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.
Just to drag this thread back towards politics, here is what Pat Robertson said about the possibility of Rudy Giuliani being the Republican Party nominee in 2008, “Rudy is a very good friend of mine, and he did a super job running the city of New York. And I think he’d make a good president. I like him a lot. Although he doesn’t share all of my particular points of view on social issues, he’s a very dedicated Catholic. And he’s a great guy.”
Here’s a paragraph about how Giuliani actually thinks, “I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights,” Giuliani once said on CNN’s Inside Politics. Asked whether he supported a ban on partial-birth abortions he replied, “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing.”
Robertson would be willing to back a social liberal whose beliefs are 100% opposed to his own stated positions, simply because he has an ‘R’ next to his name, instead of a ‘D.’ That is the essence, in my mind, of the problem with the ‘Religious Right’ as represented by Dobson and Robertson. They are so intimately tied into the Republican Party establishment, that they have completely surrendered all objectivity. Giuliani could switch parties tomorrow and not have to rethink a single position.
Either the leaders of the ‘Religious Right’ stop playing politics and start standing for something more than winning elections, or we can expect to never get anywhere on the issues of abortion and others.
Note 100: I’ve never met the angel Gabriel, so I couldn’t say whether the Koran has 0 validity, 25% validity or 50% validity.
Certainly, there are numerous differences between the image of God as portrayed by Christians and the image of God portrayed by many Muslims. This doesn’t mean that God ignores the prayers of a Muslim who comes to Him with a sincere heart and who is knowledgeable of their own failings simply because they may simultaneously entertain errant or childish notions of who He is.
As we have seen, the nature of the faith of Christians varies wildly. I can’t see why the faith of Muslims would be any different. More often, these tend to be the more liberal ones who reject the fanaticism of their conservative counterparts.
Note 102 James K: Not Entitled to Your own Facts
James there is a saying that “everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but there aren’t entitled to their own facts.”
There does exist something called “the facts.”
The Koran is a document which has been held as sacred by Muslims since the 7th century. There are libraries full of commentary by Islamic scholars and non-Islamic scholars. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT WHAT THE KORAN CLAIMS ABOUT ITSELF. The Koran claims to be 100% the literal and direct Word of God dictated by Gabriel to Mohammed. It is distressing that you know so little about such an influential ideology as Islam. The Koran does not allow itself to be accepted in part. No one, neither individual Muslim believers, nor Muslims scholars nor non-Muslim scholars thinks that only part of the Koran was actually dictated by the Angel Gabriel and other parts were not.
Let me restate this as clearly as possible. THERE DOES NOT EXIST A SINGLE MUSLIM BELIEVER, NOR A SINGLE MUSLIM CLERIC, NOR A SINGLE MUSLIM SCHOLAR THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THE KORAN IS THE WORD FOR WORD DICTATION OF THE ANGEL GABRIEL TO MOHAMMED. Your failure to understand this basic FACT demonstrates that you are not prepared for any serious discussion of Islam. You need to do some reading on the topic, may I suggest Bernard Lewis for starters.
What you don’t understand that is that the KORAN, BY ITS OWN TERMS, DOES NOT ALLOW FOR PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE. BY THE TERMS CONTAINED IN THE KORAN, IT MUST BE ACCEPTED IN FULL OR NOT AT ALL.
The Bible contains different types of literature. Some books in the Old Testament contain some of the political history of the Nation of Israel. Some books contain prophecy by attributed to particular prophets. Some books contain wisdom literature. There are at least three different language in the Bible: ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and New Testament Greek. The Koran is not like that. The KORAN DECLARES ITSELF TO BE THE LITERAL WORD OF GOD DICTATED SYLLABLE BY SYLLABLE TO MOHAMMED BY THE ANGEL GABRIEL.
So, I return to the question. Do you accept the Koran the literal Word of God dictated by the Angel Gabriel to Mohammed. There is no middle ground here, none. Comments about whether or not you have ever met the Angel Gabriel are fatuous.
I would like an answer, please.
Note 102 Failure to Understand Islam is Deadly
JamesK. You have made two egregious errors when it comes to Islam. No make that three. First, you are not informed. You need to go to the library and read Bernard Lewis. Be advised that Karen Armstrong and Esposito are generally considered to be apologists with an agenda, read someone besides them.
Second, you are committing an Orientalism. You obviously think that the Koran is like the Bible, a collection of literature of different types. It is not, the Koran is purely the Word of God dictated by the Angel Gabriel or it is nothing. There is no middle ground. You obviously think that there is some Islamic analog to the Unitarians. There are none. There is very little, true theological differences among the Isalmic factions (Sunni, Shia) or jurisprudential schools of Islam. Sunni vs. Shia is a dispute about the correct political line of descent, NOT, theology. Again, you fail to recognize that the Koran is distinct, not simply an Arabic version of the Bible.
You have no idea of the CONTENT of the Koran, although I have taken some pains to bring the CONTENT of the Koran to your attention. I mentioned the reference in which the Koran teaches Muslims that Allah does not intend for them to be dominated by non-Muslims in any capacity. You blithely ignore this as if it is insignificant. You do so at your peril. Muslims believe that Muslim women should not marry non-Muslims because a wife is subordinate to a husband and a Muslim should not be subordinate to a non-Muslim. Muslims believe that Muslims should not have to report to a non-Muslim boss. You need to understand this, you need to understand where this comes froml. You need to understand that asking a Muslim to treat Muslims and non-Muslims alike is contradicting the Koran. You need to know that the Koran is not negotiable.
The cost for this ignorance is terrible policy. I support the idea of civilized relations with the Islamic world, BUT, I do not support the idea of putting a bandaid over a dirty wound. The Western world has confronted its history and repudiated religious discrimination. The Islamic world believes that it has a Koranic right and duty to discriminate religiously.
Again, JamesK, I am sorely dissapointed in your facile willingness to promote shallow and ill-informed ideas about Islam. Don’t give me any more silliness about “not knowing the angel Gabriel.”
JamesK: Lee Harris of Tech Central Station Says It Well
From TechCentral Station: by Lee Harris
The Koran, however, differed radically from other sacred books. They were inspired by God, but the Koran was the very word of God, and in the language that God clearly spoke when he was by himself, namely, Arabic. Islam would never have been such a challenge to the earlier faiths if it had claimed to have discovered a new god; but it didn’t. It claimed to be centered on the same god of the Jews and Christians — only the Koran represented this god correctly.
Mohammed insisted that any conflict between the new revelation and the previous ones could only have arisen through the accidental or deliberate misinterpretation of God’s word by Jews and by Christians. Thus Islam was born flinging a challenge into the face of both Jews and Christians. It claimed to understand the Jewish and the Christian God better than the Jews and the Christians understood Him; and it was this extraordinary claim that explained the common medieval interpretation of Islam as a Christian heresy — which is why the often politically incorrect Dante put Mohammed in the pit of hell reserved for schismatics and heretics.
This view of Islam has not been in vogue for some time now, and yet, if we are to grasp the initial impact of Islam on the world, we must be quite clear what made Islam so scandalous to those far distant generations of Jews and Christians, who were presented with no choice but either to abjure their own religion and convert to Islam, or else dismiss the proclaimed new revelation of the Koran as an outright fraud.
Nor was this the only stumbling block posed by the Koran. For the Koran does not claim simply to have been inspired by God, the way that Jews and Christians have traditionally interpreted their scripture; rather it is understood as having been quite literally dictated by God, word by word. Or, more precisely, Arabic word by Arabic word.
By this I don’t mean that Allah reveals his Word and that this Word is then encoded into Arabic, as it might have been encoded into any other language; I mean that, according to Islam, Allah’s Word is itself Arabic. The Koran is co-eternal with Allah; it always existed, and always will exist; and it has always been in Arabic.
This stands in profound contrast to the Christian concept of inspiration as symbolized by the Feast of the Pentecost in The Book of Acts. Here we find an explicit recognition of a God whose Word may be equally well expressed in a multitude of tongues, so that no particular language can be singled out as the language of God Himself. Divine thought transcends all human language, and yet can be articulated in all human languages.
This is a difference between Christianity and Islam that is often overlooked by those who claim that both religions are equally universalist in their scope and aim. For while it is true that both religions have historically claimed a revelation that had universal import, the Christian religion has always been indifferent to the language in which this revelation was expressed. The Holy Spirit, according to Christianity, does not speak to us in his language, but always in ours.
But a God who only speaks Arabic can hardly be universal in the same sense as the Christian God. Yes, it may become universal if everyone forsakes his own native language in order to speak Arabic; but just how universal is a God who is that much entrenched in the ethnocentric particularism of a small sect of nomadic desert tribes? Not to mention the surprising coincidence, that the ruler of the universe should be a native speaker of their language.
Conversion to Christianity, on the other hand, meant taking on a new faith, but it did not mean learning a new language or a new culture. The great Jesuit missionary, Matteo Ricci, is perhaps the supreme example of this truth. Sent to China to convert the heathens, Ricci began by dressing like a Chinese mandarin and learning the Chinese language until he was proficient in it. Then he went among the upper class of the Chinese, introducing them to tantalizing toys from the West — like the telescope; and, little by little, began to speak of his own faith, although always by stressing points of resemblance between it and the Confucian ethics of those whom he wished to convert, and at no point demanding a confrontation between his beliefs and those of his Chinese hosts.
Protestant missionaries always made sure that the Bible was translated into whatever language was spoken by their appointed flock, even when the language was found only among meager tribes in the interior of Africa. But the Koran was by its very nature untranslatable. Indeed, at one time it was strictly forbidden to translate it, or to possess copies of such translations.
It may legitimately be asked how a person like myself, who cannot read Arabic and who cannot appreciate the beauty of the Koran’s poetry can make any authoritative claim about it. But who is in a better position to judge of the prose of the Koran than someone who cannot read Arabic, and who must rely upon translations into my native language. I cannot read Hebrew, either, but that in no way keeps me from admiring the basic prose narrative that constitutes the story of Joseph and his brothers, or that of the Exodus. A good story is a good story in whatever language you wish to translate, and nothing proves this more than the immense success in the West of the collection known as The Thousand and One Nights.
But the Koran breathes nothing of the spirit of that imaginative extravaganza. In comparison the Book of Mormon might have been written by Stephen King.
This complete lack of visceral sympathy with a book that Muslims regard as co-eternal and uncreated, existing at the same ontological level as God Himself, is nothing that we Westerners can overcome, no matter how hard they try to empathize. Yes, many of the moral injunctions of the Koran are uplifting and noble, but the truth is that we Westerners have acquired our tastes in sacred literature from some of the world’s most fabulous storytellers, and our expectations have been set high. It would be like asking a man who loved Beethoven’s symphonies to gush over a Muzick version of Pepsi jingle.
If I have offended anyone, including Karen Armstrong, I sincerely apologize. But we cannot continue to pretend to venerate what we have no interest in, or sympathy with. Yet, precisely because the Koran is worlds away from us we must always proceed with great caution in dealing with it. For Muslims, dissing the Koran is the hot button of all hot buttons. It is what flag burning is to a construction worker. The proper procedure for dealing with those who insult the Koran is not to investigate the matter in more detail, but to riot in the streets until those who have insulted the Koran have pay the price for this transgression — and as Salmon Rushdie could tell you, if he stopped attacking the United States for a moment, is that blasphemy against the Koran is a crime that is only suitably punished by death.
Meanwhile all we can do is to watch and wait helplessly as the rumor of the Great Insult spreads through the Muslim world, and hope that it is not the harbinger of that vicious form of People Power called mob fanaticism. Pundits and schoolmarms may work hard to try to vanquish clichés — but clichés have a surprising life to them, often because, I suspect, they are the most convenient method of referring to a persistent and nagging reality that, like the cliché itself, simply won’t go away, no matter how many times we tell it to depart from us. It sometimes seems as if reality never learns.
Missourian, I’m not sure what you’re trying to convince me of. I have no desire to see Islamic culture adopted by our government and laws, and no, I don’t believe that an audible voice dictated the Koran. My suggestion was simply that not all Muslims are cut from the same cloth, just as not all Christians are simply because we have fundamentalists. There are some fanatical Muslims, and there are some not-so-fanatical Muslims who are content with living amid Western society and practicing their faith as they see fit. They may be doing so contrary to the laws of their own faith (I don’t know), but it doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Should we resist making exceptions to our laws to accommodate Muslims? Of course.
JamesK: Where you are wrong
JamesK writes:
All three religions appeal to a Creator as the one responsible for all life and to whom all men are indebted via a life of service. It is the characteristics of this Being that the three cannot always agree on, and I would suggest that many Christians have also fashioned within their minds an ?image? regarding what they believe this Being to be. This is not unusual, as we are temporal beings and we must rely on sensory experiences to which we can relate: God is a ?Judge”, a ?Father”, a ?Man”, a ?Military Conquerer? or a ?Benevolent Santa Claus In The Sky”. All and none are correct. They probably only reflect a miniscule portion of the Truth, if at all.
************************************************************************************
JamesK:All three religions appeal to a Creator as the one responsible for all life and to whom all men are indebted via a life of service. It is the characteristics of this Being that the three cannot always agree on.”
This is a fatuous remark because it is not based on even the slightest recognition of what the Koran is.
We could say the same thing about the ancient Aztecs. The ancient Aztecs had a Creator God which they believed they owed service to. However, that service involved cutting the hearts out of live human beings. The supposedly simimlarity was so inconsequential to be ridiculous and useless as a means of comparison. One ancient Egyptian Pharoah about 2,000 B.C. adopted a monotheistic religion. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the Judeo-Christian God, but it posited a single God. Again, after that all similarity ends. Hindus in fact will tell you that what Westerners see as multiple Gods, they see as various manifestations of the same God.
What you don’t recognize is that the Koran expressly, explicitly and in no uncertain terms, presents itself as a radical challenge to Christianiaty and Judaism. The Koran EXPRESSLY REPUDIATES Christianity and Judaism and claims the right to FULLY REPLACE them. The Koran asserts that the Old Testament as we know it, is in fact, corrupt and false. The Koran asserts that the New Testament as we know it, is in fact, corrupt and false.
For a Christian to state that “we worship the same God” we just have different understandings of Him is fatuous because it does not recognize that given the oppportunity a Muslim would kill or imprison you for believing in your religion. This occurs TODAY, not in some medieval historical period. Islam exists to replace, supplant and eradicate both Christianity and Judaism.
Your total lack of understanding of what the Koran is, your belief that the Koran allows belief in a “portion” of its text and not the entire text is a confession of ignorance. The Koran is a unitary manuscript. It is accepted in FULL or it is rejected in FULL. If it is accepted in FULL you MUST reject the legitimacy and sacred character of the Old and New Testament.
You adopt a airy, pseudo-scholarly tone, to declare that each tradition has some of the truth, YET, every comment you make demonstrates that you haven’t a clue as to the true nature of the Koran. The Koran admits of only a binary response, not a piecemeal response. The Koran if accepted does not allow acceptance of any portion of Christian teaching and it rejects both the Old and New Testaments as FALSE and CORRUPT.
Again, I think you should invest some time with Bernard Lewis and other scholarship sources of information before you advance your specious theories about choosing a little of the Koran and a little of the Bible. The Koran was advanced by Mohammed as a total repudiation and denouncment of Judaism and Christianity and the declaration of the total temporal (of-this-world) supremacy of Islam and Muslims.
This is very important for people to understand as they consider immigration policy. Islam is different from other religions. Muslims are different from other immigrants. You need to take a look at the REALITY of life in Muslims countries and of Muslem enclaves in Europe.
Given your abject ignorance of the contents of the Koran, your assertion that “you don’t know the Angel Gabriel” is particularly fatuous.
Fair Comparisons
Compare ancient treatment of women in Christianity or Judaism with ancient treatment of women in Islam. Compare medieval treatment of women in Christianity or Judaism with medieval treatment of women in Islam. Compare modern treatment of women in Christianity and Judaism with modern treatment of women in Islam.
Here is a slice of life in MODERN DAY PAKISTAN. The ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN.
Fromhttp://www.rights.no/webtekst/Gjesteskribent/Skribenten.htm
In Pakistan the hijab is simply unable to protect women from being seen as sexual objects in public. Women with or without hijab, any kind of hijab, are stared at, followed and harassed by men on roads and streets and at bus stations, shopping malls, and other public places. This harassment of women in public places is known in Pakistan as ?Eve-teasing.? Women in Pakistan experience Eve-teasing wherever they go in the country, although there are variations from region to region, city to city, and even within regions and cities. For example, in the northwestern region, the conservative and supposedly most Islamic region of Pakistan, women without or with any kind of hijab are likely to be stared at by nearly ten out of every ten men on roads, streets, shopping malls, etc., while in such cities as Islamabad and Lahore women are likely to be stared at by, for example, four out of every ten men. Similarly, women in some regions are most likely to be followed by strange men almost from their doorsteps to their destinations and then back to their doorstep every time they leave their homes. Women in some other regions of the country might not be followed every time but often, occasionally, or at least sometimes when they go out in public places. When these women are in a good mood, they jokingly say that they?ve acquired a free escort or bodyguard. But in fact this is no joke. It scares women to death. If their father, brother, or husband comes to know about their ?escort or bodyguard,? the women must surely expect that limitations will be placed on their right to movement outside the home, or, even worse, that they will be the victims of honor killing.
I myself come from the conservative northwestern region of Pakistan . When I was in my hometown in northwest Pakistan , I, like most women in my town, wore a burqa hijab, the Taliban-style hijab; when in Peshawar , the capital of the northwestern region of Pakistan , I, like most women of this city, wore chader. Whenever I traveled to Islamabad and Lahore , I had the freedom to take off any hijab ? whether burqa, chader, or dopatta. I never wore a headscarf (the kind of hijab often worn in the West), as most women of Pakistan do. Yet wherever I traveled in Pakistan , with or without hijab, I experienced Eve-teasing. It used to be more frequent in the northwest of Pakistan and less frequent in Lahore and Islamabad , but I was exposed to it wherever I went in Pakistan .
When I came to Norway in 2002, the first cultural shock I got was that men in public places did not stare at women. I had observed and even experienced so much staring by men in Pakistan that I thought it was a universal reality. When I found that it was not so in Norway , I was upset for some time. I thought; â??Am I so ugly that Norwegian men donâ??t even give me a second look?â?? Soon I realized that men in Norway just donâ??t stare at any women in public places. Imagine my feeling of excitement in my exposure to Norwegian society when I discovered that Eve-teasing is not a universal reality. This is one of the most cherished discoveries I have ever made whole my life.
Get in touch with reality.
JamesK Don’t Tell Me About Leviticus
After reading the essay by the Muslim woman who grew up in Pakistan and moved to Norway, do you see why I flip when someone says “But how do you explain some of the ancient texts in Leviticus.” The Old Testament is an important book, a sacred book, but the restrictions of Leviticus do not have much impact in the West today, and are not likely to in the future, since women have constitutionally protected freedoms.
The Koran is put directly in practice in over 30 Islamic states. The texts in the Koran have direct practical effect. The Cultural Left, Dean included, is willing to cover up the current persecution of non-Muslims and women in the thirty Islamic states. They are willing to ignore the plain text and self-description of the Koran. They are willing to engage in New Age hand waving about a text that EXPRESSLY and SPECIFICLY and CONSCIOUSLY seeks to delegitimize the Old and New Testament and Christianity and Judaism.
The West has recognized the immorality of discrimination. JPII apologized to Jews. America has a Holocaust museum to help perserve the memory of the Holocaust. The West is an open society for the most part, where injustices are documented and discussed. In Islam, there is denial of the suffering and torment of non-Muslims.
Little, psuedo-scholarly hand-waving remarks about “I don’t know what percentage of the Koran is true.” are poisonous nonsense.
I had hoped that discussion at an Ortodox board will not require explaining and documenting the centuries of cruelty suffered by Orthodox and closely related Christian groups like the Copts at the hand of Muslims. This is paralleled by suffering by Hindus, Confucians and Buddhists at the hands of Muslims. Dean doesn’t like to think about or acknolwedge that Hindus, Confucians and Buddhists have suffered jihadi violence because that doesn’t play into his theory that conflict with Islam is the fault of the West. So he ignores what is happening under our noses.
We now know that Walter Duranty of the New York Times intentionally concealed the starvation campaign directed against the Ukrainians by Stalin. He particpated in a filtering of the news because the Left in America wanted to persuade Americans that Stalinism was not a bad thing. Millions died unheralded. Today, similarly, the Turks deny the Armenian genocide. Holocaust denial is just as wrong with respect to the Ukrainians and the Armenians as it is with the Jews of Germany.,
RE No. 101: Glen, you take us back to the essential question suggested by this topic, namely:
To what extent should Orthodox Christians with conservative political beliefs identify with or ally themselves with the quasi-political movement known as the religious right?
Certainly there are overlapping areas of mutual interest, for example the moral imperative to reduce abortions. However, as you point out, the political calculation of leaders of the religious right, such as Robertson, Falwell or Dobson, cause them to frequently deviate and diverge from an Orthodox Christian understanding of morality. Also the divisive nature of partisan politics and certain social issues can only hurt a Church like ours where there is a diversity of strongly held opinions, and there is a great potential to alienate a large portion of the faithful, as we have seen both in Waynesboro NC, and on a much larger scale in the Episcopalian church.
Father Hans has argued persuasively that Christians have a duty to speak our on pressing moral issues, and that such advocacy has played a positive role in American history where it has raised the awareness of the public to certain evils such as slavery, prostitution, alcoholism and worker exploitation. The challenge is to exercise that duty in a manner that doesn’t divide or overly politicize our Church.
Results of the Wars of Aggression
Dean states that the Religious Rights has supported “wars of aggression.” He rooting for the guys shooting at the construction workers trying to build a power plant.
From Iraq the Model:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
A couple of months ago the two chimneys [in the new power plant in Baghad] were all set. Shortly after that, fuel tanks were fully constructed in situ and just two weeks ago, the two giant turbines were set in place.
Last week, I met my engineer friend again and he told me that the two turbines will be experimentally operated on May 24 and if the experiment runs smoothly, the two new units would be connected to the grid adding 300 megawatts to the national power supply.
When I asked my friend how he feels about it he sighed and said:
“I feel really proud of being part of this; this time I wasn’t working for material benefit only, I felt overwhelming happiness for doing something good in such a hard time. You have no idea my friend what we?ve been through to make this project work out. The work was suspended many times because of attacks; mortars hit the site three times, RPGs two or three times, small guns fire attacks happen every other while. We have lost 11 men in these attacks, 7 Iraqis and 4 foreigners and many others received death threats. It wasn’t an easy job at all my friend. We also had to establish a 6 meter tall concrete wall to provide more protection for the workers and the station”.
I was so touched by his story and we wondered together if people outside realize how the new Iraq is getting built. People here are working and at the same avoiding bombs and bullets. People head to their work stations every morning and they don’t know what the roads are hiding for them. We went to the election centers not minding the risks of getting killed and Iraqi young men keep going to the recruitment centers although they realize that doing so might get them killed.
Many “experts” outside Iraq watch from a distance and enjoy counting our dead and they ignore what we’re building here but I don’t care because I believe that victory is near.
Note 101 To What Extent Should Orthodox Christians Ally Themselves with
the Quasi-Political Movement Known as the Religious Left, the National Council of Churches
Given that the Orthodox are expressly associated with the Religious Left and not, to my knowledge expressly and formally associated with the “Religious Right.” whatever that is. Shouldn’t we be discussing the harm done to Orthodox integrity by membership in NCC?
Here is the full citation:
https://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/LomperisNCCPolitics.shtml
Lompes, the author of the article, discusses how NCC is promoting support for CAIR which is generally known as the American political arm of Hizbollah and which has had several Board members indicted and convicted for terrorism.
Other suggestions involved support for Sami Al-Arian who is now under federal indictment for using the University of Florida to raise funds for Jihadi violence.
This is the association that many Orthodox Churches are involved in now.
I think this deserve more attention.
Dean, Do you Believe the Koran is the Dictated Word of God
Dean writes:
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.
****************************************************
Now, that I have provided a great deal of information on the Koran, I repeat my question to Dean.
Given that you believe that Muslims and Christians “believe in the same God” do you accept the Koran as the Word of God?
If you accept the Koran as it presents itself, you have to repudiate both the Old and New Testatments and the Divinity of Christ and you are no longer a Christian.
If don’t accept the Koran as it presents itself, you don’t believe in the same God as the Muslims.
You made the comment, it is fair to ask the question.
Do you believe that the Koran was dictated by the Angel Gabriel to Mohammed?
Missourian: Why do you conflate a plea for understanding and reconciliation with an acceptance of Islamic religious teachings?
I am proud to be an Orthodox Christian and certainly do not recognize the Koran as having any additional information neccesary for my salvation, that has not already been provided to me by my own faith. My ancestors have been Orthodox Christians since at least the time of Constantine the Great, and I am educating my child to make sure my decendants will be Orthodox Christians as well.
It is undeniable, however, that Christianity and Islam draw from many of the same biblical antecedents and share many of the same beliefs. The two faiths share a reverence for many of the same biblical figures such as Abraham, Mary and Jesus, and share many common values, such as a strong belief in Monotheism and charity. Certainly Christianity has more in common with Islam than it does with with Hinduism, Buddhism or Confusionism. So it is odd to say the least that we reserve our greatest hostility for those with whom we share the most in common with, Jews and Muslims.
Islam contends that while it shares a common heritage with Christianity, Christianity is incomplete and that additional divinely inspired information was later imparted to Mohammed. However Mormonism and the Church of the Latter Day Saints believe something similar – that an angel visited Joseph Smith and provided additional divinely inspired information which is today gathered in a source known as the Book of Mormon. We don’t deny that the LDS church worships the same God as Christians, so why deny that Muslims do?
Note 144. It certainly deserves more attention and when I catch up with my work (almost there) I’m going to look into this and write about it.
Dean, Note 116 Words Carry Important Consequences
For reference, here is your original note:
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.
*************************************************************
CHOOSING ONE’S ALLIES
Firstly, I agree with the basic proposition that it is important to choose one’s associates carefully. Politics can be a very dirty enterprise and a Church body must be very careful when it ventures into the public realm. I have my criticisms of many public figures who are generally considered to be part of the Religious Right, but, I do not write off the entire group in all cases and on all positions.
THE BALANCE OF CRITICISM AND PRAISE in Note 1
However, if you look at your original comment there are 7 comments which thoroughly condemn the “Religious Right.” [ I would like to point out again that some of this discussion is handicapped by a failure of the debaters to identify exactly who is a member of the Religious Right. The label itself could encompass a very wide range of individuals and organizations.] Again, if your comments were given full weight, the Religious Right would be completely discredited in the religious, political and moral realms. Dean, you don’t leave any meat on the bone here, you’ve gone after every negative aspect you think of.There is no plea or “understanding and reconciliation” for the Religious Right. Your reference to Islam IS concilatory and contains praise for Muslims as devout. No criticism for Muslims, just the olive branch.
DECLARING THE IDENTITY OF CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM GODS
Words are important, they mean something. The statement that “Christians and Muslims believe in the same God” is false and seriously misleading. Just as in the case of national policy debate, an individual Christian or an American based Christian Church must be very careful who they associate with theologically.
It is simply false to state that “Muslims and Christians” believe in the same God. I believe that I have demonstrated that. The consequences of that assertion are breathtaking. People who do not do serious reading in theological matters would be willing to take your word for it and be lead seriously astray. We should not lead others astray if we can avoid it.
CONTINUED EVASION OF THE THEOLOGICAL ISSUE AND UNWILLINGNESS TO REJECT THE KORAN
There is no serious controversy over the assertion that the Koran presents itself as the dictated word of God. No scholar from any tradition will tell you otherwise. No Muslim cleric nor any individual believer will tell you anything but that the Koran came syllable by syllable from God. The Koran demands a binary response: accept in full or reject in full.
You have elided and evaded and refused to answer the question of whether you
consider the Koran to be the literal, dictated Word of God. This is a legitimate and serious question raised by your assertion that Muslims and Christians worship the same God.
Your response about the Koran is as follows in Note 114.
….[I] certainly do not recognize the Koran as having any additional information neccesary for my salvation, that has not already been provided to me by my own faith.
Even in this note, you cannot bring yourself to deny the Koran. I consider that to be and admission. My position on the Koran is that it lacks any sacred character and that it has no theological value to anyone. You are unable to state that. I think that is a very important point. You cannot or will not deny the Koran.
OLD CANARD ABOUT REVERENCING THE SAME FIGURES:HIDING THE REPUDIATION OF HEBREW AND CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES BY THE KORAN
You have repeated the same old canard offered by any Islamic apologist in the United States, as follows:
“It is undeniable, however, that Christianity and Islam draw from many of the same biblical antecedents and share many of the same beliefs. The two faiths share a reverence for many of the same biblical figures such as Abraham, Mary and Jesus, and share many common values, such as a strong belief in Monotheism and charity.”
Again, you are seriously misleading anyone who is not familiar with the Koran.
You have neglected to mention that Islam essentially plagiarizes the pre-existing Hebrew Scriptures and appropriates notable figures from what Christians call the Old Testament. The Koran denies the Divinity of Christ and claims that Jesus was not crucified. Your description is seriously and blasphemously deceptive in that it does not tell the reader of the EXPRESS, EXPLICIT, DIRECT repudiation of the entire Old and New Testament.
It is Heretical to Fail to Reject the Koran
While it may be possible for Muslims and Christians to live together in a civlized manner, it is very important theologically that Christians be well and fully informed of the truth about the teachings of the Koran before Muslims and Christians entire into that favorite liberal activity “dialogue.”
It is also important the Muslims we required to examine their conduct in the same mannerj that the West has examined its own conduct. Islam has never apologized for the oppression of non-Muslims either historically or currently.
I find it odd that Dean is willing to “reach out” to reconcile with Muslims while they are actively oppressing Christians all over the world. I may have differences with many members of the Religious Right in this country, but, none of them are engaging in the cruel and hate filled conduct of Muslims against Christians in the Middle East.
I assert that it is heretical for any Christian of any tradition (Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Prostestant) to fail to reject the Koran as sacred. I consider Dean’s unwillingness to join in that plain statement very troubling.
It is also deceptive to declare to people that Muslims and Christians revere the same figures. Christians did not rewrite the story of Abraham. Muslims took Abraham’s name and rewrote the story in the Koran. Muslims also rewrote all of the major Biblical stories. Muslims reject the fact of the crucifixtion of Christ. Islam is a heresy, that is why it invokes names and figures sacred to Jews and Christians.
It is vastly dishonest and deceptive to fail to inform people that the Koran expressly, explicitly and unqualifiedly rejects the truth of Judaism and the Old Testament and the truth of Christianity and the New Testament.
While it may be possible for Muslims and Christians to live together in a civlized manner, it is very important theologically that Christians be well and fully informed of the truth of what the Koran teaches before Muslims and Christians entire into that favorite liberal activity “dialogue.”
RE: No. 114. I agree that the Orthodox Church should not associate itself with controversial positions on the left either. The Gene Robinson controversy is an example of politicization by the Left causing damage to a Church.
While there are certain moral issues that the Orthodox Church cannot ignore, as a rule it should try and remain above the partisan political fray. If NCC membership threatens to drag the Orthodox Churches into partisan abd cultural foodfights and make our Church appear to back contentious positions and policies Orthodox Christians are uncomfortable with, then I agree we should consider limiting our involvement in that organization.
Dean, is the Koran sacred?
Is the Koran the Word of God as delivered by the Angel Gabriel? You haven’t answered that.
Why can you only say that ….[I] certainly do not recognize the Koran as having any additional information neccesary for my salvation, that has not already been provided to me by my own faith?
This is not the same as rejecting the sacred character of the Koran.
Why do you find it necessary to evade this question?
Do you support collaborating with CAIR?
Dean, do you support the collaboration of the National Council of Churchs with CAIR? Do you support the participation of Eastern Orthodox Churches with NCC?
Do you belong to CAIR?
Comparable Values if You Like Concubinage
I might remind you that we women still make up half of humanity. Islam is the most virulently misogynist ideology on the planet. The idea that you think Muslims embrace comparable values makes me very concerned. The cultural Left has been willing to sell women down the river on this. The Islamic world has not retreated one inch on its treatment of women even as Muslims pour into Europe. Islam has marched on Europe with a militant and uncompromising attitude, despite the overtures of JPII. Thank goodness Pope Benedict XVI seems to have a clearer picture of reality.
Muslims consider the suppression of female personal freedom to be the very hallmark of Islam. They have brought polygamy to Europe and the Europeans haven’t even roused themselves to resist that effectively. Britain in on the verge of granting special tax status to polygamous families which exist on a de facto basis in Britain.
The Muslim family is as much a deviation from the Christian family as is the so-called family based on same-sex partnerships.
SCOBA should speak for itself
Seems to me that SCOBA has the breadth and membership it would require for it to just speak for itself when appropriate.
No. 121. The Koran isn’t sacred to me, but it is to the people who have the power to undo all of our hard work and investment in Afghanistan and Iraq:
“At least four people were killed and dozens injured in a riot in eastern Afghanistan yesterday after police fired on demonstrators protesting about reports that the Qur’an had been desecrated by US soldiers in Guantanamo Bay.
Offices in Jalalabad were set on fire, shops sacked and consulates and UN buildings attacked by rioters, according to witnesses. Police fired to disperse crowds several times and army helicopters were said to have “buzzed” the crowds. Doctors in the city confirmed that four people had died.
This was the second day of protests in the city sparked by claims in Newsweek magazine that interrogators in Cuba, where hundreds of prisoners captured in Afghanistan are held, kept copies of the Qur’an in toilets, and “in at least one case flushed a holy book down the toilet”. The US state department said it was investigating the claims.
About 2,000 students, chanting “death to America”, protested in the city on Tuesday, demanding an apology from the US. Thousands more turned out yesterday, with schoolchildren and residents said to have taken part.”
“Four dead after anti-American riots erupt in Afghanistan”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1481929,00.html
It looks like the aggressively anti-Islamic approach isn’t working out as planned.
Assuming the report is true, how did Newsweek get confidential information?
Seems to me that if an interrogator can save lives and learn more about a terrorist network by throwing a Koran in the toilet, then it seems worth doing. Better to throw a book in a toilet then harm a human. Assuming that the report is true, how did Newsweek get the confidential information? An interrogation technique is not the same as a public government policy. We can’t defend ourselves in a war of this kind with full disclosure of everything we do
I have no difficulty being respectful of the local culture when we are in THEIR country as long as it does not compromise our most essential values.
Our initial discussion did not concern War on Terror tactics but political and cultural relations with Muslims in general. I support rational, principled and civilized relationship based on the truth. I don’t suport putting a bandage over a dirty wound, or allowing Muslims a free pass from the same self-criticism that Western culture engages in.
As to denying the sacred status of the Koran—O.K. you are off the hook, but, ixnay on the “same God” stuff. Muslims are proslytizing (spelling?) hard in America and telling our folk that we worship the “same God” just makes it easier for Muslims theologically seduce the weak-minded.
Dean, RE: Note 116–wrong again, the Mormons themselves in their more open moments will confess quite openly that they do not worship the same God as Christians. There is a better case to be made that Muslims worship the same God than that the Mormons do. For Mormons, God is nothing more than a super evolved man, each person of the trinity is totally separate being, etc, the heresies go on and on and numb my mind.
I have much more respect for Islam and individual Muslims that I do for the LDS, a syncretistic, heretical, mystery cult trying to perpetrate the fraud that they are Christians. Muslims accept more of the foundational doctrines of Christianity than do Mormons.
Your theological naivete is astounding.
As to why more Christian wrath is direct against the Muslims than against the Hindus. The Muslims have killed far more Christians, are still killing, persecuting, and enslaving Christians, just because of we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord, God, and Savior. There is simply no compromise with Islam on theological grounds.
On a limited pragmatic basis, we can and should be reasonably friendly with Muslim states that do not attempt to live out the teachings of their socio-political faith to dominate the non-believers (us). As a Greek, you should know better.
Cassock
Dean, RE: Note 116–wrong again, the Mormons themselves in their more open moments will confess quite openly that they do not worship the same God as Christians or a least Orthodox Christians. For 17 years I worked in a small, Mormon dominated company. I engaged in many far-reaching theological discussions with several people over those years including a former Mormon bishop and a man who for years supervised the Mormon missionaries in my area. There is a better case to be made that Muslims worship the same God than that the Mormons do. For Mormons, God is nothing more than a super evolved man, each person of the trinity is a totally separate being intrinsically no different than we are, etc, the heresies go on and on and numb my mind.
I have much more respect for Islam and individual Muslims that I do for the LDS, a syncretistic, heretical, mystery cult trying to perpetrate the fraud that they are Christians. Muslims accept more of the foundational doctrines of Christianity than do Mormons. Your theological naivete is astounding.
As to why more Christian wrath is directed against the Muslims than against the Hindus. The Muslims have killed far more Christians, are still killing, persecuting, and enslaving Christians, just because of we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord, God, and Savior. There is simply no compromise with Islam on theological grounds.
On a limited pragmatic basis, we can and should be reasonably friendly with Muslim states that do not attempt to live out the teachings of their socio-political faith to dominate the non-believers (us). As a Greek, you should know that better than any of us.
I will never forget an incident in my own Kansas neighborhood several years ago. My family and I lived next door to a couple of Saudi, by way of Indonesia, brothers. We struck up a neighborly friendship and even broke bread in each other’s homes. They could not miss our icon wall when they shared food with us in our home. We were remained on friendly terms for some time. Then my brother came to visit. He is an Orthodox priest who always wears his cassock, hat and beard. Looks pretty old country on a lot of days. We were walking along our driveway, which ran right next to the Muslim brothers’ house. One of the brothers came out into his back yard and saw my brother. I turned around at that point and saw the young man standing in shock, his mouth wide open. As long as they continued to live there after that, they did not exchange greetings with us.
My brother’s presence was apparently so offensive to these young, seemingly westernized young men, that we could no longer be friends in even a surface neighbor way.
Opps, sorry for the mess up on my previous post–doubled up something while I was writing and didn’t realize it.
Re 125 – The report concerning the Koran being flushed has shown up in books published by former interrogators at Gitmo. Lots of Marines, Sailors, and intel types have served at Gitmo, and more and more of them are coming out with tell-all books.
To be honest, the Koran flushing incident was among the least offensive to me as a Christian of the things that have come out of the Gitmo stories. Yes, it is a mistake to let such things come out in the press. 10% of the Muslim world is willing to fight us to the death. Another high percentage couldn’t care less, is only nominally Muslim, and would just as soon the whole geo-political mess would go away. Another percentage go along to get along, are true believers, and can be persuaded to attack us given the right provocation, but would prefer to stay home.
The Koran is analogous in Christianity to Jesus Christ – the uncreated word of God. Flushing the Koran would be the same as physically taking hold of Jesus and putting his head in a toilet. Not a good way to make friends.
Obviously, in my opinion, the Koran is NOT the uncreated Word of God. I am only stating a fact that a few hundred million people, most of whom are not actively trying to kill us, believe that it is. Since it is a given that most people write a book and make money just as soon as they hit the street, interrogators should keep in mind that whatever they do is going to see the light of day. Americans are lousy at keeping secrets.
Now, the Koran flushing, as I said, was not the most troubling thing for me. The most troubling thing was the use of female Army, Naval, and Marine personnel to engage in sexual acts to ‘shame’ the Muslim prisoners. Parents assume that when their daughter joins the military, that she will serve honorably in an upright fashion. Using them as strippers as an interrogation tactic is absolutely morally unacceptable. Period. If the detailed reports coming out in the whistle-blowing books are true, and the women really did strip, simulate masturbation, and provide lap dances for Muslim prisoners – then lots and lots of officers need to be court martialed and this needs to happen NOW.
I don’t expect, by the way, the Religious Right to raise much a stink over this. It is perfectly okay for female military personnel to be misused by the Bush Administration. It is also perfectly acceptable for female personnel to be deployed in combat situations, and to remain under fire for extended periods of time.
Under a Democratic administration the Evangelical preachers would be going nuts over these kinds of things. As it is, they are as silent as lambs. Disgraceful, in my opinion.
Glen writes: “Now, the Koran flushing, as I said, was not the most troubling thing for me. The most troubling thing was the use of female Army, Naval, and Marine personnel to engage in sexual acts to ‘shame’ the Muslim prisoners.”
Glen, help me out here. You were in the military, right? Marines?
What is going on in these places? We hear the same kinds of stories, whether from Iraq, Afghanistan, or Cuba. How is this possible? It becomes increasingly difficult to believe that this reflects the actions of a few bad apples. But I can’t believe that the armed forces would condone such practices.
Jim,
Marines, actually. American society tends to idolize the military. The armed forces are seen as somehow set apart, the representatives of all that is good and noble in the American spirit. Part of this stems from our unique cultural heritage, but a lot of it has to do with our lack of monasticism. The rigors of military life have been exemplified in our culture as the great exemplar of a life of self-sacrifice and virtue. In Byzantium, the desert fathers would have fulfilled this role, not the soldiers. We have no desert fathers, no history of those who renounce the world for Christ, so we instead substitute the heroic soldier as the model for all to emulate.
Early ‘camp meeting’ revivals were actually re-creations of 19th Century military bivoucs. The military model was used throughout the 19th Century to enlist men and women into ‘God’s army.’ The real military (as opposed to the spiritual) was revered as not only having founded the country and saved the true faith from the Godless Anglican Church, but also to have fought off the savage Indians, banished the Catholic Mexicans from our God-given lands,and eventually to have saved the Union.
What you are seeing in places like Iraq and Gitmo is the true culture of the military, not the parade-ground ideal. The military is extremely utilitarian in its morality, as one would expect from an organization whose job is killing on command. The goal is victory. Things that promote victory are morally right. This could be bombing a city full of civilians, or ordering a female private to strip down to her bra and rub her chest on the back of a Muslim to help ‘break him’ by separating him from Allah.
Only in the imaginations of the Christian Right are soldiers and Marines paragons of virtue and honor. Many are good men. Many others, however, are immoral or amoral, though usually they didn’t start out that way. Take me as an example, I never cursed until I went into the military. After hearing it all around me, day in and day out, I took it up. Would I have consorted with prostitutes in foreign countries, were I not with other Marines who expected me to behave likewise? No, I wouldn’t. Certainly when I lived abroad on my own as a civilian I didn’t do so. Would I have done a million other twisted and immoral things had I not been a scared 18 year-old surrounded by older men who were egging me on?
Again, I don’t think so. I’ve experienced first hand how the culture of our military shapes and misshapes the minds and lives of the men and women trapped inside it. If I were 18 or 19 again, and ordered to beat or kill prisoners, I have absolutely no doubt that I would comply with those orders. The same is true for young female soldiers and Marines. If ordered to perform lewd acts for the good of the unit and the ‘country,’ they will comply as well. The environment in which they live pressures them for total conformity. And their superiors will not hesitate to order such actions, if they feel that it will further the mission and lead to ‘victory.’
This is not a question of bad apples. From the top to the bottom, the U.S. military has no sense of morality, no sense of decency, no sense of ethics. As shown by the Catholic Theory of ‘Just War,’ it is the responsiblity of civil society to reign in and control its armed forces. We have to do so again. It is not enough to wag our fingers and say, “Hey the Muslims are worse. We aren’t cutting off people’s heads!” That’s true, but also irrelevent. If we are Christians, then we are to be judged by the standards of Christ. And by His standards, the prevelent ‘morality’ in our military is woefully deficient, and will not correct itself. We must correct it from the outside.
Glen, sorry you saw the bad side.
Glen, perhaps you should visit West Point. The level of scholarship there is very high and the honor code, unlike that in other universities is not a joke. Church attendance and membership is very high. Marriage and fidelity are taken seriously in the officer corps (yes, there are individual exceptions.) The enlisted men tend to be a great deal rougher. I certainly don’t excuse swearing or consorting with prostitutes. You do need to note that the United States military has express policies and training programs in place intended to discourage the practice of young military men visiting prostitutes either foreign or domestic.
Glen, if you hadn’t been exposed to swearing or prostitution in the military you would have been exposed to it in ordinary civilian life. My dad was an accountant, a devout Christian and a devoted husband. After he took a job as an accountant with a Fortune 500 company one of the VP’s offered to get him a call girl. My father nearly fell out of his chair. He said no to that offer obviously. So exposure to prostitution is neither confined to the military nor unique to it.
I believe the Bible says that “there is no greater love than a man lay down his Life for his friends.” This is what the military does. First and foremost, they knowingly and willingly sign up to stand between us and the real forces of evil. No one else would have stopped Hitler, no one. Chamberlain failed. It was millions of courageous, ordinary Britains, Americans Australians and other who stopped Hitler by being willing to die on a battlefield.
We need the military just as we need our police. I revere them both although I have no illusions about the sinful practices of some.
Note 132: These recruits generally come from lower-income, less educated and minority families. I hate to stereotype, but I’m thinking this may be partially responsible for the “rougher edge” element of the enlistees.
I’m not condoning the coarse language and the sexual permissiveness.
However, let’s remember that it’s these folks who are putting their lives on the line and not the “well-mannered blue bloods” that have shut themselves safely away in expensive colleges at the dime of their parents while simultaneously cheering on wars in which they have no desire to participate.
In my opinion, the recruits are entitled to a few more flaws than they otherwise would be.
This link is to an article on the other side of Orthodoxy Today. It is one of the most finely written articles Fr. Hans has ever posted. I post the link here simply because the article addresses many of the assumptions, frustrations, and cultural realities that fuel many of the disscussions we have here. https://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/RaboteauReligion.shtml
When I was in the Navy, I thought it was the worst thing I ever did. I thought all the senior enlisted and officers were idiots and I knew better than any of them. I let my low opinion of them and my over-inflated opinion of myself drive me into a rage, in which I damaged government property and went AWOL for 4 days. During my service I hated and resented everything about the Navy. The only thing I looked forward to was my time off the ship.
I was in my mid-20’s when I enlisted, and, boy, was I an immature idiot. The Navy was the best thing I ever did. I learned more during 5 years of military service then I did during nearly 20 years of liberal, secular humanist education.
It is nothing more than a slanderous lie to state that “From the top to the bottom, the U.S. military has no sense of morality, no sense of decency, no sense of ethics.” This shows that one is carrying a deep, deep hatred of one’s military experience. I pray, Glen, that someday God gives you the strength to overcome your obvious hatred of the United States Military.
God Bless.
Note 125: Dean gives a link to a story, based on reports from Newsweek, that now turns out to have been founded on nothing but lies. The Islamofascists use this false report to riot and kill, and who’s to blame?
The answer to that, for any knee-jerk Leftist, is simple: America.
Pathetic, simply pathetic.
Tell me, how many riots were there when NBC aired a sitcom in which a Catholic communion wafer was flushed down a toilet? And that actually happened. Millions of people saw the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ being flushed down a toilet as a comedic prop.
The koran flushing was a fictitious event reported to score points against President Bush. Now 17 are dead because of an agenda at Newsweek. I just wonder if Dean has the guts to apologize for propegating a lie. As far as I’m concerned, the blood of these 17 are on his hands.
136: No, the blood of the 17 victims are on the hands of the Islamic loons who killed them. Whether the Newsweek story was true or not is irrelevant to that fact. America should not have to tiptoe around everything for fear of ticking off a few guys who are in dire need of a fistful of Prozac.
The actions of the Left and so called “indepedents” are as predictable as the sun rising in the East & setting in the West. James, where was your defense when Dean presented us with this story and blamed anti-American riots on American foreign policy? WHERE WAS IT?!? Dean laid the blame for these riots directly in the lap of American foreign policy with these words, “It looks like the aggressively anti-Islamic approach isnâ??t working out as planned.”
But now, that real people are dead because MSM’s agenda to “get Bush”, NOW the blame resides with the Islamofascists. That’s right, James, the Left and “independents”, like you, are always innocent. The riots were based on repeating a false report of a Koran desecration. MSM and its defenders are not innocent in this matter.
Here’s a must read post on this matter at Arma Virumque. Roger Kimball asks the million dollar question:
“Why is it that all the stories you read in Time-Newsweek-The New York Times-The Washington Post-Etc. or see on CNN-The BBC-CBS-NBC-Etc., why is it that all their stories about Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, etc., why is it that the presumption, the prejudice, the predisposition never goes the other way? Why is it that their reporters always assume the worst: that we’re doing dirty at Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., and are primed to pick up and believe any rumor damaging to the United States? Shakespeare knew that rumor was a “pipe/blown by surmises, jealousies, conjectures,” not to be trusted. So why do these journalists, trained to sift evidence, to probe sources, to listen beyond the static of rumor: why do they only do so in one direction, so to speak?”
If you can’t see a difference between demonstrations against American policy (when executed lawfully) and murder, then you aren’t looking clearly enough. People have a right to peacefully demonstrate against our policies. They had no “right” to riot, though, and they can blame no one but themselves for the damage done to their own communities.
I’ve stated quite clearly that 9/11 was never caused or “excused” by our foreign policy (as some liberals said who made some quite offensive statements about the “Nazis” in the Trade Towers) nor by our toleration of gays (as Pat Robertson said). I never blamed Bush for that.
These people are a violent bunch, and for many of them, foreign policy and religious differences are merely convenient excuses.
In addition, you can’t blame the violence carried out in so-called “retaliation” for Abu Ghraib on the MSM for merely reporting what actually happened. More responsibility lies with those involved. Nevertheless, there was no excuse for the way and degree in which the insurgency retaliated (setting uninvolved contractors on fire and hanging them, for one). No excuses, period.
If MSM lies and Islamofascists riot and kill, then the blame resides entirely with the Islamofascists.
If MSM distorts and misrepresents military behavior and ties this behavior to the “Neo-Cons”, Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush and the Islamofascists riot and kill, then the blame lies with … wait for it … the “Neo-Cons”, Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush.
Never expect consistency from so-called Independents and the Left.
Let me make something perfectly clear: I’m not exculpating the primitive followers of Islam killing because they ingorantly believe any anti-American lie. But I am most certainly putting in their killing camp the fools at Newsweak and elsewhere in MSM who are so stupid that they don’t understand how these Islamist morons will react when these anti-American stories are written.
Part of the problem with the American press and Americans in general is that many simply cannot understand the depth and seriousness of Islamic belief. MILLIONS really do consider the Koran not just a holy item but part of God. The American press is so used to the unexplained tolerance of religious abuse and desecration of the part of Americans; they assume everybody will react that way. They have no foundation for understanding or respecting actual faith, whatever its tenets. After all, faith (if you must have it)is just a mind game that can easily be compartmentalized in order to deal with the really important pragmatic issues of money and power.
To people who have a faith that has a significant ascetic component, as Islam does, the gratuitous displays of licentiousness and wealth in the west are offensive to say the least. They should be. Such displays plus the unbridled materialism and hedonism that underlie them should be offensive to Orthodox, indeed all Christians as well. (Side note to Dean–that doesn’t mean the state should enforce the ideals of asceticism). Unfortunately, for many Orthodox in the west, no offense is taken as we have succumbed to the mind of the world.
Re: No 136: Dan: You want me to apolgize for telling the truth. The allegation that Guantanomo guards desecrated the Koran, as part of a more general pattern of religious abuse, has other sources besides the Defense department spokeman cited by Newsweek.
1) We know that US guards at Gauntanamo Bay have used religious and sexual humilation as a form of torture on prisoners.
“Sex used to break Muslim prisoners, book says” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6876549/
“SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – Female interrogators tried to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay by sexual touching, wearing miniskirts and thong underwear and in one case smearing a Saudi man?s face with fake menstrual blood, according to an insider?s written account”
2) We know that the methods of torture on prisoners at Guantanamo were so alarming FBI and CIA agents wrote their superiors to complain:
“FBI reports Guantanamo ‘abuse’; Alleged incidents include physical abuse, ‘intense isolation’
“WASHINGTON (CNN) — A memo from a senior FBI counterterrorism official has outlined three alleged cases of abuse in 2002 that FBI agents had become aware of while serving at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base prison.
The complaints included allegations of a female interrogator grabbing a detainee’s genitals and bending back his thumbs and a prisoner being gagged with duct tape.
Another complaint talked of a dog being used to intimidate a prisoner and jailers subjecting the same prisoner to what the FBI official called “intense isolation” in a “cell that was always flooded with light.”
3) Lastly, while the reports above make the account of the desecration of the Koran plausible and consistent with the earlier actions of the US personnel asssigned to perform torture, allegations that the Koran was desecrated were previously made in January by attorneys defending 12 Kuwaiti Guantanamo inmates:
From The Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 20, 2005:
Lawyers allege abuse of 12 at Guantanamo
By Frank Davies
Inquirer Washington Bureau
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/10685611.htm
“…Some detainees complained of religious humiliation, saying guards had defaced their copies of the Koran and, in one case, had thrown it in a toilet, said Kristine Huskey [an attorney in Philadelphia], who interviewed clients late last month. Others said that pills were hidden in their food and that people came to their cells claiming to be their attorneys, to gain information.
“All have been physically abused, and, however you define the term, the treatment of these men crossed the line,” [attorney Tom] Wilner said. “There was torture, make no mistake about it.” …
An organization called Human Rights Watch also took testimony in which Guantanamo prisoners alledged that the Koran had been desecrated:
“74. Asif says that `it was impossible to pray because initially we did not know the direction to pray, but also given that we couldn’t move and the harassment from the guards, it was simply not feasible. The behaviour of the guards towards our religious practices as well as the Koran was also, in my view, designed to cause us as much distress as possible. They would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it. It is clear to me that the conditions in our cells and our general treatment were designed by the officers in charge of the interrogation process to “soften us up”‘.
Point 1 – The MSM should never, ever have printed this story.
Point 2 – Everyone assumed the story is true. Even the folks on this site, on both sides of the Iraq War, assumed that this actually happened. One side rushed to attack, the other to defend. No one said, “Hey, that’s impossible!” This a problem, because it means that U.S. credibility is so shot that any story making the rounds on news or blog circuit can be translated into Arabic and used to start a riot.
Point 3 – Afghanistan is not a functioning Democracy. It is a stone-age Hell hole with a lot of Islamic nutcases. Despite all the pixels wasted trumpeting the success of Karzai and the special relationship of the U.S. to the Afghani people, an erroneous news story translated into Arabic can touch off anti-American rioting. Whether the ‘majority’ of Afghanis love us to death or not, the fact is underscored that a large number of people hate our ever-loving guts over there. This also underscores the tenuous position of Karzai, who felt the need to immediately declare that U.S. forces will be reigned in. Seems like a lot of resentment has been tapped into.
Point 4 – The stories about the misuse of female personnel to engage in sexual acts to ‘break prisoners’ was much more important to me than any damage done to the Koran. These stories have been confirmed, and are not in dispute. Rioting Muslims aside, this is the kind of thing that we, as Christians, should be most upset about.
Point 5 – I had a great time in the Marines and had no disciplinary problems. I was forcibly discharged in 1992 after a severe training accident, the scars of which I carry to this day. I did not seek civilian status. I left the Corps reluctantly, though happy to have most of my college paid for and to have seen a whole lot of the world. I didn’t realize that I had seen the ‘dark side’ until much, much later.
I first started to question the U.S. military during the Clinton Administration. The war on Serbia was patently bogus, and every single one of my active duty friends knew it. It was ‘Wag the Dog’ for real. They called it, “Monica’s War.” BUT THEY STILL DID IT!!! That was the thing that threw me for a loop. From the Pentagon down to the buck private, no one resigned. No one refused orders. They all knew that it was a pile of garbage and unconstitutional, but they still followed Clinton’s orders. Any system that could convince sane men and women to follow such orders that were clearly immoral had to have problems.
I then began my conversion to Orthodoxy. My first confession forced me to confront the youthful ‘hijinx’ from my Marine Corps days.
At the time, and later, I had treated all those things as just part of a typical military experience. I knew they were wrong (such as the times we passed around female Marines at parties), but I excused them to myself. Only years later, standing before the Icon of Christ and actually describing these things to a civilian (the priest) and to God, did I really see them for what they were. The macho culture of the military encourages a lot of unchiveralous and dishonorable behavior. Facing up to that was hard, and realizing my personal culpability was harder. However, I did it, and got past it. All I’m getting at is that the culture of the military encourages a behavior set in 18 and 19 year old boys that is patently wrong. (Strip clubs, hookers, heavy drinking, bar fights, tatoos, etc.) This perverse culture is played out at all levels of the military, and may heavily contribute to the MISUSE of female personnel in interrogations, as sexual objects (Lyndie England was impregnated by her Sergeant, remember the mud wrestling), and as combat soldiers. (Women do NOT belong in combat situations.)
This same culture also produces a conformist mentality that made it possible to use our military to bomb fellow Christians on the word of a sociopath like Bill Clinton. At the same time, this mentality produces a raw kind of arrogance that leads to abuse of prisoners and unacceptable civilian casualties. The culture of the military needs to be reformed from the top down. It needs a heavy, heavy dose of the kind of morals and ethics that can only be provided by traditional Christianity. War and soldiering are too important to leave to the military, we need the priests and the Theologians there as well. Right now, they aren’t engaged, and in their absence, the culture of the military is degrading the same way as our secularized civilian culture has.
“Any system that could convince sane men and women to follow such orders that were clearly immoral had to have problems”
The military does not look for highly independent thinkers. It chooses people who can be molded and crafted to obey orders in every situation, and especially under duress (which comprises most of military combat situations, I would presume). Morality has little to do with it: if one has worked for years striving to quash every natural instinct towards self-preservation so that bullets whizzing by one’s head does not make one turn tail and run, it is doubtful that occasional moral qualms are going to bear much influence on one’s actions. More often, they will simply be swept under the rug like every other “personal” instinct that they are told will threaten unit cohesion and the “Safety of America”.
I’m not saying whether this is good or bad. I’m saying if America wants an effective military, we must look at the natural (and inevitable?) consequences of what such training does to the minds and hearts of the men and women we train to be effective. There are costs to creating these military personas. One of those costs is, I believe, a willingness to forfeit one’s personal conscience in many circumstances out of obedience to one’s superiors and, transitively, to one’s country.
In case there are some reading this who think that James has a point, in NOTE 143, let me remind you: The United States Military – all 4 branches – is ALL VOLUNTEER. The military does not “chooses people who can be molded and crafted to obey orders in every situation.”
As to not “turning tail and running” when people are shooting at you… That is something James may be unfamiliar with – it is called courage and devotion to one’s brothers in arms. It is not mindless dismissal of self-presevation created by being forced to “obey orders in every situation and under duress.” It is called working through one’s fears to save your unit while completing the mission. Only the incredibly ignorant think this can only be done by mindless robots.
James, since you have absolutely zero military experience, I strongly suggest you refrain from characterizing military personnel.
Glen, unless you can supply us quotes (besides your active duty drinking buddies, whom I would bet are mostly enlisted personnel, though I may be wrong) this, “They all knew that it was a pile of garbage and unconstitutional, but they still followed Clinton?s orders.” is nothing but hate-filled slander. They followed Clinton’s orders because, when they raised their right and took the oath, that’s what they have to do. They can only disobey if the order is unlawful, and then they better damn well have their ducks in a row if they want to pursue that strategy or they may find themselves in the brig.
Furthermore, given that military activity in Kosovo took place 7 years after you left service, I am rather skeptical that the highest positions in the Pentagon were confessing to you, that this was “Wag the Dog” and “Monica’s War.” At the time, hard-right paleo-cons and conservatives with more bile then sense were making those charges but not responsible people in the Pentagon.
Now if you want to make reasonable arguments against military action in Kosovo, go right ahead, but try and do so without the “it was a pile of garbage”, “Wag the Dog”, “Monica’s war” and insinuations that military personnel should ignore lawful orders because they don’t like the Commander in Chief.
142: Not only are allegations that US interogators desecrated the Koran plausible, but they are entirely consistent with patterns of conduct already documented.
1) First, we know that US interogators at the Guantanamo have previously used religious humilation as a method of torture.
“Sex used to break Muslim prisoners, book says; Women allegedly wore thongs, touched Guantanamo detainees” The Associated Press, Updated: 2:38 p.m. ET Jan. 27, 2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6876549/
“SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – Female interrogators tried to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay by sexual touching, wearing miniskirts and thong underwear and in one case smearing a Saudi man?s face with fake menstrual blood, according to an insider?s written account.”
2) We know that FBI and CIA agents found the the interogation methods at Guantanomo so alarming they complained about them to their superiors in written memos:
“FBI Agents Allege Abuse of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay“, By Dan Eggen and R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post Staff Writers, Tuesday, December 21, 2004; Page A01
“Detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were shackled to the floor in fetal positions for more than 24 hours at a time, left without food and water, and allowed to defecate on themselves, an FBI agent who said he witnessed such abuse reported in a memo to supervisors, according to documents released yesterday.”
3) Allegations that US interogators desecrated the Koran have been previously made by sources other than the one Newsweek used, including attorneys for some of the detainees and a human rights organization.
Posted on Thu, Jan. 20, 2005
“Lawyers allege abuse of 12 at Guantanamo”
By Frank Davies
Inquirer Washington Bureau
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/10685611.htm
“WASHINGTON – Twelve Kuwaitis held for about three years at the detention center at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been physically and psychologically abused, their attorneys said yesterday after their first visit with the detainees.
The men were “all very thin, almost emaciated,” and most were being held in isolation, with 45 minutes of exercise a week, only the Koran to read, and no medical treatment, said Tom Wilner, who visited his clients last week.
Some detainees complained of religious humiliation, saying guards had defaced their copies of the Koran and, in one case, had thrown it in a toilet, said Kristine Huskey, who interviewed clients late last month. Others said that pills were hidden in their food and that people came to their cells claiming to be their attorneys, to gain information.
‘All have been physically abused, and, however you define the term, the treatment of these men crossed the line,” Wilner said. “There was torture, make no mistake about it.'”
From the Center for Constitutional Rights: Human Rights Watch
“74. Asif says that `it was impossible to pray because initially we did not know the direction to pray, but also given that we couldn’t move and the harassment from the guards, it was simply not feasible. The behaviour of the guards towards our religious practices as well as the Koran was also, in my view, designed to cause us as much distress as possible. They would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it. It is clear to me that the conditions in our cells and our general treatment were designed by the officers in charge of the interrogation process to “soften us up”‘.
Such tactics serve to perfectly validate and confirm Al Qaeda propaganda and increase Anti-American hostility throughout southwest and central Asia. They demonstrate the appalling level of incompetence by the Bush administration and Secretary Rumsfeld that has inflicted incaluable damage on US foreign policy and interests throughout the world.
Daniel, I have one brother in the Navy, an uncle who served in Korea, and my father served in the Army at one point. I do not think they are “mindless”.
“Duty and courage” are great virtures. My point is that there may be numerous instances where the primacy of these various virtues conflict: where one’s duty to one’s country or superiors must be weighed against one’s own obligation to family, to God, etc. The military strives to create this sense of loyalty and dedication among its core to such a degree that it becomes instinctual: very often this is necessary as one may have little time to reflect about the proper choice!! “My country … right or wrong.” At times, this dedication enables great heroic acts, such as falling on a grenade to protect the lives of others. At other times, this same sense of dedication may lead some military personnel to engage in activities at the behest of their superiors that may be morally questionable.
I have stated my belief that members of the military should be cut a little slack for some of their shortcomings, considering the sacrifices they make. I’m sorry you took my comments as an insult.
Bring back ther draft! We need to bring back the draft, if no other reason to see if Dan or Glen would have still supported the war in Iraq if it was to be their rear-ends that would have been hanging out of those poorly armoured vehicles rumbling through the Sunni Triangle dodging RPGs and IEDs.
We need a draft because having a a Citizen-Army will make this nation consider the ramifications of going to war more carefully, and reset the mission of the military to wars of self defense rather than unprovoked wars of aggression on behalf of oil companies.
Today, while the children of the working class are spilling their blood in Al Anbar province the Bush twins and all the other Trust-Fund babies are out at night-clubs every night dancing and running up big bar tabs. How many Republican Chickenhawks in Congress would have supported the “war of opportunity” in Iraq if their own children would have been placed in the line of fire, instead of in line for war-contracts and political job appointments?
Another reason to bring back the draft is that history has proven that an army of free citizens defending their home soil will always perform better than an army of mercenaries fighting for a pay-check or professionals fighting for college tuition reimbursement. The Athenians were able to repel the Persians at Marathon and Salamis, but falterered in their own war of opportunity against Syracuse. The armies of General Lee performed brilliantly defending Virginia, but were defeated when they attempted to invade Pennsylvania. The US Marines dislodged the tenacious Japanese from the Pacific defending the US West Coast, but could not prevail against the North Vietnamese upon whom they tried to impose the neo-colonialist Saigon government.
Dean you are back to wild assumptions upon which you attempt to build an even wilder structure of emotionalism that you believe passes for logic and discourse.
We have to build a sense of honor and virtue in our children from which they can decide how or if they wish to offer their own lives to defend their country and their fellow citizens. A mentality of just warrior must be constructed from which our children can decide to fight with arms or as non-violent peacemakers. They are at their foundation the same. IMO, the Orthodox Church supports both as vocational, moral choices. War is not now, nor has it ever been a matter for doctrine within the Orthodox Church. To attempt to elevate what is a moral choice to the point of doctrine, divides people within the Church that need not be divided and prostitues the true witness of the Church.
The draft would only accomplish mass protest against any use of arms and leave the country undefended — a prospect which many on the left relish.
Once again the left is against real choice. It is a far better control on government adventurism to have an all volunteer army than to give the government power to conscript anyone and everyone. If enough folks don’t want to fight, they won’t volunteer and their will be no army to fight with. Conscription is actually an act of desperation and tyranny–not freedom and honor. You also cast shame on many fine Orthodox men and women both past and present who decide to serve out of a sense of honor and willingness to sacrafice for the good of others.
You need to study the history of our Church, curb your indignation and put on more sobriety. You do not and cannot promote peace with an emotional and wrathful attitude.
Christ is Risen!
God Bless you brother!
Note 146. Don’t believe everything you read, Dean.
Daniel,
You are absolutely priceless. You can’t even stomach criticism of the Clinton Administration, if the military is involved that is. 173 Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against authorization of military force in Kosovo. That included notables such as Joe Scarborough, lately of MSNBC. The whole thing was a sham. Do I reall, really need to go into details on an Orthodox website to support the case that bombing Serbia for 60 plus days was immoral?
Clinton couldn’t sell the UN on the lies, so he didn’t even try. Instead, he went through NATO channels and relied heavily on the leftist German government and the Laborite British to get the support needed to kill Orthodox Christians by the thousands.
Yes, the military is all volunteer, but that does not mean that Marines and sailors sign away their consciences. If the orders conflict with their higher duty to God, then I would expect them to say no. At this stage of my life, I certainly would, though I grant you at age 18 I doubt I would have had the guts. Especially with folks like you egging me on to go kill fellow Christians because it was my ‘duty.’
Not everything the United States does is right, just because we do it. A war is not legal or constitutional just because Clinton said it was. Without a Declaration of War, I don’t think any use of military assets abroad is justified.
Dan – you are a classic example of all that is really wrong with conservatism today. All that is necessary is for military action to have occurred in the past, and you get all sloppy and sentimental about it. Clinton was a traitor to the United States, a pig, and his war in Kosovo was predicated on lies and innuendo. I could catalog this for you, but you are perfectly capable of using the Internet yourself.
As for my Marine drinking buddies, I was a reservist going to college while in. My friends were enlisted at the time, but all of them have gone on to careers as officers. That includes three 0-4s, including one battalion commander in Iraq. My cousin is an 0-4 commanding a motor transport battalion out of Kuwait.
Would their opinion have mattered if they were enlisted? Look at how easily you would have brushed them aside if they had been mere privates.
Soldiers should be encouraged by their faith to follow the law of God. That is the traditional way. The idea that any and all dictates of the state are to be obeyed as if from Mt. Sinai is poison to Christianity. The state is not divine, and can commit mistakes. The law of God takes precedence. Remember the police officers who helped kill Terri Schiavo? Were they right in what they did?
At least, Dan, try and be somewhat capable of standing criticism of CLINTON ADMINISTRATION policies.
Dean – I opposed the Iraq War, draft or no draft. I’m not sure why you lumped me in with that comment.
Glen writes: “Yes, the military is all volunteer, but that does not mean that Marines and sailors sign away their consciences. If the orders conflict with their higher duty to God, then I would expect them to say no.”
Isn’t that a fundamental problem with military service? Granted, there certainly are instances where following a certain order would clearly be immoral. But you appear to refer more to opting out of entire battles or wars that you might find unconscionable.
That inclination seems to me to be a very good reason not to join the military in the first place. Your example of the U.S. military being called upon to bomb “fellow Christians” in Serbia reminds me of quotation by Tertullian:
“Is the [military] laurel of triumph made of leaves, or of corpses? Is it adorned with ribbons, or with tombs? Is it wet with ointments, or with the tears of wives and mothers? It may be made of some [dead] Christians too. For Christ is also believed among the barbarians.”