Wall Street Opinion Journal JAMES TARANTO Thursday, May 5, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
Secular liberals show open contempt for traditionalists.
I am not a Christian, or even a religious believer, and my opinions on social issues are decidedly middle-of-the-road. So why do I find myself rooting for the “religious right”? I suppose it is because I am put off by self-righteousness, closed-mindedness, and contempt for democracy and pluralism–all of which characterize the opposition to the religious right.
One can disagree with religious conservatives on abortion, gay rights, school prayer, creationism and any number of other issues, and still recognize that they have good reason to feel disfranchised. This isn’t the same as the oft-heard complaint of “anti-Christian bigotry,” which is at best imprecise, since American Christians are all over the map politically. But those who hold traditionalist views have been shut out of the democratic process by a series of court decisions that, based on constitutional reasoning ranging from plausible to ludicrous, declared the preferred policies of the secular left the law of the land.
For the most part, the religious right has responded in good civic-minded fashion: by organizing, becoming politically active, and supporting like-minded candidates. This has required exquisite discipline and patience, since changing court-imposed policies entails first changing the courts, a process that can take decades. Even then, “conservative” judges are not about to impose conservative policies; the best the religious right can hope for is the opportunity to make its case through ordinary democratic means.
Why I am disturbed by the Religious Right:
1) The moral priorities of the religious right are not aligned with the moral priorities of Jesus Christ.
Jesus spent much of His time teaching us that we should ease the suffering and poverty of our neighbors and very little scolding us on our sexual behavior. There are vaild moral reasons for opposing abortion, and questioning Gay marriage but they should not be the exclusive focus of our moral concerns, as they apparently are for the religious right.
2) The religious right doesn’t uphold a Consistent Ethic of Life.
The religious right is indifferent to many moral issues related to the dignity and sanctity of human life. The religious right has failed to speak out against unnecessary wars of aggression that cause untold death and suffering. It has ignored to the continued destruction and degradation of God’s creation, our environment. It has failed to speak up for those socio-economically disenfranchised human beings in America and elsewhere in the world trapped in rigid structures of poverty.
3) The religious right seeks the destruction of important separations of Church and State that would protect Christians if they ever became a minority, from the coercion and influence of another religious majority.
Additionally the religious right would overturn the clause in the US Consitution that forbids the imposition of a “religion test” on holders of public office.
4) The religious right seeks to misrepresent principles based faith as “science”.
In order for knowledge to be taught as science it must be tested and confirmed using scientific method which involve hypothesis, experimentation, and evidence-based conclusions. A body of knowlege that cannot be validated using the scientific method is not science, but should be taught by a different discipline, such as Literature, Theology or Comparative Religion.
5) The religious right has an anti-intellectual bias and seeks to quash all forms of philosophical inquiry and intelectual scrutiny by demonizing it as “moral relativism”.
The Socratic questioning of assumptions and the deconstruction of ideas are important intellectual tools for understanding theological and philospohical concepts. The religious right insists that there is only one set of moral absolutes of which they are the guardians and everyone else who attempts to examine these “absolutes” are “relativists.”
6) The religious right has aligned itself with fascist and plutocratic interests.
Christ taught us that every human being is loved by God and has dignity. The religious right on the other hand has supported policies designed to protect a wealthy powerdul minority at the expense of the majority. The religious right has every Bush administration initiatives attacking and weakening the economic security of the middle class, while lowereing the taxes of the rich and providing hundreds of billions in new corpotate welfare.
7) The religious right teaches religious bigotry and promotes religious hatred.
Followers of Islam are pious and devout people who believe in the same God as we do, and follow many of the same ethical imperitatives. We should be reaching out to them and seeking reconciliation. Instead, the religious right spares no opportunity to slander, insult and threaten members of that faith, feeding their already dangerous paranoia, fear and anxiety regarding the intentions of the West.
8) The religious right has cheapened and debased the moral authority of Christianity
Like prostitutes under a streetlamp who sell their honor, the religuious right has sold the name of the founder of our faith, Jesus Christ, to those political and financial interests that would use it as a marketing tool and prop to advance agendas that have nothing to do with, and are even opposed to the agenda of Christ. As an example, Ralph Reed former chairman of the Christian Coalition used that organization to oppose the licensing of several new Indian casinos that would have competed with other Indian Casinos that were clients of his friend Jack Abramoff and himself.
I’m so glad that Dean was able to vent his spleen, to release, for a few moments, his absolute hatred of religious conservatives.
In his amazing list the religious right are “prostitutes”, “bigots”, “fascists”, “anti-intellectuals”, “liars”, “indifferent to suffering”, “dangerous paranoids”, “slanderers” … lets see, what am I missing? … Oh, I almost forgot: “theocrats” who spit in the face of Jesus Christ.
Wow … why aren’t these guys (they are almost always guys, aren’t they, Dean?) simply rounded up and sent off to concentration camps somewhere in Idaho? What right-thinking (right in the terms of being properly Progressive, i.e., Leftist) nation would stand for such a dangerous group of wacked-out radicals wandering around free?
Dean writes, “Christ taught us that every human being is loved by God and has dignity.” The religious right may be loved by God, but they are despised by Dean (unless, of course, Dean thinks they are simply not human beings. In which case, even God hates the religious right).
Here are 153 organizations compiled by the Acton Institute, an organization that would be characterized by Dean as being part of the religious right, that help the sick, the suffering, the poor, the hungery, and the imprisoned. This represents just those groups that know about and have registered with the Acton database. I have little doubt that this is just the tip of the iceberg of groups Dean would consider part of or sympathetic with the religious right.
When Dean charges that the religious right are nothing more than a bunch of greedy, self-serving rich people who will step on you as soon as look at you, he is perpetrating an offensive lie. Is that not a violation of “the moral priorities of Jesus Christ”? Or is lying in order to advance one’s agenda a “moral priority” that I don’t know about?
You can’t assert that Christians and Muslims “believe in the same God” unless you give the Koran sacred status. If you give the Koran sacred status, you are Muslim.
I doubt that logic will avail here but let’s give it a try.
A Muslim, by definition, is someone who believes that the Koran is the direct Word of God dictated by the angel Gabriel to Mohammed. There really does not exist any “revisionist” school of Islam, by which I mean that there does not exist any Islamic scholar who disagrees with the fundamental assertion that the Koran was dictated by the Angel Gabriel. The debates about the Koran arise as to which sections may have been abrogated by later sections OR which sections are limited to the particular historical period in which Mohammed lived. There are also debates about specific applications of general principles. There is no debate about the idea that every word of the Koran was dicated to Mohammed by the Angel Gabriel. There are debates about various individual Hadith, the sayings and teaching of Mohammed as collected and recorded by his companions or later scholars. The Hadith were set to writing or collected by humans, the Koran is the dictation of Allah’s word through the Angel Gabriel. Muslims are very clear as to the distinction between the Koran and the Hadith, althoug the Hadith are very important to Islamic society.
One cannot be Muslim without affirming that the Koran is the unalterable Divine Word of God and that Mohammed was the conduit of the Divine Word of God. The Koran directly states that Christians and Jews were recipients of God’s Word BUT that the Christian and Jewish Scriptures are corrupt. It is truly sad that someone who calls himself a Christian, an Orthodox Christian also, does not understand the unalterable hostility of Islam to Christianity. It denies the Lorship of Jesus unequivocably. Muslims are very, very clear in their understanding, they do not believe that they worship the same God as Christians.
One cannot state that Muslims worship the same God without become a Muslim. One cannot state that Muslims worship the same God without denying the Lorship of Christ. Islam is a successionist religion. It teaches that it is Religion 3.0 and that Christianity was Religion 2.0 and Judaism was Religion 1.0. The Koran states that Jewish and Christian Scriputres were suceeded and made irrelevant by Islam. The only way you can with any intellectual consistency claim to worship the same God as Muslims is to BE a Muslim and give sacred value to the Koran.
Dean also does not understand the status of Mohammed in Islam. Mohammed is considered to by the Perfect Man and ALL of his actions are considered worthy of imitation. Nothing Mohammed did or said can be challenged or questioned in Islam. Mohammed was a tyrant who ordered the torture and assassination of a poet who mocked him as well as his military opponents. He is responsible for organizing military campaigns in which he directed his warriors to totally subjugate and plunder their opponents. Peoples conquered by armies lead by Mohammed raped captive women and made them slaves, plundered all valuables and slaughtered any part of the population that they couldn’t profitably enslave.
If you were to criticize any action of Mohammed in a public forum in Pakistan today, you would probably not survive. You would probably be arrested under the blasphemy laws or killed by a mob.
Dean’s lack of knowledge of the theology and history of Islam is truly breathtaking. I would suggest Bat Ye’or and Dhimmitude for starters.
Daniel: These wild generalizations are seen on both sides of the religious and political spectrum, and neither side is immune from hysterical tirades. Ann Coulter would have us believe that liberals should be tried (and executed?) for treason, and Pat Robertson has labeled “activist judges” as “more dangerous to America than Al-Qaida”. Then we have politicians in Alabama trying to ban Shakespeare and Tennessee Williams (too “gay-friendly” apparently).
The fact is that there are extreme elements to any ideology. The problem is that people have grown to so dislike each other that they refuse to even listen to a reasonable argument when presented. Personally, I find Ms. Coulter’s potty-mouthed personality just a tish unpleasant (and I’m not sure her attire could be considered “modest apparel” for a supposedly Christian woman). Nevertheless, I am quite capable of agreeing with her on many things.
I guess I’m saying it would be nice to return to a respectable level of discourse in America. Alas, an actual debate on ideas would not be as lively and fun (or garner as much publicity) as openly expressed hostility, best exemplified by that great American spectator sport: Pro Wrestling.
Note 4. Reading Bat Ye’or is an excellent recommendation.
Eastern Christians Torn Asunder: Challenges new and old
Eurabia: Interview with Bat Ye’or
Introduction to “The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam”
A Christian-Muslim Exchange: The Approaching Century of Religion
Dean, demonizing political opponents doesn’t work anymore. It’s preaching to the choir. Concrete, substantive, ideas carry the day.
NOTE 5: “The fact is that there are extreme elements to any ideology.” SO WHAT?!?
Since Dean is the one who posted his hatefilled nonsense here, lets deal with just that, OK, James? Would that be possible?
So tell, me James, what in Dean’s post do you consider “reasonable argument?” Don’t give me a lecture on Ann Coulter or Pat Roberston or politicians in Alabama.
Try and focus “like a laser beam”, as Michael Medved likes to say. Which element in Dean’s list do you consider a “reasonable argument” against the religious right?
JamesK
Which aspect, if any, of my post do you disagree with? You should note that I actually own a six volume copy of the Bukhari Hadith. It was translated into English by a British Muslim publishing house for the use of English speaking converts.
A Pious and Devout People who deny Others Equal Rights
Dean writes:
7) The religious right teaches religious bigotry and promotes religious hatred.
Followers of Islam are pious and devout people who believe in the same God as we do, and follow many of the same ethical imperitatives. We should be reaching out to them and seeking reconciliation. Instead, the religious right spares no opportunity to slander, insult and threaten members of that faith, feeding their already dangerous paranoia, fear and anxiety regarding the intentions of the West
******************************************
Missousrian: Dean makes no mention of the terrible conditions under which Christians in the Middle East live right now. Let’s start with Egypt. Copts are a second class of citizen in Egpyt even though Coptic civilization in Egypt pre-dates the Muslim invastion by 700 years. Copts are not allowed religious freedom. Coptic churches, seminaries and organizations are subject to constant harassment. Egyptians must carry a card identifying their religion and Copts are commonly and openly kept in second class status in Egypt. This is not de facto discrimination this is de jure discrimination. In other words, written Egyptian law makes Copts second class. This is the “devout and pious” group Dean admires.
Let us also look to Nigeria where our Christian brothers and sisters (mainly traditional Anglicans) are living under terrible oppression in the Islamic North of the country.
What about Iraq? Iraq has a very old Christian society and Christian women who do not veil in public are beginning to be attacked by Al-Sadr and his gang. Christian are very insecure in Iraq.
What about Iran? They still stone women in Iran?
Why is it that Muslims can engage in the most horrific conduct in Muslim majority countries and the religious and cultural Left of this country never mentions it?
Dean doesn’t like stance of the Religious Right on Gay Sex but he wants dialogue with Muslims
Dean, what are you ingesting? Ask any Muslim, whether here in the United States or in a Muslim country. The teaching of Islam regarding homosexual conduct is that it justifies a death warrant. This isn’t a medieval holdover, this is the law of Egypt and Jordan.
Jordan has a special exemption for honor killings. Kill your sister because she flirted with someone and you get about 6 months in jail.
What about the mistreatment of Orthodox in Turkey? What about Armenian genocide that Turkey is trying to wash down the memory hole?
Dean you are really, really out of touch with reality.
What the Pious and Devout are Doing in Sudan
“Sudan editor denies Prophet slur,” from the BBC, with thanks to Vista:
From the BBC:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4520655.stm
A Sudanese Islamist newspaper editor has said charges against him for allegedly questioning the parentage of the Prophet Muhammad are a “joke”.
Mohamed Taha Mohamed Ahmed told the BBC that he had merely written an essay to dispute such allegations by medieval historian al-Maqrizi.
Angry crowds protested outside the court where he appeared this week, demanding that he be put to death.
Those who renounce Islam can face the death penalty in Sudan.
What the People Dean Describes as Pious and Devout as Doing in Afghanistan
Note the “mullah who sanctioned the killing” Oh yes, let us dialogue with these people, by all means.
From ABC News:http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=731715
KABUL, Afghanistan May 5, 2005 ? The United Nations sounded an alarm for women’s rights in Afghanistan on Thursday after three young Afghan women were found raped, hanged and dumped on a roadside with a warning not to work for foreign relief organizations.
Women’s groups rallied in the capital to protest the killings, which came weeks after another woman was murdered for alleged adultery examples of brutality that appear to have survived the fall of the Taliban.
The bodies of the women were found Sunday in Baghlan province, 120 miles north of Kabul, and officials and doctors said they had been raped and hanged. A note found with the bodies said they were killed for working for international aid groups.
“While there is no confirmation that this was the case or the actual motive of the killing, this could constitute a threat to women working for non-governmental organizations, which (the U.N.) strongly condemns,” U.N. spokeswoman Ariane Quentier said.
“In a context where violence against women remains too often unprosecuted and unpunished, it is particularly important that the authorities spare no effort to bring swiftly the perpetrator of this crime to justice,” she said.
Police arrested a woman and two men in the killings.
Afghan officials said one of the slain women, identified only as Mahbooba, had worked for a Bangladeshi relief group. However, the group’s managers denied any link to the victims.
Officials said the note, which accused the women of prostitution, was signed by a previously unknown “Youth Movement.”
In the adultery case, authorities said Mohammed Aslam, a resident of a remote village in Badakhshan province killed his daughter Amina after she was caught in the house of a man other than her husband.
Officials say 13 people have been arrested in the case, including at least one mullah who allegedly sanctioned the killing of the 22-year-old woman.
A group of 26 Afghan women’s organizations staged a protest in a Kabul park Thursday to protest the killings and urge President Hamid Karzai to make sure authorities end “outdated customs and beliefs” behind decades of violence against women.
What Islam Requires in Afghanistan: It took Two Hours to Kill Her, Dean
Washington Post
According to sharia law, a woman who either committed adultery or who was suspected of adultery was buried up to her waist in the ground with her hands constrained by her side. Villagers took turns throwing rocks at her head. It took two hours to kill her. ….. Let’s dialogue with these people, Dean.
Comments from relatives after the death:
Unlike the feelings of his wife Nessa, Aslam’s anger at Amina had by now given way to sorrow.
“I feel so sad for her. She was so young,” he said, as his eyes grew glassy with tears. “I really miss her now. . . . I will miss her voice, and our conversations in the evenings.”
There was much he wished he could go back and change. “If only she had told me that she did not want to go back to her husband,” he said. “I would have done something about it. I would have counseled her.”
But he said he harbored no doubt that she deserved to die after she admitted to committing adultery.
“There was no option. This is what Islam commands us.”
His only regret was having given Amina over to the village rather than killing her himself.
What the Dean’s Pious and Devout and TOLERANT Muslims are Doing in Malaysia:
Here is what the “pious and devout Muslims” who dominate Malaysia are doing these days. Extending TOLERANCE TO CHRISTIANS? Not quite. They are arresting Christians “suspected” of promoting Christianity. Please note that America Muslims have free reign to build mosque after mosque after mosque in America, and Dean lectures us on their piety and devotion. Time for dialogue Dean, why don’t you go to Malaysia and start one. Tell the Malaysian Muslim majority that they “misunderstand Islam and its tolerance for other religions.” I will be waiting for you here in the U.S.
From: Catcha. com.
Malaysian police arrest two Americans suspected of promoting Christianity
KUALA LUMPUR, April 27 (AFP) – Malaysian police arrested two Americans for allegedly distributing Christian religious pamphlets to Muslims, police said Wednesday. The two men were detained on Monday and a local court had ordered them to be held for 14 days to assist in investigations, a police spokesman told AFP.
“We want to find out if they had breached any regulations in Malaysia,” he said.
It is an offence in mainly-Muslim Malaysia to try to convert Muslims away from their faith.Another police official named the two men as Ricky Ruperd, in his 30s, and Zachry Harris, in his 20s. The official Bernama news agency said they were arrested for distributing pamphlets with religious content at Malaysia’s new administrative capital Putrajaya, 50 kilometers (31 miles) south of here.
Putrajaya police chief Mohamad Khalil Kadir Mohamad said the men were detained during routine checks by police and and were found to be without any travel documents.A spokesman for the US embassy confirmed the detentions but would give no further details. Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said earlier this month there was no ban on Bibles published in the Malay language but they must be stamped with the words “Not for Muslims”. He was responding to questions after a minister told parliament the government did not allow editions of the Bible published in Malay to be distributed as it could be construed as an effort to spread Christianity among Muslim-Malays.
Some 60 percent of Malaysia’s population are Muslims, while there are large ethnic-Chinese and Indian minorities who practice other religions including Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism.
What Dean’s Pious, Devout and TOLERANT Muslims are doing today in Australia?
Rape victims have it coming because they don’t cover themselves with Islamic hijab or bhurka. Pious, devout and TOLERANT they would love to DIALOGUE with Dean.
Your reference:
http://www.smh.com.au
Muslim cleric: women incite men’s lust with ‘satanic dress’
By Miranda Devine
April 24, 2005
The Sun-Herald
A Muslim sheik told followers at a public meeting in Bankstown that women who were raped had incited men’s lust by dressing immodestly and only had themselves to blame.
Sydney-born Sheik Faiz Mohamad, 34, a former boxer who teaches at the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool, made the comments during a lecture for more than 1000 people at Bankstown Town Hall.
The Sun-Herald has a recording of the March 18 speech in which Sheik Faiz said: “A victim of rape every minute somewhere in the world. Why? No one to blame but herself. She displayed her beauty to the entire world . . .
“Strapless, backless, sleeveless, nothing but satanic skirts, slit skirts, translucent blouses, miniskirts, tight jeans: all this to tease man and appeal to his carnal nature.”
He compared a woman dressed in such a way to a sheep. “Would you put this sheep that you adore in the middle of hungry wolves? No . . . It would be devoured. It’s the same situation here. You’re putting this precious girl in front of lustful, satanic eyes of hungry wolves. What is the consequence? Catastrophic devastation, sexual harassment, perversion, promiscuity.”
The invitation to the $15-a-head lecture stipulated modest dress and “strict male and female segregation”. It was promoted as a lecture about “death” in flyers and on the website of the ICRA Youth Centre in Lidcombe, an Islamic community group which sponsored the evening.
The ICRA and Faiz’s Global Islamic Youth Centre have broken away from the Lakemba Mosque, the main place of worship for Sydney’s Lebanese Muslims, because, a former associate says, Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali, 64, is too moderate.
Sheik Faiz also exhorted Muslim women to wear the hijab head covering as “a liberation from male scrutiny”.
“It’s sad to see today how young girls are being brought up,” he said. “The way they dress, their hairstyles . . . layers of make-up, which they just shovel on in order to remove afterwards, tanning out in the sun, bronzed, shiny so she can shine the lustful eyes of men; extreme dieting, working out. Why? So she can get the best figure, but not for her husband.”
He also condemned the soap opera Days Of Our Lives, which he said made wives negative towards their husbands, and said “premarital sex is fashionable, that manipulation, deceit, cheating, lying falsehood are all essential ways to get the man or lady of your dreams”.
Sheik Faiz declined to be interviewed.
But Missuourian, didn’t you read James comments, “there there are extreme elements to any ideology.” Why just the other day I heard a card carrying member of the religious right say that homosexual behavior is immoral and sinful, and that he prayed that homosexuals might be blessed by God with the strength to resist the temptation to sin. Surely this is on the same moral plane with stoning a woman to death over the course of 2 hours.
Freedom Granted Pakistani Catholic by Pious, Devout and TOLERANT Muslims in Pakistan
Apparently Pakistani Muslims who want Christians to “remain subservient” have MISUNDERSTOOD ISLAM. Dean, another mission, go to Pakistan and explain how TOLERANT Islam is, don’t wear a cross though.
http://www.cathnews.com/news/504/146.php
Young Pakistani Catholic in critical condition after assault
A young Catholic man who was attacked and reportedly left for dead is in critical condition in a hospital in northeastern Pakistan.
AsiaNews reports that Shahbaz Masih, 24, was attacked on Saturday. His assailants, allegedly by young Muslim men from his village, left him in a field, thinking he was dead. Both his legs were broken, but he survived and was taken to the public hospital in Mandi Bahaud Din. Shahbaz lives in Mandi Bahaud Din district, 175 kilometers south of Islamabad.
Fr Rehmat Hakim, the local parish priest, said that 20-25 Christian families live in the predominantly Muslim village. They own houses but do not have land for cultivation, so they earn their living mainly as agricultural workers for Muslim landlords.
Shahbaz drove a tractor for a Muslim landlord who was very kind to the young man, which Fr Hakim said did not go well with some Muslims who want Christians to remain subservient and dependent.
This same group, he continued, is unhappy that Christians attend school and do well in their studies.
“Last year one boy got a mark of 70% in the matriculation examination, while another was first in computer science at the local university,” he noted.
According to local Christians, some months ago the local Muslim religious leader announced through the mosque loudspeaker that if Christian boys get educated, there will be no workers left to till the land.
Christians in the village are fearful of another attack. The Minority Rights Commission of Pakistan, a private organisation, has condemned the attack on Shahbaz and demanded that the government immediately arrest the culprits
Note 17 Daniel Islam is Just Misunderstood
As this stories document, Daniel, Islam is just MISUNDERSTOOD by so many people who live in Egypt, Nigeria, Jordan ( a full year in jail for killing a female relative!!), Malaysia and so many other places!!!. Dean has got a lot of corrective instruction to hand out to those Muslims.
Pious, Devout and TOLERANT Muslims arrest Iranian Christian
Your reference: khaleejtimes.com
Dean, you wil have to visit this guy in prison to explain to him how TOLERANCE, pioius and devout Muslims are. Obviously, people in Iran MISUNDERSTAND Islam!!
Iranian Christian Faces Death Penalty for Apostasy
Printer Friendly Version (CSW) An Iranian church leader, who is already in prison, faces the death penalty if he is found guilty by a shari’ah court.
Hamid Pourmand, 47, is scheduled to go before a shari’ah court in Bandar-i-Bushehr next week on charges of apostasy from Islam and seeking to spread the Christian gospel among Muslims. The former charge is punishable by death.
Pourmand, who was a Colonel in the Iranian army, was also a lay leader of the Assemblies of God church in Bandar-i-Bushehr, a southern port city in Iran. He was arrested along with 85 other church leaders at the annual meeting of the AOG church in Iran on Sept. 9, 2004 in Keraj. According to Middle East Concern and Compass Direct, he was the only one not to be released shortly after being arrested.
On Feb. 16 he was charged before a military court with deceiving the Iranian armed forces about his conversion nearly 25 years ago. Non-Muslims are not allowed to become officers in the army, but Pourmand provided evidence to the court that his superiors knew about his faith. This evidence was rejected as false and Pourmand was sentenced to three years in prison with the loss of all benefits. This meant losing his 20-year army pension and home and now his wife and two children have been evicted and have no source of income.
He is currently in a group cell at Evin maximum security Prison in Tehran. He is the first Iranian convert to be charged with apostasy since 1993. CSW is working with other NGOs to raise his case with the UK Foreign Office, the UN and the EU.
“Hamid Pourmand has already been stripped of his freedom and his job, and his family has been made destitute,” said Stuart Windsor, national director of Christian Solidarity Worldwide. “He now faces a death sentence if the shari’ah court finds him guilty. CSW calls on the international community to do all it can to put pressure on the Iranian authorities to safeguard his life.”
Fr. Hans writes: “Dean, demonizing political opponents doesn’t work anymore. It’s preaching to the choir. Concrete, substantive, ideas carry the day.”
Seems to me that Dean was merely responding to the article in the style of the article. The article closes the first paragraph by noting the “self-righteousness, closed-mindedness, and contempt for democracy and pluralism – all of which characterize the opposition to the religious right” — hardly neutral language.
Speaking of the religious right, did anyone note Laura Bush’s performance at the press corps dinner? I listened to the Michael Savage show the day after and he was beside himself over it. “Liberals have taken over the White House,” and so on, was his take.
I spoke to a friend to has some sense of political theater, and his interpretation is that the White House is trying to send a message to the non-religious non-right that they (White House) are really just folks, not part of the religions right after all. My friend’s theory is that the White House realizes that they have overstepped with the Schiavo case and the “nuclear option,” and the president is going down in the polls as a result.
So it may be that the religious right has already gotten everything it’s going to get out of this administration. How else to interpret the comedy routine, written by a long-time speech writer and delivered by the First Lady, that has her watching Desperate Housewives, Lynne Cheney and Condi Rice going to strip clubs, and the president “milking” a male horse?
Pious Devout and TOLERANT European Muslims Promote Free Exchange of Ideas in Europe
“Security concerns” prompted people to STOP SHOWING THE FILM. Pray tell, what would those “security concerns be?” Who should they be afraid of?
EP bans screening of ‘Submission’
20 April 2005
AMSTERDAM ? The European Parliament (EP) has banned the showing of Theo van Gogh’s film ‘Submission’ following a refusal by the murdered filmmaker’s production company to allow its screening.
Legal concerns persuaded the EP on Wednesday to ban the screening after Column Produkties told the parliament on Tuesday that because of security concerns, it would not allow the film to be shown.
The producers want to avoid any risk to the people involved in the film and Gijs van de Westelaken of Column Produkties has also said no official request has been made to allow the screening.
The film, made with Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali, criticises Islam and the Koran for allegedly
sanctioning domestic violence against Muslim women.
Mario Borghezio, an MEP for the Italian right-wing Lega Nord party, planned to show the 10-minute film at the EP as a tribute to Van Gogh.
Borghezio has an unauthorised copy of the film and said the EP will be a “fitting response to the silence surrounding ‘Submission’ and Theo van Gogh’s sacrifice”.
Van Gogh was assassinated in Amsterdam last November and a Dutch-Moroccan man, Mohammed B., 27, has been arrested for the murder.
Muslims Display Respect for Women’s Rights
From Jihad Unspun
Dean, more work for you. Contact these people and tell them that they MISUNDERSTAND ISLAM!!! Gosh, you have big job.
The jihadist publication Jihad Unspun has published a highly tendentious article about women, Islam, and the West by Yamin Zakaria, a gentleman living in the UK who also writes frequently for Al-Jazeera:
Like secularism, capitalism and democracy, women’s rights also flows from the West to the rest. The various tentacles of the UN are dedicated to propagating women’s rights as universal values. It seems odd that universal values would require external effort to cajole nations into compliance! The issue (women’s rights) is predominantly raised to attack Islam and Muslims, even though it may be more applicable to other religions and cultures that indicate the ulterior motive behind the issue is one of making political gains against adversaries not the welfare of womankind.
Gosh, and here I didn’t realize that my right to work in a profession of my choice, my right to vote, to serve in political office, to drive, even, was just a ruse on the part of the government…. just something to attack Islam with. Wow!!
Honor Killings: Muslims contribution to Dutch Diversity
From expatica: expatica.com
Man suspected of honour killing of sister
15 April 2005
AMSTERDAM ? An Iraqi-Kurdish man, 21, is suspected of murdering his sister, 18, to protect the honour of the family, a court in Arnhem heard on Friday.
During a pre-trial hearing, the presiding judge indicated the court wanted to question the victim’s foster mother and aunt to establish if the killing was ordered by her family in Iraq.
The foster mother is in hiding because she fears the family in Iraq wants to punish her for giving the victim too much freedom.
The court has also ordered that the accused man from Culemborg be examined in the Pieter Baan psychiatric centre in Utrecht to find out if his cultural background played a role in the crime. An expert in
‘honour’ killings will also testify at a later hearing.
The victim was a non-practising Muslim and had a child in 2004 by her non-Muslim boyfriend. She was killed 15 days after the birth of the baby.
Her brother had allegedly regularly threatened the victim, and she had made a complaint to police in November 2004, shortly before her death.
[Copyright Expatica News 2005]
I could go on
I could easily go on, but, I will stop for now. Remember, there is not a single Muslim majority country that provides equal rights for non-Muslims, not one (possible exception, Iraq)
Thomas Jefferson Knew About the Islamic Slave Trade
From Tech Central Station:
Note: The Tripoli Pirates would board a ship and steal its cargo, but, it would also sell all able bodied passengers and crew into slavery. The Tripoli Pirates were looking for non-Muslims to sell into their slave trade. For a very good survey of the longest standing slave trade in the world see Islam’s Black Slaves by Robert Seagal. The descendents of Mohammed used the slave trade in North Africa to procure concubines, to procures free labor and to create armies of slaves used to conquer non-Muslims lands.
May we have the spine that Jefferson had.
One of the unpleasant realities that the young and still untested United States had to face at the turn of the 19th century was the threat of piracy against its merchant shipping in the Mediterranean. The leading European powers had long dealt with the threat by paying tribute – we would now say protection money – to the rulers of the Barbary States of North Africa: Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis, and Morocco. At first the United States followed suit, but in May 1801 the Pasha of Tripoli was overthrown by a usurper who brazenly demanded more and, when it was refused, declared war on the United States.
President Thomas Jefferson decided to fight, despite the fact that the Navy had been nearly dismantled after the Revolution. In August a blockade of Tripoli was established by Commodore Richard Dale, who had fought with John Paul Jones. The blockade, small and ineffective at first, continued for nearly four years and gradually, with reinforcements from home and some borrowed vessels from the King of the Two Sicilies, took command of the waters of the Barbary Coast. The naval war is best remembered for the daring raid into Tripoli harbor led by Lieutenant Stephen Decatur in February 1804 to burn the captured U.S. frigate Philadelphia.
In November of that same year the former U.S. consul in Tunis, William Eaton, landed in Egypt with a tiny detachment of Marines under the command of Lieutenant Presley N. O’Bannon. Gathering irregular troops from the countryside as they went, they trekked some 500 miles across the Libyan Desert in March-April 1805 and on April 27 stormed and occupied the Tripolitan stronghold of Derna. The Marines on that day raised the U.S. flag – then featuring 15 stars and 15 stripes – for the first time over foreign soil. Tripoli signed a treaty of peace on June 4, and other Barbary states quickly followed suit. State-sponsored piracy in the Mediterranean was ended.
The Tripolitan War may well be counted the first instance of America’s stepping forth to solve a problem on Europe’s doorstep, a line that runs down to the Balkans and the Middle East and Central Asia today. More significantly, it first thrust the United States into the unsought role of enforcer of international law against rogue states in league with terrorists.
Maybe a little bunting after all. It’s never too late, or the wrong date, to remember, and perhaps to think.
Robert McHenry is Former Editor in Chief, the Encyclop椩a Britannica, and author of How to Know (Booklocker.com, 2004).
Missourian and Daniel,
I think you may have too close an identification with the ‘religious right.’ I do not include Orthodox or Roman Catholic organizations in this category. The ‘religious right’ are organizations founded by Evangelicals such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson, John Hagee, Jerry Falwell, et al. Most of them date from the 1970’s, and were part of a general backlash against the secularist victories of the 60’s and 70’s, particularly Roe v. Wade and the counterculture takeover of higher education.
Some of the goals of these organizations are laudable. Supporting marriage, opposition to homosexual indoctrination in public schools, support for a strong national defense, support for reduced taxation, willingness to confront Islam, and other positions with which I can readily agree – as can the Vatican, the Catholic League, and the Orthodox Christians for Life.
However, there is another side to the ‘Religious Right’ which is intricately tied into the deficiencies of the Protestant fundamentlist/Evangelical faith in the United States. The fact is, from an Orthodox perspective, there is a great deal about ‘Focus on the Family’ and the ‘Christian Coalition’ to be concerned about. One aspect is their radical anti-environmentalism. The Democrats and the enviro-NAZIs often go too far in specious regulatory schemes, but the Religious Right has adopted the opposite stance. I have heard more than one famous Protestant pastor proclaim that as we are at the End of Days, it doesn’t matter how many species go extinct or how many forests are destroyed.
Many Democrats proclaim the Earth our Mother and one true god, and seek to protect her at the expense of human life. They are countered by a Religious Right that is radically dualistic and sees no value at all in God’s Creation as it is transitory.
In the middle is the Orthodox and Catholic position. Both ends of the spectrum surrounding us are heresies. We can simply not agree with either side, having our own God-ordained view which is contrary to both what is described as ‘left’ and what is ‘right.’
Another example is Islam. I have spoken repeatedly about the dangers of Islam and Muslim immigration. Yet, the Religious Right has given the Bush Administration a pass on its policies in Europe and the Middle East which have done NOTHING to either stop Muslim immigration to Europe or lessen the plight of Christians suffering under the Muslim yoke in nations such as Egypt. Had the Bush Administration’s policies been pursued by a Democrat, the organizations of the Religious Right would have vilified them. The Religious Right has proven itself to be singularly uninterested in the plight of Christians under Muslim domination, especially when the persecution is ongoing in Iraq and is a direct result of our involvement in that nation.
Which brings me to another point. The complete identification of the Religious Rigth with the Republican Party is not a source of strength. It is, in fact, a major weakness and leads to some of the massive inconsistencies which Dean and others have alluded to. Take the recent horrible comedic performance by Laura Bush in which she called herself a ‘Desperate Housewife,’ among other gags such as talking about the President masturbating a horse.
Had a Democrat been guilty of this shameless performance, thousands of pixels would have been burned by the Religious Right to denounce the off-color nature of such comedy. It would have been hailed as a sign of our cultural demise. However, Laura Bush does this and dead silence is the response from our cultural gurus. President Bush and his wife do NOT deserve the deference which is paid to them by religious conservatives, and our silence about their behavior only makes us look badly to the outside world.
The last thing I want to say is that the Religious Right’s sign off on the Bush Doctrine of spreading ‘democracy’ is a massive, massive mistake. In the minds of non-Christians, the Religious Right has completely equated the Christian faith with a political philosophy. Here are the words of the new Pope Benedict the XVI discussing the ‘separation of Church and State:’
“At the same time it must be said that it is precisely this separation of the authority of the state and sacral authority, the new dualism that this contains, that represents the origin and the permanent foundation of the western idea of freedom. From now on there were two societies related to each other but not identical with each other, neither of which had this character of totality. The state is no longer itself the bearer of a religious authority that reaches into the ultimate depths of conscience, but for its moral basis refers beyond itself to another community. This community in its turn, the Church, understands itself as a final moral authority which however depends on voluntary adherence and is entitled only to spiritual but not to civil penalties, precisely because it does not have the status the state has of being accepted by all as something given in advance.”
Two comments on this that have meaning when dealing with the Religious Right. First of all, the Religious Right has a view of the American Nation which elevates it to a semi-divine status. The American Nation is God’s chosen instrument on Earth, and this usually results in the American President (if Republican) being cast as a prophet. As the quote above makes clear, from an Orthodox or Catholic perspective, merging religious faith into a temporal state (not expecting Caesar to respect the faith, but actually making Caesar the high priest of God) is highly problematical.
Second, the duality of authority is the secret to Western freedom. The state is a convenience for life in the world, it is not sacred and is bounded by man’s conscience as formed by the Church. It is IMPOSSIBLE to export Democracy, by force or otherwise, to a Muslim nation and expect it to succeed on our terms. In Islam, the State is sacred. There is no duality, the state and mosque are one. As such, when given a chance to actually vote, we get Muslim voters punching ballots for Muslim fundamentalist candidates. The result is not more ‘freedom’ in the Western sense, but rather more ‘freedom’ in the Muslim sense – more veils, more Christians beaten, more restrictions on ‘sin’, etc.
Many in the Religious Right confuse the American State with the new Israel and believe that Democracy is the equivalent of the Gospel. The Pope knows they are wrong, and so does any other clear-thinking traditional Christian. Just because Dobson and the like are opposed to some of the same things Orthodox and Roman Catholics are against (abortion, gay marriage, etc.), doesn’t mean that they aren’t simultaneously way, way off-base on a whole host of issues which we simply can’t ignore.
Note 8: Okay I’ll take the bait. I think Dean grossly overgeneralized. However, it is true that the Religious Right does NOT have a consistent ethic of life.
You could drive down the DC Beltway doing 145mph blindfolded after four glasses of Chivas and still fail to knock off as many people as George W did as Governor.
Note 9: I didn’t disagree with anything. I can live with conservative Christians as opposed to conservative Muslims. However, I’ll state that modern Islam is not much different than life in the Old Testament. Women who were raped were stoned to death if they didn’t yell “no” loud enough to attract attention. Obviously, the OT writers have never been to New York City where a bullhorn will elicit little more than annoyed glances by passers-by waiting to make the flashing WALK sign.
Glen, Note 28
Glen, as always, you make a lot of good points.
I intended to respond to Dean’s statements regarding “pious and devout” Muslims with whom we have “so much in common.” XXcidnd. Sorry, my burkha slipped over my eyes for a moment. I don’t think I addressed anything else.
As to the “religious right” I think that a writer should identify a specific organization or specific person and address a specific position advanced by that organization or person. It is really not easy to respond to Dean’s post No. 1 as I don’t tbink he did anything but launch broadsides at an non-specific bogeyman.
Recommended Reading: Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights (yes an oxymoron)
My I recommend a short book called “Islam and Human Rights, Tradition and Politics. by Ann Elizabeth Meyer. Ms. Meyer takes a look at the alternative to the University Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) propounded by the Organization of Islamic States (OIC) called the UIDHR. Now, please note that I have my criticisms of the UDHR, we need to set that aside for just a moment. What is particularly interesting is that the OIC proposes the UIDHR couched in the same terms and same format, however, it says very different things in English and in Arabic.
Note the following contrast:from page 160 to 161
The Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights (UIDHR) purports to treat the “Right to Freedom of Belief, Thought and Speech” in Article 12.a ( of the UDHR), but again, its uses formulations in English and Arabic versions that convey very different impressions. In English, Article 12.a, states” “Every person has the right to express his thoughts and beliefs so long as he remains with in the limits prescribed by the Law. No one, however, is entitled to disseminate falsehood or to circulate reports that may outrage public decency, or to induldge in slander, innuendo, or to cast defamatory aspersions on other persons.
…..
The Arabic version of Article 12.a conveys a very different message because it reveals that Islamic criteria limit freedom of expression. It states: “Everyone may think, believe and express his ideas and beliefs without interference or opposition from anyone as long as he obeys the limits [hudud] set by the shari’a. It is not permitted to spread falsehood [al-fahisha] or forsaking the Islamic community [takhdhil li’l-i,,a]. Thus, sharia rules set limits not just on freedom of expression but also on the freedoms of thought and belief.
Imagine the contempt they hold us in… one version in English for the idiots and then the true content in Arabic.
Muslim Tolerance Where is it Dean? How About an Answer
In Jerusalem, as in India, the conquering Islamic army sought out the conquered culture’s holiest place and built a mosque on the same spot. Yassar Arafat and the Palestinian Authority today maintain that the Temple Mount has “no Jewish roots.” Arafat and the PA backed the Big Lie for decades. They are actually trying to convince people that the Temple Mount is not Jewish archeological site, and is not the remant of the Second Temple.
In Spain, the Muslims want Christians to open the Cathedral at Cordoba for Muslim worhsip.
As we know, the Sophia Hagia is descreated by Islamic symbols and although there are still Orthodox in Constantinople, they may not pray there.
Where is the tolerance Dean?
Dean and Missourian: I recommend 4 to 6 weeks helping Fr. Daniel Byontoro in his Orthodox Mission in Indonesia you might even want to schedule your short term mission trips at the same time.
In case you don’t know, Fr. Daniel is a native of Indonesia, born a Muslim. He became a Christian in Korea and eventually found his way to the Orthodox Church. Some of his first converts were his own family, including his father. In typical Orthodox fashion, he sees to the needs of people and tells them the “rest of the story” that their faith tradition as left out.
Of course, by Muslim standards, instead of converting to Christianity, Fr. Daniel’s father could have killed him and gone scott free or nearly so. I’m sure Fr. Daniel has no illusions about Islam, but by the same token he could not do what he does if he did not love the Muslim people.
Dean make the typical Barney-style mistake assuming that if you don’t accept everything about a person and their behavior, you are not loving them or respecting them. Such a position is totally at odds with Christianity, the Scripture, and the words of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Michael Note 32
I am not mature enough to handle myself properly in Indonesia.
May I ask which Barney you refer to? Is there a noted writer or thinker by that name? It so, I’ve completely missed him. I can only think of Barney and Andy of Mayberry and I know you didn’t mean that Barney. There are time when my husband functions in an Andy-like manner when I behave in a Barney-like manner. Barney the purple singing dinosaur? Running out of ideas here.
If Barney is some well known writer or thinker I am going to be terriby embarassed.
Michael Note 32
I have studied with dozens of Muslims and got along with them fairly well. Only one of the dozen was so devout that he wouldn’t interact with me, one of the Muslims from Jordan had been in the United States so long that he had “gone native” and gotten a dog and drank beer. People seem to be pretty much the same all over the world, however, there does exist such a thing as classical Islam which has been recorded in written literature. It is an ideology and it does have influence over people and world affairs.
Dean, you know dogs are unclean in Islam, although Musharaff has one as does his mother?
Interesting that Indonesia came into the discussion.
In 1975 Indonesia invaded and occupied East Timor. East Timor is heavily Roman Catholic. Indonesia had no claim to ownership of East Timor, and has since allowed the country to become independent. Not before, of course, killing several hundred thousand Christians. Of course, the United States was up to its eyeballs, both Democrats and Republicans, in this bloodbath:
“US President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger were in Jakarta visiting Indonesian President Suharto the two days before the invasion in 1975. There’s little doubt that Ford gave Suharto the green light to invade. Kissinger told reporters in Jakarta that “the US understands Indonesia’s position on the question” of East Timor, and Ford said that, given a choice between East Timor and Indonesia, the US “had to be on the side of Indonesia.” (US support for the invasion was important to Suharto because ABRI (the Indonesian military) relied heavily on US weaponry, which US law states can only be used for defensive purposes.)
In early 1976, the US voiced its defacto recognition of Jakarta’s annexation of East Timor. An unnamed US State Department official explained: “In terms of the bilateral relations between the US and Indonesia, we are more or less condoning the incursion into East Timor.”
In the year following the invasion, the Ford administration more than doubled its military assistance to Indonesia (to $146 million). In late 1977, when it looked as if Indonesia might run out of military equipment, the Carter “human rights” administration authorized $112 million in commercial arms sales to Jakarta, up almost 2000% from the previous fiscal year. US military sales peaked during the Reagan administration, exceeding $1 billion from 1982 to 1984. Over 2600 Indonesian military officers have received training in the US since the invasion of East Timor, under the International Military Education and Training Act (IMET).
As a State Department official explained shortly after the invasion: “The United States wants to keep its relations with Indonesia close and friendly. [It’s] a nation we do a lot of business with.”
Notice that multiple administrations of both parties have been involved in backing Indonesia during its bloody occupation of East Timor.
When I communicate with Christians outside the United States, I always make one thing perfectly clear. Whether you are Anglican in Sudan, Orthodox in the Balkans, Catholic in the tropics, or Methodist in Nigeria – you are on your own as far as the U.S. is concerned. If the U.S. government isn’t actively trying to kill you, or supporting the Muslim whackos attempting to kill, then consider yourself fortunate.
Given our history of enabling Christian persecution in the Balkans, Indonesia, the Phillippines, Turkey, Africa, and elsewhere, I find the high opinion many Evangelicals hold of the United States to be entirely misplaced. I would prefer that we wallow before God in repentence, and then stop backing regimes, frequently Muslim, who butcher Christians.
Loosening Sexual Mores Will Not Promote Dean’s Goal of Dialogue with Muslims
Dean attacks people he calls the “Religious Right” for not relaxing standards of sexual conduct yet he wants to “reach out” to Muslims. Paragraph one vs. paragraph 7 Dean, are you not aware that the penalty for adultery under sharia law is death by stoning, the penalty for homosexual conduct is death. How do you reconcile this?
Pym Fortyn, a gay Danish political leader, was killed by a Muslim sympathizer because he criticized the Islamic position on homosexual conduct. Do you read newspapers?
1) The moral priorities of the religious right are not aligned with the moral priorities of Jesus Christ.
Jesus spent much of His time teaching us that we should ease the suffering and poverty of our neighbors and very little scolding us on our sexual behavior. There are vaild moral reasons for opposing abortion, and questioning Gay marriage but they should not be the exclusive focus of our moral concerns, as they apparently are for the religious right.
7) The religious right teaches religious bigotry and promotes religious hatred.
Followers of Islam are pious and devout people who believe in the same God as we do, and follow many of the same ethical imperitatives. We should be reaching out to them and seeking reconciliation. Instead, the religious right spares no opportunity to slander, insult and threaten members of that faith, feeding their already dangerous paranoia, fear and anxiety regarding the intentions of the West.
Selling out Christians
Glen, I agree perfectly. American foreign policy has been very pro-Islamiic at the cost of Christian minorities. There are plenty of creditable reports from Iraq that Iraqi Christians are now more subject to roving bands of Islamic enforcers harassing Christian women who do not veil, blowing up Christian churchs, attacking Christian owners of stores that sell liquor.
Why the U.N. is Corrupt at its Core
From American Thinker
Michael Neibel writes:
The United Nations? charter mandate, chapter 1, article 2, item #1 says:
?The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members.?
Equality of membership rights is a standard benefit of belonging to most any organization. But most organizations don?t invite the community?s worst criminal elements to be full partner members with equal voting rights and veto power. Such an organization would be ineffective, not to mention immoral. The thugs would do as they please and simply vote down or veto any attempt to discipline them. This is the U.N. today: ineffective and immoral.
The notion that Saddam Hussein has a sovereign right to slaughter hundreds of thousands of his citizens is a political and moral obscenity.
This ?one size fits all? idea of sovereignty has to go. The U.N. needs to adopt a new definition of sovereignty that respects citizens? rights and rejects as illegitimate any sovereignty that violates citizens? rights.
Missourian comments: I don’t know what the complete answer to this may be
but people need to recognize that an organization which grants equality of
status to Sudan and Cuba with the United States and Britain is immoral for
those who support democracy and human rights.
Missourian: Barney, the purple dinosaur.
Michael Reproves Barney (for Barney’s good)
Michael writes:
Dean make the typical Barney-style mistake assuming that if you don?t accept everything about a person and their behavior, you are not loving them or respecting them.
Missourian: Hmmm, I had no idea that Barney was prone to that particular error. Turning to another famous Barney, my husband and I often enjoy old Mayberry re-runs. Watching Barney Fife can be as painful as it is hilarious. The pain comes from the recognition that I have engaged in some of the same behavior as Barney. Luckily, I married an Andy Taylor!!!
Missourian writes: “Dean attacks people he calls the ‘Religious Right’ for not relaxing standards of sexual conduct yet he wants to ‘reach out’ to Muslims.”
I may have missed something, but I understood Dean to be criticizing the focus of the religious right, rather than recommending that standards of sexual conduct be relaxed.
The issue of focus is where I think Christianity becomes terribly subjective. I haven’t counted them, but some people say that there are 3,000 verses in the Bible related to care of the poor, the stranger, and economic issues in general. I don’t know if 3,000 is the right number, but I do know that there are so many verses that it is difficult to count them. These verses are thick throughout the Old Testament, and extend into the New Testament, often taking the form of a general condemnation of materialism and riches. This view extends into the early church and beyond.
Of course the view of the religious right is that these virtually countless biblical passages and writings of the early church apply only to individual charity, not to society. This claim is made in spite of a large number of Old Testament verses that specifically talk about care for the poor in societal, not personal terms. But leaving that aside for a moment, it is fair to ask why it is that care for the poor is seen as personal, whereas anti-homosexuality is supposed to be played out at the societal level.
Now there are an extremely small number of verses in the Bible dealing with homosexuality. Only several come to mind, though there may be more. But it’s obviously not an emphasis in the Bible, and homosexuality is also typically condemned in the same context with other sins such as eating shellfish. The levitical punishment for homosexual sex was death. But the law also provided the death penalty for someone who failed to control an ox that was known to be unruly and injured a person, blasphemy, and gathering sticks on the sabbath. A suppposedly virginal woman who married a man who turned out not to be a virgin (the woman) could be killed.
So on the one hand we have almost countless verses in the Bible dealing with issues of poverty and riches, and we have few verses dealing with homosexuality. Nonetheless for the religious right the Big Issue requiring public effort is homosexuality, and the whole issue of poverty, riches, and materialism is “personal.”
We see the same thing with “culture of death” issues. The New Testament never mentions abortion but frequently speaks of not resisting violence, peacemaking, “the God of peace,” “the King of peace,” and so on. The writings of the early church do mention abortion and exposure of infants, but they also just as often denounce the idea that a Christian could serve in a military capacity. To the early Christian writers it was virtually unthinkable that a Christian could fight in a war. But in the Religious Right abortion is the ultimate issue, the be-all, and end-all of all issues. And the whole peace thing is . . . well, forget about it. The Religious Right have been the most active cheerleaders of the war in Iraq: “Some 69 percent of conservative Christians favor military action against Baghdad; 10 percentage points more than the U.S. adult population as a whole.”
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1010-02.htm
And again, for the Religious Right poverty and materialism are personal issues, but abortion is a public issue requiring great effort — in spite of the fact that it’s never mentioned in the New Testament, and that such action is not required anywhere in the writings of the early church.
I can imagine how much fun it is to rip into Dean. But I think he has a point. The whole focus of the Religious Right is difficult to justify from either a biblical viewpoint or from the viewpoint of church tradition.
NOte 41 Religious Right is Not a Useful Label
Jim, you should identify an individual or an organization and point to a specific article, column or published platform. I don’t think that the “Religious Right” has much meaning otherwise.
Dean seemed to express unhappiness with what he considered to be excessive emphasis on personal sexual morality by the Religious Right. Later he states that he want to kumbaya with the Muslims. Well, if he doesn’t like the empahsis on personal sexual morality by the Religious Right in the United States he isn’t going to like the Muslims.
By the way, probably the MOST annoying thing about Muslims is their ridiculous condescension to the West in matters of sexual morality. Their approach is “we hide our women” therefore we are sexually pious. These jokers allow four wives and an unlimited number of household slaves for men, plus sexual license in the afterlife. During this lifetime men can swap out their wives by merely stating “I divorce you three times.” Men get automatic preference in property division and child custody under sharia law. So for men, Islam is a great deal less restrictive than Christianity.
Anyway I don’t think it is useful to engage in debates concerning undefined terms
Missourian writes: “Jim, you should identify an individual or an organization and point to a specific article, column or published platform. I don?t think that the ‘Religious Right’ has much meaning otherwise.”
The religious right is difficult to identify definitively. I thought Glen’s piece was about as good as one can do. But yeah, you’re right. Like any generalization it’s hard to know who is included and who is not. I feel the same way when I hear terms such as “humanist,” “secularist,” and “culture of death.” The world is often not as clear-cut as our categories.
Concerning Islam . . . . I honestly don’t know what to think. I’ve heard from people who seem very spiritual, very compassionate, very sincere. And I’ve heard a lot that I find completely repulsive. Is there a “true” Islam? If so, what is it? I don’t know. In general, I’m not very impressed.
Concerning Christianity I have a lot more experience, having lived as a fundamentalist for over ten years. But the fundamentalism I experienced is very different from the fundamentalism of today. In my fundamentalist days there was “the world” and there was “the kingdom of God,” and the two were completely separate, as politics were of “the world.” Things are different today, and I have a hard time interpreting what is happening. But know this: fundamentalist Christians have no affinity with the Eastern Orthodox church, and with fundamentalists you folks and Catholics are considered about one step above unbelievers and heretics. Thus I find the phrase “people of faith” very ironic. Today, in order to accomplish certain political goals, you’re “people of faith,” but when the fundamentalists take over you’ll be heretics. Believe it or not, when the fundamentalists take over you’ll find out.
42: Missourian: I argued in favor of efforts at reconciliation with the Islamic world because relations beween it and the West have reached an extremely dangerous stage, with the likelihood of more terrorist attacks on US soil almost certain. They many not strike Missouri, but I used to work in the Sears Tower in Chicago, and spend a lot of time now at the state capital in California, so I guess I’m a little more jittery than you.
The author of “Imperial Hubris” the ex-CIA agent in charge of the Bin ladin desk writes that there are two types of militant jihad in the Islam. Offensive jihad, which is undertaken to expand the faith, can only be called by a Caliph, of which none exist. The last Caliphate existed during the Ottoman Empire. Bin Ladin and his followers see themselves fighting a “defensive” jihad, and their view is shared by millions of fellow Muslims. They see the United states attacking Iraq, attempting to control pretroleum resources in Arab lands, propping up corrupt pro-western dictatorships, ignoring Israeli abuses againt the Palestinians, and assualting Muslim sensibilities with sex-filled US culture and can only conclude that the Islamic world is under attack from America.
The author of”Imperial Hubris” writes, “Thus as bin Ladin and his ilk defend the things they love – a love held by most Muslims – they are themselves loved not just for defending the faith, but as symbols of hope in a Muslim world conditioned to massive military defeats, Islamic charlatans as ruleers, and US protected and cpoddled tyrants. While Americ’s political, military and media elites portray efforts to kill bin Ladin as nothing more than a neccesary act to annihilate a deranged gangster, many Muslims see that as an effort to kill a heroic and holy man who lives and works only to protect his brethren and preserve the faith.”
Clearly we don’t understand the Islamic world and the way it thinks. Our continued ignorance and reliance on self-serving stereotypes is extremely dangerous because it heightens the likelihood of continued violence and future acts terrorism exceeding September 11th in their devastation and lethality. Bin Ladin’s followers are thinking “Well if September 11th didn’t get their attention, what will?”
Those in the religious right making inflammatory comments attacking Islam show all the intelllegnce of someone tossing lit cigarttes at puddles of gasoline in an oil refinery. Our current approach isn’t working, violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred. We need to ratchet down the tension level, not increase it further.
Here’s a great example of how the religious right exploits morality for politcal gain:
“About a week ago, the House Judiciary Committee was prepared to approve the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. Dem committee members offered some fairly reasonable amendments to shield some parties from criminal responsibility…For example, one amendment, offered by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), sought to exempt “cab drivers, bus drivers and others in the business transportation profession from the criminal provisions in the bill.” So, if an underage woman takes a bus to another state to have an abortion, the bus driver, who probably wouldn’t have any knowledge of the abortion, couldn’t be charged with a federal crime. Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) not only helped kill the amendment, he decided to rephrase it for the official record:
‘Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution if they are taxicab drivers, bus drivers, or others in the business of professional transport.’
Sensenbrenner did this multiple times. Every Dem attempt to amend the legislation was manipulated to make it appear Dems were trying to protect sexual predators. Whether one supports the bill or not, this was pathetic.”
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/05/republican_pond.html
Gosh, I wonder why anyone would question the tactics of the religious right.
Note 46. Dean, read the article. “Forty members left in protest” it says. This is America, remember? It certainly is a bit loopy, but it looks like the people are taking care of it themselves.
Note 45. Not sure of the details of this bill, but you know as well as anyone that the Democrats love abortion and have a history of fighting off any attempts to regulate it (remember partial-birth?). Second, the source you cited title his article “Republican Pond Scum” — not exacty unbiased.
Note 44 Dean on Limitations of Living in Missouri
Dean, this is the second time that you have made reference to the fact that I live in Missouri and that my residency in this state might have an impact on the extent of my knowledge. I am going to take this opportunity to point out to you, your blue state bigotry.
Dean and his contempt for the Middle West.
First, several months ago, I was discussing a business trip I took to Southern California. I complained that I attended a major professional convention at one of the very largest and poshest hotels in downtown L.A. While there I had to give my car keys to someone who (emphasis here) SPOKE NO ENGLISH WHATSOEVER.
Dean, you then responded with a snide comment about how cosmopolitan you were having lived in Southern California and what a delight it was for you to here more than one language. I asked you what delight you would feel if you were in a traffic accident and the other driver did not speak English. I asked you what delight you would feel if you were involved in an emergency such as a crime, an earthquake or something similar and you could not communicate with the people around you IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY. You had no answer.
You essentially condescended to me on the assumption that I lived in some small town in Missouri and had never traveled or lived anywhere else. Luckily in my case, I was able to trump your BLUE STATE BIGOTRY and inform you that I grew up in the New York Metropolitan area and that I often heard different languages on the streets of New York. However, at no time did I ever encounter a situation in New York in which I could not communicate with someone.
BLUE STATE BIGOTRY II:
Today, you clearly suggest that my life experience is much less worldly than yours because you have worked in Chicago (golllleee, that sure is one BIG TOWN you got there) and you better appreciated the threat of terror.
If you read American Jihad by Steve Emerson you would have learned that jihadi activities take place all over Middle America including mid-size midwestern towns.
YOU ARE STEEPED IN CONDESCENSION DEAN, and you display a good deal of personal contempt for those who disagree with you here on this board.
I will address some of your remarks about Islam later in the day.
Fr. Hans writes: “This is America, remember? It certainly is a bit loopy, but it looks like the people are taking care of it themselves.”
What’s loopy about it? All that’s happening here is that the pastor of this church is taking the rhetoric of the religious right seriously. The question I have is why aren’t you kicking Democrats out of *your* church?
Think about it. If abortion is the murder of a person, then it’s the murder of a person, period. Morally, it’s no different from rounding up innocent people and executing them in the street. If Democrats are the party primarily supporting this holocaust of the preborn, then there is little difference between a Democrat and a Nazi. Why wouldn’t you kick them out of church? But so far only one little church actually does that.
If abortion is the murder of persons, then why wouldn’t people who believe that bomb abortion clinics and assassinate abortion doctors? But very few do. Instead the solution is to vote for enough Republicans so that as Supreme Court justices retire or die off over the years, they can eventually appoint likeminded judges and overturn Roe v. Wade. Then, rather than abortion being a constitutional right, each state will vote on whether or not to permit the holocaust of the preborn. . . . . If every day 50 innocent people in your hometown were lined up against a wall and executed, would you say “gosh, that’s murder. So I guess three years from now I’ll vote against people who advocate for that, and they they’ll have to go to a different state to execute them”?? This would be your response? The solution to the Auschwitz of the preborn is to let it operate for years and decades until you get enough judges on your side, at which point Auschwitz has to move to a different state?
This is why I continue to maintain that the vast majority of people who say that abortion is the murder of a person really do not believe that. They don’t believe it because they don’t act in accordance with that belief. But one pastor in Waynesville, North Carolina finally did. Who’s next?
Note 44 Dean, Rules for Discussing Islam
Most discussions of Islam flounder with the participants talking past each other and nothing real being resolved. Here are the rules under which I am willing to discuss present day Islam.
A) Islam’s self-proclaimed nature should be recognized. Islam is NOT, repeat NOT, repeat again NOT accurately described as a religion. Islam defines itself as a “complete way of life.” Islam has always been a complete social, political, legal, military, governmental and religious system. There is no concept of a separation of mosque and state.
B) The existence of present day self-proclaimed Islamic states needs to be recognized, and the absence of a true Christian state needs to be recognized. When Islam is discussed there is often a failure to recognize that TODAY there exist more than 30 countries that consider themselves to be Islamic states. This means that there exists an EXPRESS, WRITTEN AND DEJURE government support of Islam. These countries have banded together as the Organization of Islamic States. There is no comparable MODERN Christian state. The Church of England is an historical shell of what once was. Christianity is the official religion of England on paper only.
C) Western civilization has been influenced by Christianity BUT it is not Christian.
There is no true sense in which a country that honors the separation of church and state can be called Christian. Culturally, yes, but legally no. Malaysia can be called a Islamic state because its written laws announce the establishement of Islam as the state religion.
D) Comparable time periods must be compared. Conditions in the medieval Islamic world has to be compared to conditions in the medieval Christian world. It is not proper to compare current Islamic world with medieval Christian world.
E)Theory versus practice. If theology is discussed, then practice should be set aside. If practice is discussed then theology should be set aside. Keep the two straight.
F) Honest historical frames of reference must be used. Anachronism are unfair. It is not fair to judge someone in the Middle Ages by the standards of today. People should be judge by the standards of their times and by the code of conduct they professed at the time.
G) The Ku Klux Klan fallacy of a “tiny minority.” For the puposes of discussion, I will accept the assetion that only a “tiny minority” of Southerners actually participated in the terrorist activities of the Ku Klux Klan. However, I assert that it TOOK THE COMPLICITY OF THE GENERAL POPULATION TO SHIELD THE KLAN FROM JUSTICE. Blacks in the south knew that they were subject to physical attacks by the Klan AND they knew that whites would not TURN IN THE KLAN. Whites would not TESTIFY AGAINST THE KLAN. Whites would NOT PROSECUTE THE KLAN. Whites would NOT VOTE AGAINST THE KLAN ON JURIES. The Klan did the dirty work for the white majority of instilling fear, the remaining respectable Southerners protected the Klan.
So does the Islamic world. Islamic terror could not exist,even, if perpetrated by a “tiny minority” is the remainder of the Islamic world did not allow it to exist.
H) The conditions in Islamic states in today’s world are the true measure of Islam. We don’t have to sift through dusty books to understand what Islam is. Islam is a complete political, judicial, religious, social and governmental system. It exists and it is put in practice TODAY in the countries of the Organization of Islamic States. If you want to know what Islam is like, visit one of those countries.
I)The conditions of Western countries in today’s world are NOT the true measure of Christianity. Europe is post-Christian, as are the Blue States in the United States. Again, Islam has state sponsors, Christianity does not.
I)Lack of EXISTING reciprocity. There is no Muslim majority state which affords non-Muslims equal rights. Let me restate that. There is no Muslim majority state which afford non-Muslims equal rights. Dean want to reconcile? Perhaps the Muslims should make the first move and grant non-Muslims religious freedom within their countries. They demand it here as a Universal Right.
Given these ground rules I will discuss Islam and the Western world. Without these ground rules and basic guidelines the discussion turns to nonsense very soon.
Note 44 Islam’s Early Military Record
Just to keep things straight here. Mohammed’s career was that of a military leader. Islam is the ONLY MAJOR RELIGION extant in the world, the leading figure of which is a military commander. Remember Islam teaches that Mohammed was the perfect man and everything he did was worthy of emulation and imitation and that he cannot be criticized by a Muslims.
Some historical facts:
The First Crusade was launched in 1096. Prior to that, Muslims conquered Syria (635), Palestine (638), Persia (642), Eqypt (642), North Africa (642-698), Kabul (711), the Indus region (712), Samarkand (712), Spain (712), Toulouse (721), Kyrgyzstan (751, Chinese army defeated), & Armenia (1071).
Current condition of the Muslim world.
Muslims make up only 20% of the world?s population, but they make up 50% of the world?s illiterates.
Despite fabulous oil wealth, 95% of Saudi Arabian women are illiterate, today, 2005