuss this stuff when Christianity seems to be all about an individual's ifs ands and buts.
Harvey: "A little word for the wise here. Ya'll Christians need to get your act together. It's a little difficult to discuss this stuff when Christianity seems to be all about an individual's ifs ands and buts."
Harvey, I thought it was "all y'all"? "Y'all" is singular, "all y'all" is plural, isn't it?
I think I just found the understatement of the century......
Now harvey points out that Jesus didn't deal with dissenters well, and that's true, but the punishment he had in mind was reserved for the afterlife. Posted by: Derek Copold
Eternity is about as long as forever and a non-consuming fire hurts more all over than anywhere else.
It's an interesting concept though, the Hell thing, Islam has it too. If someone disgrees or even worse, disses you, you wish forever misery upon them.
The next time a Christian shows the pearly whites and tells you about God's love, think about what they think you deserve if you don't agree with them.
If that's love, well, it can't be, can it?
Harvey Lacey: "The next time a Christian shows the pearly whites and tells you about God's love, think about what they think you deserve if you don't agree with them."
But you see, Harvey, it's not that God wants you to go to hell. It's just that you are so darned stubborn about getting there on your own. As I am sure many here will tell you, God never sends anyone to hell. They go there of their own free will...unless you are a Calvinist, that is.
As a point of historical fact, for many centuries most Christians (Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox) did hold that competent legal authority had the right, but not the obligation to execute apostates or heretics when necessary to preserve public order. Among the differences between that position and the Muslim situation:
1. Christians never believed that Scripture required such punishments, and in many times and places did not criminalize such behavior.
2. Christians clearly reserved the right to impose such punishments to competent secular authorities. An ordinary person could not justify what would otherwise be considered murder on the grounds that the victim was an apostate. That's the real danger faced by apostate Muslims.
3. Today there are no Christians -- anywhere in the world, as far as I'm aware -- who believe in any sort of secular punishment of apostates or heretics, much less execution of them.
"Max, before you get all warm fuzzy over the love of Jesus you might read Matthew chapter 11. Skid down to the lower middle and see how much forgiveness and Jesus had for those who were presented His best and refused it. Remember, He was the one that said that those who didn't believe in Him were going to burn in an everlasting non-consuming fire when they die.
And you thought your ex-wife was a vindictive, well, not nice person."
How risable.
Look, if Christianity is real and true, then to reject Jesus is to jump into Hell on one's own.
If Christianity is not real and true, then Jesus was either a nut or a liar. In either of those cases it would have still been consistant according to the false doctrine to say that to reject Jesus would be to jump into Hell on one's own.
Having mentioned this, I must say that I doubt you are really so obtuse to have not known that.
In any event, I note that your reply was a red herring avoiding my larger point that your "religion" of atheism doesn't have such a great track record in the Love department when it has been applied by the State.
We've been down the road ds0490 wants to travel many times, and it's a dead end. Passages from Deuteronomy that affirm violence against those who encourage apostasy may be problematic for traditional Jews.
But as Derek Copold rightly notes, Christians from the very beginning have read the Old Testament only in light of the Gospel and New Testament. Contra ds0490, that doesn't make that the Ten Commandments or other passages from the Hebrew Scriptures inoperative. It just means that are either fulfilled in the New Covenant (as with the 10 Commandments) or abolished (as with all purely ritual laws and laws pertaining to the governance of the ancient land of Israel).
The important point for any outsider to understand is that Christianity and Judaism approach scripture very differently. And both Christianity and Judaism approach it in ways that differ dramatically from the way Muslims approach the Koran, which Islam considers to be the direct, unmediated word of God. Thus it is much harder for Muslims to "explain away" any apparently unpleasant scriptural injunction than it is for Christians and Jews.
That exegetical problem is greatly compounded by the uniquely Muslim notion that God's transcendance puts Him beyond the categories of good and evil, which are treated as constructs of merely human reasoning. So for Muslims, if God's word appears to endorse something that most decent human beings would consider plainly evil, there may not even be any attempt to apply reason to "explain it away." Ipso facto, that something is okay. No natural law or philosophizing allowed.
All Y'all, ds is grammatical like a meaux feaux.
I’ve been pondering Manning’s Corollary, trying to state my reservations with clarity. It is a complex statement with a good many ramifications, thus not easily deconstructed. Here are a couple of preliminary thoughts.
One: I think it is simply inaccurate. It asserts two basic things: the Loyal Opposition claims that Christians commit the same type and degree of violent acts as Muslims; and, the Loyal Opposition claims that past violent acts of Christians invalidate Christian denunciation of current Muslim violence. I think a careful meta-analysis of recent posts would show this is not true. If “the same” means “identical,” then I would say no posts have claimed this. Rather, they have pointed out similarities in acts committed by some Christians, and similarities in scriptures and belief between Islam and Christianity. Likewise, no posts (that I am aware of) have claimed that Christians have NO moral standing to condemn violent acts. Rather, they have pointed out that IF and WHEN Christians appear to condone similar acts committed by Christians, to that extent they are compromising their standing. I don’t think anyone has argued that violent acts by Muslims should be condoned, whether Christians commit similar acts or not.
Two: the original Godwin’s Law is about a matter of fact. Either Hitler is mentioned, or he isn’t. Erin’s Corollary involves not fact, but opinion. The claims above are endlessly debatable. Thus, Erin’s Corollary becomes not an objective diagnostic, but merely a clever way for one side of the argument to invalidate the other ab initio and thus pre-emptively end debate.
Hmmmm, Derek I'm getting a little confused here. The other day right here in Crunchyrodville Margaret explained that Jesus didn't come to change the law but to fulfill it. Now you're saying He distilled it?
That is in fact what he did, which for Christians is tantamount to fulfilling the law.
A little word for the wise here. Ya'll Christians need to get your act together. It's a little difficult to discuss this stuff when Christianity seems to be all about an individual's ifs ands and buts.
Like you, I'm an unbeliever. Unlike you, I am able to make distinctions between the religions.
Eternity is about as long as forever and a non-consuming fire hurts more all over than anywhere else.
So? It doesn't exist. If they aren't dragging you to the chopping block, why should you care? The worst the Christians will do these days is annoy you with a lecture. The current Mohammedan view is that atheists who don't convert are to be killed. You should mull that fact over before you launch into another "Ah, they're all the same" rant.
Simon, I trust that you will grant to Muslims the same liberty of explanation that you took in response to my post.
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=9801&CATE=3500
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view_print.asp?ID=1747
You see, according to most Muslim leaders, the Quran does not teach that infidels should be killed. The website I posted above used an argument very similar to yours to explain away what I take to be some clear language in their holy text.
Now, if we accept your statements #1 and #2, why should we not accept the statements offered by the particular teacher I cite?
As for your #3, I would suggest that you don't get around much. Just Google the subject "execution sodomites".
http://www.covenantnews.com/rudd060607.htm
http://100777.com/homosexuality
http://letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/06/28/dobson/view/index16.html?order=asc
Feel free to substitute "heretic", "apostate", "infidel", "atheist", "pagan" or any other term for non-believer that you wish to use.
" But nobody thereby thinks that "politics-unmodified causes people to do bad stuff," while obviously true, is either very insightful or relieves us of the burden of judging certain political forms as superior to others."
Actually I've heard lots of people say this sort of thing. Branding a position or an issue as "political" is, in many circles, the easiest way to end a discussion about it.
Simon: "The important point for any outsider to understand is that Christianity and Judaism approach scripture very differently. And both Christianity and Judaism approach it in ways that differ dramatically from the way Muslims approach the Koran, which Islam considers to be the direct, unmediated word of God. Thus it is much harder for Muslims to "explain away" any apparently unpleasant scriptural injunction than it is for Christians and Jews."
I gather, Simon, that you do not accept the idea of verbal-plenary inspiration of the Bible (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm). Many Christians do accept this view, which views the original texts of the Old and New Testaments in the same way you characterize the Muslim view of the Quoran.
" Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct one Biblical passage by another, whether in the name of progressive revelation or of the imperfect enlightenment of the inspired writer's mind."
If that be the case, then you may find yourself out of step with modern Evangelical Christianity's teachings regarding the Bible.
In other words, you might be a heretic.
sigaliris...the fundamental problem with this assertion ('corollary') is that person who sincerely maintains it is necessarily a Christian chauvinist (by the dictionary meaning of chauvinism).
I gather, Simon, that you do not accept the idea of verbal-plenary inspiration of the Bible (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm). Many Christians do accept this view, which views the original texts of the Old and New Testaments in the same way you characterize the Muslim view of the Quoran.
"Verbal, plenary" inspiration is a theory developed by Evangelical Protestant Christians, of which I am not one. That said, the theory as I understand it (and as Evangelical writers routinely insist) is NOT the same as the "dictation" theory -- i.e., that God literally dictated, word for word, the text of the scripture. Dictation theory is rejected by all Evangelical and Reformed Christians that I'm aware of(and also, of course, by Catholic and Orthodox Christians). It is a distinctive feature of Islam.
Whatever the theories, however, the fact remains that there aren't any Evangelical Christians or any other Christians whose interpretive lenses cause them to read Deuteronomy or other parts of the Bible as authorizations to kill heretics, apostates or nonbelievers.
Not meaning to pick nits, Simon, but you intended to convey the following: the fact remains that there aren't any Evangelical Christian leaders or any other Christianleaders whose interpretive lenses cause them to read Deuteronomy or other parts of the Bible as authorizations to kill heretics, apostates or nonbelievers.
Right? You are not going to deny that there have been, and will likely continue to be, Christians who in fact use Biblical justification for violent acts, are you?
Because, I don't mind telling you, there are some fellow pagans who are very concerned for their personal safety when Christians decide to show up at their public rituals with the intent of disrupting the proceedings, and who respond with invective when asked to desist.
I deny that I am falling under Erin's corollary, for the simple reason that we are all, every one of us, guilty of lazy writing. I insist that it remains possible to have a civil, rational discussion about these difficult subjects; it just requires some extra effort from us.
Franklin, with all due respect (because I do respect you), but can you provide ANY documented evidence of actual violence leading towards bodily harm of pagans by Christians intent on disrupting their activities or of ANY Christian leader who exhorts his followers to violence against pagans?
I am revolted by the idea of Christians harrassing pagans or anyone else, particularly while they are practicing their religion. It's vile, degrading to the name of Christ and worthy of denunciation by all people. However, as revolting and wrong as it is, the fact remains that there is a world of difference between being disrespectful and disruptive and leaving children orphaned, mothers burying the children they have birthed and raised, spouses of the love meant the last a lifetime and all the associated sorrows which accompany the murder of a human being. Equating the two requires either being unreasonably paranoid about the seriousness of harrassment or unconsionably callous to the suffering caused by murder.
Rebecca, there are so few of us, I cannot readily provide mainstream media reports. If you trust me...
A "disturbing" Democrat is "outed" in Maine: http://www.cclmaine.org/artman/publish/Maine_3/ME_Dem_Moran_Pagan.shtml, found via http://www.wildhunt.org/2007/06/what-happens-to-real-pagan-politicians.html
I get regular reports of divorce proceedings where just one parent being a pagan is sufficient to give the other parent 100% custody. In the cases that I know of, the pagan parent had no resources to appeal. Two openly Wiccan parents were told by their divorce judge that they were forbidden to teach their son about their religion, or expose him to it in any way. The appeals process took several months, and it reversed the judge and reprimanded him.
I have personally witnessed Christians heckling pagans in a public ritual three times, twice with bullhorns; I spoke to them myself, being one of the sponsoring organizers in each case. I'll be polite and characterize all of those contacts as uncivil. No media were present in any case. There was a media-covered incident in California, but all I can find is this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_news_02.htm page down to two entries, APR-8 and MAY-1. I did find a URL for the article, but it is no longer available.
To be clear: it was not my intent to suggest that there are Christians who go after pagans with violent intent. I am seriously suggesting that some of my fellow pagans are justified in feeling worried for their personal safety.
Huzzah! My very first held-for-approval post! Rebecca, hopefully it will appear here at some point. The gist of it is: I have some examples that might lead a reasonable person of the pagan persuasion to feel worried about personal safety. If the filter black hole eats it, I'll try it again later. :-)
ds's knowledge limitations are showing.
Verbal plenary inspiration was an unheard-of doctrine for the first 18 centuries of Church history. It was a creation of 19th century fundamentalists (word used correctly) and not held by any church that has either a liturgical tradition, any form of episcopacy or any means of establishing and enforcing doctrine.
Under the possibility that I had to many links in it, here's the first of them:
A "disturbing" Democrat is "outed" in Maine: http://www.cclmaine.org/artman/publish/Maine_3/ME_Dem_Moran_Pagan.shtml, found via http://www.wildhunt.org/2007/06/what-happens-to-real-pagan-politicians.html
Hey, it worked!
Here's the rest of the post:
I get regular reports of divorce proceedings where just one parent being a pagan is sufficient to give the other parent 100% custody. In the cases that I know of, the pagan parent had no resources to appeal. Two openly Wiccan parents were told by their divorce judge that they were forbidden to teach their son about their religion, or expose him to it in any way. The appeals process took several months, and it reversed the judge and reprimanded him.
I have personally witnessed Christians heckling pagans in a public ritual three times, twice with bullhorns; I spoke to them myself, being one of the sponsoring organizers in each case. I'll be polite and characterize all of those contacts as uncivil. No media were present in any case. There was a media-covered incident in California, but all I can find is this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_news_02.htm page down to two entries, APR-8 and MAY-1. I did find a URL for the article, but it is no longer available.
To be clear: it was not my intent to suggest that there are Christians who go after pagans with violent intent. I am seriously suggesting that some of my fellow pagans are justified in feeling worried for their personal safety.
Whatever the theories, however, the fact remains that there aren't any Evangelical Christians or any other Christians whose interpretive lenses cause them to read Deuteronomy or other parts of the Bible as authorizations to kill heretics, apostates or nonbelievers. Posted by: Simon
And the world's a better place. Thank you secularism.
Franklin, I'm sorry, but as reprehensible as these intimidation techniques are, they just don't rise to anywhere near the level of acts of or calls for violence against pagans. And if you look into the story further, you can find a follow-up story done in September by a writer with associated content showing exactly how people in this predominantly Christian country reacted:
"Thankfully, neither Rita nor Edward [Lachowicz another pagan politician in Maine] received any intimidation, pranks, or other malicious actions with the posting of their information on the internet. When asking him if it bothered either of them to be outed like that, he had this to say:
"Rita freaked out...she wasn't sure how the party was going to respond...but luckily, the party came out in full support of her. And, as far as I know, her business hasn't taken any hits at all." According to Mr. Lachowicz, there was an attempt by the CCL to invade the Maine Pagan Pride Day festival and use it as ammo. He explained that everyone was alright with the CCL present, taking pictures...until they tried to take pictures of the guest and sign-in books, which no one liked. A few people asked the photographer to leave, and eventually he did"
As you well know, there are a lot of groups (including moronic Christian ones) who use fear mongering about ever present dangers for a wide range of purposes: to create a sense of community, to fundraise, to defame "the enemy", to garner sympathy. Every so often there is a legitimate threat, fortunately legitimate threats of physical harm are EXCEEDINGLY rare in this country. This whole thing reeks of just that sort of fear mongering.
The bottom line is that as repugnant as this harrassment is/was it doesn't come anywhere near close to rising to the level of threating or calling for physical violence against anyone. Which is very much what we can and should continue to expect from Christians - whatever else they may do that is wrong, we can be pretty darn certain that threats of and calls for violence against pagans will not be one of their sins.
harvey, I'll skip the with all due respect as I've never found you to be worthy of a lot of respect in these discussions, but history shows us that Christianity self-corrected its errors as found in the spanish inquisition, salem witch trials and such LONG before secularism hit the scene. Throwing out one liners unsupported by facts or logic does not make for a very convincing argument except to the intellectually lazy and perpetually bigoted.
And the world's a better place. Thank you secularism.
No, thank you, Mr. Lacey, for making me wash my hands of these threads. The assumption that my faith is an inherently violent stain upon the planet, a theocratic threat only restrained by this immaculate creature called "secularism" is astounding. This "Secularism," naturally, has nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian culture from which it emerged, since it spontaneously generated, springing forth like Athena from the brow of Zeus. No, there is nothing in the example of Christ and the Christian tradition which speaks otherwise. If not for Voltaire, I'd be itching for the next installment of Monday Night Inquisition. I'd have no choice. To quote The Exorcist, "The power of Christ compels me."
This ahistorical condescension is so gratingly, damnably offensive I don't know where to begin. I now understand why Sam Harris is a best-selling author--pure, unremitting contempt for Christianity has more mass appeal than I ever imagined.
I don't have any interest in how this thread progresses. That there is even one person who thinks this way is dismaying enough. That I know there are more here whose thoughts differ only in degree, not kind, is sufficient for me to bow out for a while.
My second son will be born in a week, and will be baptized soon after that. Have to start indoctrinating him early in the functional equivalent of faith of the man who (allegedly) murdered his daughter in Toronto, don't you know? You've read about one Abrahamic monotheism in a Newsweek article, you know about them all.
Oh, that's right--my secularism collar will prevent that. Whew!
And the world's a better place. Thank you secularism.
Sorry, but Robespierre and Lenin aren't the guys to thank (for anything).
Christians aren't restrained by secularism from scratching some theological itch for violence. They have unanimously concluded that the misbehavior described above is impermissable for religious reasons.
And what latter day secularists need to get into their heads is that if Muslims as a whole are to live at peace with nonbelievers, they too will have to find convincing, coherent religious reasons to condemn terrorism and the license to murder apostates. The Turkish Model isn't going to do it.
The particulars of religious doctrine matter a great deal. People who blithely assume that religions (or, with half baked sophistication, "all monotheisms") are pretty much the same are either emoting their own raw prejudices or simply refusing to deal with reality.
Victor Morton: "Verbal plenary inspiration was an unheard-of doctrine for the first 18 centuries of Church history. It was a creation of 19th century fundamentalists (word used correctly) and not held by any church that has either a liturgical tradition, any form of episcopacy or any means of establishing and enforcing doctrine."
Sorry Victor, but the writings of numerous church councils and theologians would disagree with you.
Verbal plenary inspiration is defined in the 1913 Webster Dictionary as:
Plenary inspiration (Theol.), that kind of inspiration
which excludes all defect in the utterance of the inspired
message.
Verbal inspiration (Theol.), that kind of inspiration which
extends to the very words and forms of expression of the
divine message.
In short, the original text of the Bible is free from defect down to the very words given to the writers by God. Now, was this doctrine held by Christian theologians prior to the timeframe you suggest?
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) states the following about the inspiration of the Bible:
"VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]
In the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) is the following statement regarding the origin of the Bible:
"CANONICAL SCRIPTURE. We believe and confess the canonical Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles of both Testaments to be the true Word of God, and to have sufficient authority of themselves, not of men. For God himself spoke to the fathers, prophets, apostles, and still speaks to us through the Holy Scriptures.
And in this Holy Scripture, the universal Church of Christ has the most complete exposition of all that pertains to a saving faith, and also to the framing of a life acceptable to God; and in this respect it is expressly commanded by God that nothing be either added to or taken from the same.
SCRIPTURE TEACHES FULLY ALL GODLINESS. We judge, therefore, that from these Scriptures are to be derived true wisdom and godliness, the reformation and government of churches; as also instruction in all duties of piety; and, to be short, the confirmation of doctrines, and the rejection of all errors, moreover, all exhortations according to that word of the apostle, "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof," etc. (II Timothy 3:16-17). Again, "I am writing these instructions to you," says the apostle to Timothy, "So that you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God," etc. (I Timothy 3:14-15). SCRIPTURE IS THE WORD OF GOD. Again, the selfsame apostle to the Thessalonians: "When," says he, "You received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it, not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God," etc. (I Thess. 2:13) For the Lord himself has said in the gospel, "It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of my Father speaking through you"; therefore "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Matt. 10:20; Luke 10:16; John 13:20) "
While I will readily grant you that the term "verbal plenary inspiration" may well be a term coined in the last century, the concept it describes was espoused clearly well before that. The thread can be traced back to Polycarp, John's disciple. He stated, “The scriptures are perfect, inasmuch as they are uttered by the Word of God and His Spirit.”
I now understand why Sam Harris is a best-selling author
There's always a market for someone who will fortify the prejudices of ignoramuses whose education was a feast of grievance group theory, salted liberally with cliché.
Well, I don't think Manning's Corollary is true for me personally, although I freely admit I have seen some examples of it on CC recently.
Here's how I would state the difference:
Christian extremists want to radically change the American way of life, in ways the majority of Americans strongly oppose (IMHO).
Muslim extremists want to destroy the American way of life, in ways that could leave the majority of Americans dead.
And if anyone disagrees with me, they're acting like a National Socialist ...
(I'M KIDDING, I'M KIDDING, I'M KIDDING!!!!!!!!)
ds0490,
You seem to have jumbled up the belief that all of Scripture is inspired (historically universal among Christians) with a belief that Old Testament injunctions to violence are applicable in light of the New Testament.
You also seem to have jumbled up "verbal, plenary inspiration" with the dictation theory of scriptural inspiration (a theory which is almost universal in Islam but historically has been almost universally rejected by Christians).
Simon: "You also seem to have jumbled up "verbal, plenary inspiration" with the dictation theory of scriptural inspiration (a theory which is almost universal in Islam but historically has been almost universally rejected by Christians)."
Simon, you have asserted this, but I have yet to find any references to this particular view of the Quran from any Muslim source.
For example, here is one Muslim source regarding the inspiration of the Quran.
http://muslim-canada.org/quran_inspiration.html
The mode of inspiration described here sounds very much like the verbal-plenary inspiration described in the Chicago Statement. Can you offer some sources that help support your assertion to the contrary?
First of all, ds, you are obviously copying-and-pasting. Your amply-demonstrated incomprehension of Church doctrines and documents (see here) would preclude you thinking of or knowing these documents on their own.
Second of all, you're not knowledgeable enough to lecture Christians about what we think or the history of our thought. The fact you're citing Webster is really rather pathetic.
Third of all, none of the quotes you've copy-and-pasted do not say what you think they do.
(a) The Westminster Confession says (parenthetical clauses ellipsed by me) "The Old Testament in Hebrew ... and the New Testament in Greek ... being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages." That is not direct verbal plenary inspiration because it doesn't cover the scope of inspiration (the usual meaning of "plenary" in this context) and the very next sentence after the one I cited makes it clear that the Calvinists are not declaring the scope of inspiration to extend beyond "matters of religion," though the precise boundaries of that line have differed over Calvinism's several centuries. And neither (the relevant point for this thread) is this the Muslim view of the Koran, which is that God literally "wrote it." This latter is something no serious number of Christians, even the most-hyperfundamentalist, have EVER taught or believed.
(b) The Helvetic Confession ... well, I don't even see where you think this part of the document even addresses a doctrine of inspiration. It says "true Word of God" (check) and "sufficient authority of themselves, not of men. For God himself spoke to the fathers, prophets, apostles, and still speaks to us through the Holy Scriptures." That doesn't go into how He spoke or speaks. The phrase "the most complete exposition of all that pertains to a saving faith" and "teaches fully all Godliness" ... again, doesn't say how the exposition occurs or what the relationship is between God and Matthew, Paul, Peter, etc. "[C]ommanded ... that nothing be either added to or taken" is about how to handle the finished product (and thus presupposes it) and doesn't tell us how the product came to be finished.
You are too deeply confused to know the difference between a doctrine of scripture (which is what you've mostly been copying-and-pasting) and a doctrine of inspiration (the point at hand).
Victor Morton: Second of all, you're not knowledgeable enough to lecture Christians about what we think or the history of our thought. The fact you're citing Webster is really rather pathetic."
Thank you, Victor. If I understand your statements correctly, you have put forward an argument that says, in essence, that only a Christian who has a thorough working knowledge of the Catholic Church's doctrines, teachings, encyclicals, traditions, etc. has sufficient knowledge to criticize the religion or its adherents. Is that correct?
There's an extra negative in here too ... daggum, twice in a row:
Third of all, none of the quotes you've copy-and-pasted do not say what you think they do.
That should be either "the quotes ... do not say" or "none of the quotes ... say."
ds thinks I have said:
only a Christian who has a thorough working knowledge of the Catholic Church's doctrines, teachings, encyclicals, traditions, etc. has sufficient knowledge to criticize the religion or its adherents.
I have said no such thing.
I have said "some criticisms of the Catholic Church or Christians (or Islam, in principle) are so stupid that only people with very little knowledge are capable of making them."
Victor: "I have said "some criticisms of the Catholic Church or Christians (or Islam, in principle) are so stupid that only people with very little knowledge are capable of making them.""
Actually, what you said was "you're not knowledgeable enough to lecture Christians about what we think or the history of our thought."
I suspect that any Muslims reading this thread (and other recent anti-Muslim threads here) might say the same thing with regards to critics of their history and beliefs.
Sure, the average Muslim is more knowledgeable about Islam than is the average Christian or the average secularist (the latter being equally relevant here).
And if somebody says "Islam teaches that Jesus was divine" or "Muhammad's followers wrote the Koran" or "there are no schools of Islamic jurisprudence" -- which would be the approximate equivalents to what you've been cutting, pasting and spewing -- such a person would deserve contempt from Muslims and all others.
"Islam enjoins violence as a duty," "Islam holds non-Muslims fit for second-class citizenship at best," "Islam prescribes and details wife-beating and daughter-killing in some circumstances," "Islam teaches that God wrote the Koran" or "Islam has neither a magisterium nor a concept of limited inspiration" are not statements in that league.
but history shows us that Christianity self-corrected its errors as found in the spanish inquisition, salem witch trials and such LONG before secularism hit the scene...
Since the Inquisition and Witch Trials were going on in the 1600's and we know the Age of Reason(gasp secularism)! started in the 17th century...what was your point again?
However, it is recognized by this atheist the above has no basis in Christian theology, history, or scriptures and is therefore an aberration. Islam can make no such claims with respect to its violent tendencies.
aaron, Um Descartes (devout Catholic in a Protestant area), Immanuel Kant (argued for the necessity of belief in God in Critique of Pure Reason), Gottfried Leibniz (The universe exists in near perfection because it is God's creation - Théodicée), Francis Bacon ("a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion"), George Berkley (argued that God was always present and active as cause for all things) and most of the other influential enlightenment thinkers would all be QUITE suprised to find out that they were secularists and not the religious folks they concieved themselves to be. But thank you for confirming my assertation about being intellectually lazy and perpetually bigoted! But then again, you're probably one of those poor souls whose was taught to actually think that the church opposed Galelio for saying the earth wasn't the center of the universe. It's probably not your fault. All the same, however, you might want to take some time to persue a real education before making such silly comments again - just some friendly advise.
I think rebeccat's post above is evidence of the danger in posting on a thread before having your morning coffee. While Manning's Corollary (is the wikipedia page written yet?) is useful, my only fear is that it will be misapplied by Christians in misguided defensiveness. Ironically, if you go back to the passage between Daniel and Erin which gave birth to the corollary, Erin just a wee bit overreacted to what Daniel said. The corollary was misapplied in the first instance it was used! Let's all just calm down a lil' bit, mmkay?
rebeccat:
Although Leibniz was savagely (and, IMHO, accurately) vilified in Voltaire's "Candide."
"Ironically, if you go back to the passage between Daniel and Erin which gave birth to the corollary, Erin just a wee bit overreacted to what Daniel said. The corollary was misapplied in the first instance it was used!"
Maybe an antecedent to the corollary is "Mock outrage over actions by Muslims that are offered only to advance a specific anti-Muslim agenda lead to the corollary."
Oh, come now, Daniel. "Mock outrage?" Sorry, but when I hear of women having to live in hiding to avoid being killed by relatives, or of a young woman being strangled to death by her father for the crime of refusing to wear religious garb, my outrage is quite real.
And Insane Kitten, how did I overreact, exactly? If you go back and read any thread on this blog where Rod has posted about an incidence of violence linked to Islamic fundamentalism, you will see that the "But Christians are Bad People, too!" defense gets raised rather quickly, as if that has anything to do with the topic of violent Islamic fundamentalism.
What's really going on here is that some posters seem to believe that there's no such thing as "violent Islamic fundamentalism" and that any reporting on such incidences is only evidence of the bias of the reporter. As tempting as it is in our multicultural world to blame all appearances of violence on bias and discrimination, I think it's safe to say that certain types of violent crimes and protests are far more likely to occur among fundamentalist Muslims than any other group: when was the last time you heard of Christians murdering film directors they didn't like, or of Christians rioting in the streets over blasphemous New Yorker cartoons, or of Christians murdering their teenage daughters for refusing to wear specific clothing?
Now some on this board might say that only "secularism" keeps Christians from rioting, murdering half the residents of Hollywood, or taking to the streets to burn movie posters of "The Golden Compass" while lobbing rocks and bricks through the windows of theaters showing the film. Others imply that Christian efforts to restrict abortion are *exactly the same thing* as a formerly Muslim women facing mobs of men demanding the woman come out and be murdered for her apostasy. Still others hint that just as many people are killed by Christian fundamentalists as by Muslim ones over matters of religion, which is where the "demonstrably false" bit of the corollary came from. But all of these things are an effort to remain willfully blind to the problem of violent Islamic fundamentalism, which does exist however much some would like to deny it.
I misspoke. Not mock outrage. Manufactured outrage.
All the same, however, you might want to take some time to persue a real education before making such silly comments again - just some friendly advise.
Advise/advice, and you want to talk about my education?
Erin: "Others imply that Christian efforts to restrict abortion are *exactly the same thing* as a formerly Muslim women facing mobs of men demanding the woman come out and be murdered for her apostasy."
Dr. David Gunn
Dr. Garson Romalis
Dr. Hugh Short
Dr Jack Fainman
Dr Barnett Slepian
Dr John Britton
These are but six people who were shot (and in the case of Drs. Gunn, Britton and Slepian, killed) by Christians who believed they were acting in accordance to their religion's teachings.
We see at christiangallery.com the following statement regarding Paul Hill, a convicted and executed murderer:
"There was a brief flurry of abortuary destruction in the early part of the year (bringing joy to the hearts of those who pray for spiritual revival)...But it is bothersome to be reminded of the call God has placed upon the lives of others. Paul Hill has been sentenced to death. Apparently he was called [by God] to the sacrificial, public witness he made...Paul Hill was called to abort the abortionist, and his wife and children were called to suffer the loss of husband and father for righteousness sake...A righteous man, our brother in the Faith, has been sentenced to die for doing justice and showing mercy. He is to be executed for obedience to our Lord."
The Creator's Rights Party puts forward a violent agenda, Erin. The statement above is hosted by them on their website.
I share your anger at the father who killed his daughter in the name of Allah (as I have posted before). What you and Rod fail to realize is that we ALREADY HAVE AMONG US people who are resorting to violence in the name of their religion...Christianity.
Please tell me, Erin, what the difference is between Paul Hill and the father in Canada. Both acted in accordance with their religious beliefs. Both could justify their actions by turning to texts of their religion's scripture. And in both cases, people of their religion have said that they were wrong in acting as they did.
You are outraged at what might be coming towards us, Erin. I am outraged at what we are facing now. You fear the possibility of Islamic violence in our nation. I fear the reality of Christian violence in our nation.
We have had over 200 violent terrorist acts committed in the name of Christ in this nation since 1987, Erin. By violent I mean murders, attempted murders, bombings, or arson attacks (attempted or successful).
It's not a question of what Christians might do, Erin. It's a question of what Christians are doing. Given the opportunity, Christians and Muslims can and do resort to violence to advance their religious-political agendas.
You can bury your head in the sand, Erin. You and Rod can spend time posting every story you can find about Muslims committing atrocities while ignoring those committed by people who share your faith. But in all reality, we ARE facing religious based terrorism in this country from both Muslim and Christian sources, like it or not.
Isn't it interesting that Daniel is willing to judge my outrage as "manufactured"? I thought liberals were reluctant to judge other people's hearts--guess I was wrong.
And ds0490 (can I call you ds, by the way?) you're proving my point whether you see that or not: six people shot, three of them killed, by people who said they were acting as Christians--followed in each instance by a stampede of Christian leaders from *every* denomination, but especially the vocally pro-life ones, to disassociate Christianity from such violence, to insist that Christians don't condone these actions, to give concrete examples of Christian teaching which clearly opposes such actions, and the like.
Or consider those 200 murders in two decades. In some parts of the Islamic world 200 violent deaths is evidence of a really slow month.
Compare that for a moment to the carnage of 9/11, to the images of people in Muslim countries *celebrating* the fall of the Twin Towers, and tell me there's no difference between Christian "religious based terrorism" and violent Islamic fundamentalism. Tell me they're equal.
Erin: Compare that for a moment to the carnage of 9/11, to the images of people in Muslim countries *celebrating* the fall of the Twin Towers, and tell me there's no difference between Christian "religious based terrorism" and violent Islamic fundamentalism. Tell me they're equal."
Equal in magnitude...no. Equal in danger to the US...most definitely. And you demonstrate the reason why in your unwillingness to acknowledge ALL religious-based terrorism as a threat to the US way of life.
You point to the number of deaths (there were only three in that list, not six) and say that because the Muslim terrorists of 9/11 killed more, they are much worse. I point to the number of violent instances (0ver 200 from Christian perpetrators compared to less than 10 from Muslim perpetrators) and I say that while both are dangerous, we need to focus on the terror we have had for more than 20 years (Christian-based) instead of exerting all of our energy on the terrorism that is rising now.
Somehow you wish to ignore the Christian-based terror and emphasize only the Muslim-based terror. I'm at a loss as to why.
Sure, Erin, there is violent Islamic fundamentalism. But you know as well as I do that the purpose of such posts is not merely to report. "Behold! saith Rod. A Muslim has wrought violence upon his child. I say unto you it is bad, it is terrible!" If that was all there was to it, I'm sure we'd hear a meek chorus of "Yea, O Rod, it is terrible indeed." The purpose of these posts is to influence and persuade the hearers to certain attitudes and actions, not all of which are self-evidently wise, just, or beneficial to either Americans or Muslims.
It's not enough to decry Muslim violence. We also have to swear allegiance to The Program. I defy you to find a single respondent who wants to tolerate terroristic violence. However, there are a good many of us who would propose alternative ways to look at the problem, and possibly solve it. That's what is unacceptable to you.
Erin, the following Muslim clerics and scholars have issued statements condemning the terrorism that their fellow Muslims have done in the name of that religion.
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
Yes, I already know that you will not accept these condemnations. Perhaps others will, I don't know.
But let me share with you the reality that I (and others here in Iowa) face. You see, it's really difficult to find any Muslim terrorist groups operating in the open here...thankfully. For that matter, it's hard to find many Muslims here in Iowa at all, at least in this part of the state.
But, it's really easy to find Christian terrorists operating in the open, making preparations for possible future attacks. Let me introduce you to a few:
Dan Holman's Missionaries to the Unborn: http://www.armyofgod.com/danholman.html
This is Dan Holman, an anti-abortion, anti-gay activist who lives in Keokuk, just 45 minutes south of us. You can read his own words in the article to see where he is coming from. He was one of the protesters at Paul Hill's execution in Florida a few years ago.
http://www.armyofgod.com/PHillMessageBoard.html
“Even at the threshold of death he never wavered in his belief that the unborn were entitled to the same justifiable use of force as post-born children. He has set the standard of what being pro-life should mean. There is no one, including myself, who is as true a man as Paul Hill. I hope some day to be as true a man as he is.”
A number of friends of mine who have been active in the GLBT rights movement here in Iowa regularly receive mail from this fellow. A couple of them have seen him driving past their homes in the evening. It's hard to miss his van, Erin.
http://www.fullquivermission.com/images/Illinois_aborts_home_picket.jpg
The Western Illinois Militia - http://www.thezephyr.com/archives/militia.htm
This group covers about a 10 county area just across the river in Illinois. I know a few of the members...I used to attend church with them. They still go there, and two of them are on the board of that church. You can read the letter and judge for yourself if this group might be considered dangerous or not. I know from talking with the members that they are staunch conservative Christians, and that their political and philosophical views are based solidly in their theology. In 1999 Dan Shoemaker, the leader of the group, was arrested in Florida while trying to steal munitions from a National Guard armory.
The KKK
KKK recruitment is on the rise throughout the state, Erin. This is but one story from the media about flyer distribution and meetings.
http://www.ktiv.com/News/index.php?ID=3670
Flyers were distributed up in the Quad Cities earlier this year, just over an hour north of us. I'll trust you are sufficiently familiar with this group and will abstain from posting a link to any of their sites.
These are the potential terrorists I see on the horizon here in Iowa, Erin. These groups base their message on their interpretation of the Bible, and fuel their membership with the same religious-based fury and righteousness that fills the heart of any Islamic jihadist. While you and Rod are beating the drums against Muslim-based terrorism that is encroaching on our shores, many of us out here in the rest of the country are facing Christian-based terrorists working openly in our society. The police are well aware of these folks. Some friends of mine are ready in case Dan Holman decides to become a "hero" like Paul Hill and take out a GLBT activist or two. A clinic in Iowa City has been granted a court order forbidding him from coming close to their facility.
I guess my point in all of this, Erin, is that you point at groups of folks in far away lands dancing because over 3000 of our citizens were murdered in a terrorist act. I've posted a link to a cite that has gathered statements from a few dozen (maybe even a few hundred) members of the Muslim religion who condemn this action.
I have heard many Christian leaders condemn the violence of the pro-life movement's worst offenders. I accept their statements (even though no churches have made any public responses to Dan Holman's numerous "protests" here in SE Iowa) on face value.
Can you accept the statements of the Muslim scholars and leaders that I referred to on their face value?
"Isn't it interesting that Daniel is willing to judge my outrage as "manufactured"? I thought liberals were reluctant to judge other people's hearts--guess I was wrong."
Oh please. Such drama is proof of manufactured outrage.
Erin:
No, Muslim terrorists and the Religious Right are not of EQUAL threat to the U.S. Far from it.
But I'm not going to sit here with a straight face and tell you I think Christian extremists pose NO threat to the U.S., either.
Larry Parker: "But I'm not going to sit here with a straight face and tell you I think Christian extremists pose NO threat to the U.S., either."
As far as immediacy, I think the Christian extremists are years ahead of the Muslim extremists in getting their "boots on the ground" in our country. We need to be vigilant against all religious extremist groups, we cannot afford to focus on one (Muslim) at the exclusion of others (Christian).
ds0490:
You say that there have been over 200 terrorist acts perpetuated by Christians in the United States in the last twenty years. I agree that it's a tragedy. Then you say that in the same region and time period there have been less than ten terrorist acts by Muslims, and argue that the smaller number means that Christians are by far a greater threat. But it struck me as a little odd, because everyone claims that the Christian population is the overwhelming majority in the US, and so proportionately the difference in the crime numbers may not be as dramatic as you think. So I did a little looking, and found that the estimated adult population of US Christians in 2001 was a little over 159 million, and the total Christian population is about 75% of the entire US population. And at the same time, the estimated adult US Muslim population was a little over one million, and the total Muslim population is about half of one percent. I did a little math using your crime stats (where did you get those, anyway?) and the population stats that I found, and it would seem that Muslims in the United States are roughly nine times more likely to commit a terrorist act than Christians are. Funny how that works. So while I agree that that terrorist acts commited in the name of Christ are a cause for concern, the potential and actual terrorist acts commited by Muslims are slightly more worrisome.
Erin,
Silly girl. Haven't you read about the terrorist training camps secreted away on the Isle of Man? There the Anglican Church trains Christian murderers to storm America and destroy our 1st Amendment way of life! (They don't have free speech over there you know.)
Dewi: "I did a little math using your crime stats (where did you get those, anyway?) and the population stats that I found, and it would seem that Muslims in the United States are roughly nine times more likely to commit a terrorist act than Christians are."
The stats came from this website:
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/violence_statistics.html
Note that these only speak to anti-abortion related violence. It does not speak to other areas of violence (antisemitism, anti-gay, anti-Pagan, etc.). I confined my remarks to the anti-abortion issue, but would be happy to work with you to refine the numbers to include ALL acts of violence committed in the name of Christ. (Even bringing in Christianity-motivated attacks against gays...risking the wrath of Rod, I am certain.)
And Insane Kitten, how did I overreact, exactly? If you go back and read any thread on this blog where Rod has posted about an incidence of violence linked to Islamic fundamentalism, you will see that the "But Christians are Bad People, too!" defense gets raised rather quickly, as if that has anything to do with the topic of violent Islamic fundamentalism.
You're right-- what you say does happen too often. Happens on this blog all the time. But if you look back at the exchange I referred to, you assumed Daniel was violating the newly-coined corollary when in fact he did no such thing. He was merely saying, "let's not jump to conclusions about all Muslims because of this bad story inolving some Muslims" (if I may interpret what you said, Daniel.) Let's face it, that happens in these comboxes all the time as well.
"So while I agree that that terrorist acts commited in the name of Christ are a cause for concern, the potential and actual terrorist acts commited by Muslims are slightly more worrisome."
Can you tell me which candidate for President said this:
"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague."
"It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents."
And then, when confronted with these remarks, said:
"But I’m not going to recant or retract from the statement that I did make because, again, the point was not saying we ought to lock people up who have HIV/AIDS."
It wasn't a Muslim, but it is one of many reasons I view Christian fundamentalist extremists to be a greater threat to our American liberties than I do Muslim fundamentalist extremists. Had a Muslim candidate for office said this you would have folks on the Christian right fighting each other for the opportunity to be the first to denounce him.
ds0490,
Thank you for the prompt reply and the link. I haven't been following the entire conversation to this point, and didn't realise that it was limited to anti-abortion crimes. This does adjust the interpretation of my information, and now suggests that Muslims in the US are more hostile to abortion than Christians, or are more likely to act on that hostility, or both. I appreciate your offer to work on these numbers, but I have to focus my attention elsewhere in a few minutes. Perhaps another time?
I agree, by the way, that we can't afford to focus on one form of violent religious extremism to the exclusion of others. But, as a parting thought, what can we legally do regarding any of these groups and individuals before an actual crime has been committed?
ds0490,
Thank you for the prompt reply and the link. I haven't been following the entire conversation to this point, and didn't realise that it was limited to anti-abortion crimes. This does adjust the interpretation of my information, and now suggests that Muslims in the US are more hostile to abortion than Christians, or are more likely to act on that hostility, or both. I appreciate your offer to work on these numbers, but I have to focus my attention elsewhere in a few minutes. Perhaps another time? (And, as I have just noticed you have posted again, I apologise that I can't take the time to reply to it at the moment.)
I agree, by the way, that we can't afford to focus on one form of violent religious extremism to the exclusion of others. But, as a parting thought, what can we legally do regarding any of these groups and individuals before an actual crime has been committed?
Gah, Internal Server Error double post..
Equal in danger to the US...most definitely. And you demonstrate the reason why in your unwillingness to acknowledge ALL religious-based terrorism as a threat to the US way of life.
Fascinating. Entirely out of touch with reality, but fascinating.
What you have managed to do is cobble together a list of links of splinter/fringe groups, uniformly condemned by Christians across a spectrum, including myself. I was glad when Paul Hill got the death sentence, for the record. It was just. I'd admire your restraint in not throwing in the Phelps cult, but it must have been an oversight.
OTOH, Wahhabism has been, and is fueled (rimshot!) by billions of petrodollars and our insane relationship with the Saudi theocracy. Unless your local mosque is Shia or Sufi, more likely than not it is affiliated with a Saudi-funded organization, or Saudi-influenced Pakistanis. When your Christian fringers get their hands on comparable cash backing and control a large and growing network of churches and Christian universities around the country, give me a call. Until then, you are engaging in a remarkably tired and odious form of moral equivalence. We're not motivated by the fact people in faraway lands are celebrating the slaughter of 3000 of our fellow citizens. We're motivated by the fact that Islamic terrorists slaughtered 3000 of us. In response, you point to the corpse of Paul Hill, long since justly executed by the State of Florida for his odious crime.
The first link on your Muslim anti-terrorism board is by CAIR. I'm unimpressed. CAIR steadfastly refuses to call either Hezbollah or Hamas terrorist organizations. The rest of the statements are of mixed value, coming from some (like Qaradawi) who have excused hideous violence in other contexts).
The coddling of Hezbollah is significan, in that that terrorist movement inspired Hussein Zorkot, arrested in a Metropolitan Detroit park armed to the teeth a couple of months back:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/original/1007/1602_war_room_houssein_zorkot.html
Consider the case of Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Reza_Taheri-azar
The shooting at LAX:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesham_Mohamed_Hadayet
The Seattle Jewish Federation shooting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Jewish_Federation_shooting
Then there's the growing numbers of young American Muslims supporting suicide bombings...but why pile on?
Dan Holman sounds like a real POS. I hope he's jailed. But he and his fellow travelers have a much lower body count in our country since 2001.
By all means, focus on the statistically tiny and declining phenomenon of fringe "Christians" committing violence and call that the equivalent of 9/11 and the sudden jihad moments since. I know a hater when I read one.
Dewi: "This does adjust the interpretation of my information, and now suggests that Muslims in the US are more hostile to abortion than Christians, or are more likely to act on that hostility, or both."
The numbers I used for the instances of Christian violence were limited to anti-abortion only. The number of instances of Muslim violence were not limited to only anti-abortion.
"But, as a parting thought, what can we legally do regarding any of these groups and individuals before an actual crime has been committed?"
Precious little in all honesty. Is it illegal to talk about overthrowing the government or attacking a government building? If so, then Pat Robertson should be arrested for suggesting that someone should nuke the State Department.
Talk is not action. Actions should be sanctioned. Conspiracy to commit violence against our nation is more than simply a group of folks sitting around discussing doing it. It involves actions taken to bring that plan to fruition, whether it be procuring the materials/weapons necessary, or moving operatives into place to carry out the actions.
We also need to move away from focusing on one particular ethnic group or religious group. The perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing were white males who affiliated with militia groups in the US. I recall in the hours after that bombing there were rumors going around that this was a Muslim attack. Even after what we know today, the rumors continue.
http://www.rense.com/general9/laden.htm
It's really easy to demonize groups of people who are different than us. In doing so we actually open ourselves up to attacks from those who we would normally trust, folks who look/believe/talk like us.
What can we do legally? Be vigilant, punish actions, and stop burying our heads in the sand with the belief that it's folks like "them" not folks like us who provide the greatest threat to our liberties. It takes some soul-searching in order to abandon the prejudices we have, but it's the only thing that will truly help us avoid the danger that religious extremism of ALL forms poses to our nation.
ds:
I'll give you, Huck was more of a "huckster" in his AIDS comments ...
Larry Parker: "I'll give you, Huck was more of a "huckster" in his AIDS comments ..."
Can you imagine the uproar such remarks would create on this blog if they had been uttered by Rep. Keith Ellison, a Muslim?
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.