Thou Shalt Not! The WaPo’s ‘On Faith’ Blog Spikes a Regular Contributor When He Writes on Islam
EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article by Willis E. Elliott was rejected by the Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog. It was a response to a question on Muslim-Christian relations posted by “On Faith’s” Elizabeth Tenety and still online here. Dr. Elliott had been publishing on that blog nearly weekly for over three years. This article was the first of his they rejected, with the exception of one other that entailed only a minor revision, according to the author. In our continuing interest in freedom of speech, PJ Media presents it here.
Elizabeth Tenety of the Post posted the following topic of discussion, still online here:
The Mutual Blasphemy of Christianity and Islam.
2011 began with some bleak news for Muslim-Christian relations around the world.
Recent attacks against churches in Iraq, Nigeria and Egypt have killed dozens of Christian worshippers. Meanwhile, the Pakistani government is standing by the country’s controversial blasphemy law which critics say threatens religious minorities.
How should political and religious leaders in America and abroad deal with these challenges to interfaith relations?
Numerous religious leaders and experts contributed replies; here’s Elliott’s response, which ended up in the Post’s Memory Hole:
“Mutual blasphemers, love one another!” is the title of an essay I published many years ago. Now as then, the human project is to learn not only to live with, but to love, “the blasphemers” (meaning whichever of the two religions is not yours).
1. But the project, so defined, is not neutral. It is Christian and humanist. Christian: Jesus said, “Love your enemies.” Islam, to the contrary, is essentially hostile to “the infidels.” Humanist: Calling evil good is bad news, but the worst news is violence done in the name of God (spelled out, for example, in Mohamed Atta’s theological justification for the attack he led, “9/11”).
2. Blasphemy (irreverent speech or action against a deity or religious person/belief/object) is currently in the news only when Muslims become violent, or threaten violence, when they feel offended: when we Christians feel offended, almost never do we become violent, and almost always we suffer the disrespect in silence.
In the New Testament (and other early Christian literature), much is said about nonviolence, never is violence commanded or even suggested; it is forbidden. Not so, early Muslim literature. The contrast is to be expected: Jesus was anti-violent, Muhammad was violent (a military leader as well as a religious leader).
3. Because Jesus was a failure and Muhammad a success, Christians from the start learned how to be a minority religion and survived Jesus’ failure only by the fact that he didn’t stay dead. Christians don’t know how to behave when they are in power (and, of course, have sometimes abused their power). But Islam was, from its start, majority-minded; and Muslims don’t know how to behave when they are not in power: it enrages them, makes them thin-skinned to “blasphemy,” drives them to achieve power and impose sharia, even motivates some of them to martyr-suicide in killing any they consider enemies of Allah.
I think there’s something in point three. Speaking as an atheist, I don’t much care about the rest. But point three is really worth thinking about. I think you might be right about that.
But nothing’s absolute. Christians in the west are used to having everything on their own terms, and some christians aren’t coping at all well with the idea of genuinely secular government. Most australians are OK with the idea, but a few noisy brits aren’t happy at all, and a larger number of noisy americans are downright furious. Personally, I think that’s the appeal of palin – she’s young, attractive, popular, unashamedly evagelical and she got >< this close to the whitehouse. In an era of richard dawkins, james randi, sam harris and pz myers, I think she's part of a reaction. The majority is used to being comfortable with america being a christian nation (at least since the 50's), and now a bunch of people are saying it isn't … and they're getting a lot of attention. I doubt that it'll become violent, but it's going to be a big fight. Let's see how american christianity copes with not being in power
Actually, I think Christians in America are just tired of secularists showcasing their personal bigotries by hyping paranoia about what “the Christianists” will do if they end up in office. Since the Constitution forbids formal religious tests, such folk contrive demogogic ones.
For such folk, the only good Christianist is an out-of-office Christianist.
Interestingly, when Muslims run for office, it’s considered a vunderful demonstration of multiculturalism, showcasing tolerance in a diverse society.
Well said! I agree 100%.
To the liberal left:
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some Muslim immigrant individual, or their culture. Being politically correct to the extreme sickens me. America has been built over two and a half centuries of struggles and victories with the blood and treasure of American patriots for the benefit of almost everyone except America.
Most Americans believe in God. Christian men, based on Christian principles founded this nation, this is historically documented. I suggest it is certainly appropriate to display this belief on the walls of our governmental buildings, i.e., halls of congress, court houses, schools, civic centers, etc.,,, and it is: Congress routinely is opened with a prayer service, and when offering testimony in a court setting, we swear to tell the truth on a Bible. God is part of our culture.
If this idea is offensive to you, I suggest you exercise that other great American right; to leave. If you can find a better place to live and enjoy your freedoms,,, you should pursue your dreams.
Go in peace.
Who cares what you’re tired of? If you’re so tired, why don’t YOU leave?
Hear, hear!
Yeah, this country wasn’t founded by Christian men. Sorry, but most of the Founding Fathers were deists. And, as Bill Maher said, they were doctors, lawyers and scientists who mostly thought the Bible was bullsh!t.
And speaking of Constitutional rights, how come only the rights of Christians matter? Why was there such an outrage when Muslims wanted to build a mosque BLOCKS away from Ground Zero? How come with all the child-touching being done within the Christian religion, churches are still being built near schools? Oh, right it is because we don’t demonize an entire group based on the actions of a few of them… Unless of course they are brown.
Today’s Christians are hypocrites, yourself included, Mr Anon. The reality is, there is no historically documented evidence that “Christian principles founded this nation”. It was based on JUDEO-Christian beliefs but you seem to ignore “Judeo” part. Reality is, it doesn’t take believing in some invisible sky wizard to realize that killing is bad and stealing is wrong.
Why don’t stop complaining and do what Jesus told you: take care of the poor and less fortunate.
Secular government is not what you think it is. Secular government is a government where religion is not the source of authority (notice that I did not say that God is not the source — inalienable rights are given by God after all). Even in the late 1700s, when pretty much all of the presidents were Christian — and the vast majority of congressmen, governors, mayors, etc. — the United States still had a secular government. All of the presidential and vice presidential candidates (with the exception of Joe Lieberman) of the last several decades have been Christian. Sarah Palin becoming president wouldn’t be an exception to secular government, but an example of it’s ongoing existence.
Jon
“Inalienable rights are given by God after all”
Says who? False assumption. The Declaration of Independence establishes the reasons for dissolving a political union.\
Following the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution establishes the rule of law for the new Republic. Yes, rights are inherent in the individual and the federal government only has limited delegated authority. However it is a secular document establishing a secular government that will be specifically restricted from interfering in the ‘free exercise of’ and any ‘regarding the establishment of.’
Do you believe the founders-children of the Enlightenment-would dare to allow any religion access to political authority? Even J. Adams that stalwart of religious conservatives (who, by the end of his life, had become Methodist and and adapted a Hobbsian attitude of religion’s truth being immaterial in light of its ability to control the ‘masses’)admitted that American is not a christian nation. We are a secular nation with a majority christian population. However, we are still a Republic where a democratic majority can not inflict matters of conscience on anyone, regardless of the self-righteous certainty and arrogance displayed by the believers.
What the American founders understood is that it was important for rights to be “God Given” for if they were “God given”, they could not be taken away by man, that is, the state. If they are not “God Given” then by whom were they given? The state? What the state gives, the state can take away.
“Says who?” Seriously? You’re really asking that question?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.”
Does the above statement sound at all familiar to you? What do you think the phrase, “they are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights” means? To whom do you think the term “Creator” refers?
To whom do you think the Declaration of Independence refers when it states; “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions”? Who do you suppose is “the Supreme Judge of the world”?
To whome do you think the Declaration of Independence refer when it states; “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” Who do you suppose is “divine Providence”?
Seriously?
Don’t you know blaa, blaa, blaa…founding fathers hated christianity blaa, blaa, blaa…were all deists blaa, lnaa, blaa
Breathe, Oscar . . . easy . . .as I wrote-The Declaration of Independence IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND. There is no mention of where individual rights come from in the Constitution, only that rights are the domain of the people and limited delegated authority is the realm of the federal government. So if it’s so a priori knowledge and required of every citizen to fall lock step into the ‘god of nature’ origin of individual rights, and Soooooo completely important to the founders-where is it in the Constitution? It’s not there. You’re trying to connect the dots between their individual beliefs and what the founders thought would be the best framework of laws for a free society. A society founded on life, individual liberty, and pursuit of happiness ( I think ‘property’ was also included in a earlier version).’
I’ll ask again: Given the historical context do you believe the founders-children of the Enlightenment-would dare to allow ANY religion access to political authority?
@TomPaineFan
“as I wrote-The Declaration of Independence IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND.”
Demonstrate where I stated that it is, or admit your statement above is superfluous.
“There is no mention of where individual rights come from in the Constitution”
No kidding. The Declaration of Independence explains where individual rights come from. The Constitution explains the “how”, but the Declaration of Independence explains the “why”, and without the “why”, the “how” is meaningless.
“So if it’s so a priori knowledge and required of every citizen to fall lock step into the ‘god of nature’ origin of individual rights, and Soooooo completely important to the founders-where is it in the Constitution?”
Demonstrate where I stated that it is “required of every citizen to fall lock step into the ‘god of nature’ origin of individual rights”, or admit that the above statement is flat wrong.
It isn’t REQUIRED, but it’s illogical to do otherwise. If human beings have inherent rights, those rights have to come from somewhere. If they derive from the Constitution, then it is legitimate for a future government to change that constitution and eliminate them.
“You’re trying to connect the dots between their individual beliefs and what the founders thought would be the best framework of laws for a free society.”
If those were their “personal beliefs”, then why did they use those beliefs as the basis on which to separate an entire nation of people from their king? Why immortalize them in the Declaration of Independence, which is the founding document of our nation?
“A society founded on life, individual liberty, and pursuit of happiness”
If their beliefs were merely personal, then why found an entire society on them?
“I’ll ask again: Given the historical context do you believe the founders-children of the Enlightenment-would dare to allow ANY religion access to political authority?”
I’ll state again; Given that the United States of America is founded on the principle that “all men are CREATED equal, and are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, it is not REQUIRED of an American to believe in that philosophy, but it is illogical not to.
@TomPaineFan: Your question is unanswerable, because it is nonsense. Religion doesn’t have access to authority, any more than a show can be sponsored by the number 3. But people who are lawfully put into authority are allowed to govern, within the bounds of the limitations established by the Constitution, according to their conscience, which may be formed in part by religion. Of course, the founders allowed religious people access to authority. And, of course, they didn’t want the nation to be a “Christian nation” in terms of establishing laws that are idiosyncratically Christian. The government will not force anyone to be any particular religion. But the government will neither disallow anyone of any religion to enter a position of authority, and govern in such a way as to not be living in poor conscience.
This is rather straightforward (at least in theory – in practice, being, say, a serious Christian and a politician may be a little more difficult.). Strange questions that give agency to concepts only cloud the issue. (The other culprit in making straightforward issues confusing is that “whitewashed tomb”: political correctness.)
Are you serious? “The Creator” isn’t Jesus, Allah or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. It represents all or none of them.
Wow! Nice job working Sarah Palin into the debate.
“a few noisy brits aren’t happy at all, and a larger number of noisy americans are downright furious”
I have no idea about Britain, but you’re over-estimating the number of Americans who object to a “secular” government. That’s likely because the few who actually do object are over-played by the press, and because other objections are creatively reinterpreted to be the desire for a “Christian-only” government.
Objecting to a taxpayer-funded school putting children through the rituals of the Muslim faith, for example. That’s actually a demand for government neutrality on the matters of religion, not a demand for a “Christian-only” government. But guess which way the press tells the story?
No. 1 posting is false.
Christians have not been used to have everything their own way. If we did, no comedian would ever make a joke about Jesus.
Christians are very tolerant. But tolerance does not mean that one’s identity can totally disappear. Nations need some glue to hold them together and in the US, christianity has been one element. It matters that people have the same religion based rituals, that most of the nation celebrates Christmas, so people can say everyone is doing this at the same time. It matters to unity, to feeling akin to each other. The more diverse a nation gets, the less the people in it like each other. This is just reality, which can be seen much more in non western nations than in the west.
Secularism does not fit the bill. Secularism is the reason that Europeans feel no loyalty to their nations or Europe or the west. It’s the reason they don’t have children. Religion creates a community of past souls and future souls. People have something to live for and die for and pass on to offspring. Secularists and atheists don’t have that. Europeans can’t defend themselves against a Muslim who feels passionate about his religion. They have nothing to feel passionate about. So they submit to the other person’s passion. He feels so strongly, they reason, he must be right. In contrast, the only strong feelings Europeans have is disdain for themselves, their culture, the religion of their ancestors, and their entire history. American liberals often tell us that Europeans hate us. They hate themselves more. Their hatred for us stems from self hatred and jealousy that we still have something to preserve. In their hearts, they know their self disdain is shameful and disgusting but they can’t stop it. So their misery comes out as anti Americanism.
It’s ludicrous that Europeans are proud of not having religion. All that means is that they don’t have christianity or judeo christianity. Islam is growing and at this point in fifty years, they all may be Islamic nations. All this I have religion nonsense will be entirely gone, along with western culture.
I agree!
You make a great point about having no core values by the Europeans and a growing number of Americans. I am not a religious person but am strongly nationalistic. Even that is being eroded by the push for “Multiculturalism”. Anything American in our culture is slowly being erased but the other cultures that come here are allowed to profess and celebrate their cultural beliefs without any stigma. The celebration of Christmas is a good example of how we are losing our culture because it is becoming harder and harder to publicly promote and enjoy the Christmas period. Europe is a dying entity and unfortunately it will be the Muslims that will inherit it. What is truly amazing is the attitude that liberals exhibit toward Islam but refuse to exhibit towards Christianity. Anything done in the name of Allah is defended or excused by calling the perpetrator an extremist. Anything done in the name of Christ or God is condemned as a religious intrusion into secular life. I believe that the only thing that will open our collective eyes is a large scale atrocity or invasion of a non-Islamic country that results in a huge loss of life.
i am wondering how you know what “the europeans” believe, how you know that the europeans “hate themselves”?
I am living in europe and i dont see that we hate our countries or each other. Perhaps we are just not so enthusiastic about the “upcoming Armageddon” like much americans? Perhaps we are a little bit more calm and a little bit more secular because we are “enjoying” a history of more than 2000 years with A LOT of wars and dead people. It would make a book to name all the wars and conflicts in europe in the last 2 or 3 thousand years. Perhaps you should try to understand that americas identity is being formed a lot from the fact that the USA is a Superpower since WW2 while the last Superpower in europe – the UK – is just a normal country since much years. We enjoy our peaceful life much more than much americans think. While you americans are arguing a lot about stupid laws in your country we europeans can still say “happy christmas” and are wondering why you cant because of PC. this is just one example you should think about when saying that europe will die and will be conquered by the muslims. For me it is much more clear that the USA will have a big downfall in the next 50 years and not europe (of course this will be a catastrophe for europe, but much more for the USA).
I think you should not worry about us in europe, but rather about you in the USA.
P.S.: I am not an antiamerican, i know what the USA had made for us in WW2. I am rather having pitty for the decline in the USA in the last 10 years.
P.P.S.: Are you never wondering why nearly every 2nd movie from hollywood is about the end of the world or about an atomic bomb which is exploding somewhere? People in the USA are enjoying this kind of movies a lot looks like….
You expend a great deal of effort defending a desire to live a peaceful life, yet reaffirm the point that you don’t actually believe in anything at all. Wanting to live life in peace and harmony with the rest of mankind isn’t a belief system. And it certainly isn’t unique to Europeans. It’s what we Americans (and most Mohammedans) were doing in the last years of the Twentieth Century when Mohammedan extremists decided to start killing us. Or is allowing religious zealots to murder you or your family or your countrymen part of your plan to “live in peace?” If so, I have bad news for you: to live in peace, you first have to live.
As for Hollywood being any sort of predictor of the future of America, please do get real. In the last hundred years Hollywood hasn’t even been able to make more than two or three pictures that have been faithful representations of the past or even the present. People who live in a fantasy world with respect to their own heritage or present circumstances aren’t likely to be very good forecasters.
If you live in England, you’re already allowing de facto Mohammedan Law in some jurisdictions. This law is antithetical to the entire notion of human rights as practiced in England since Magna Carta. So what you’re saying is that to keep the peace with the enemies of the West, you’re willing to turn the clock back to a time when the West did not exist. OK. Maybe you’ll be one of the “lucky ones” who gets to “live” as a slave who doesn’t question his Mohammedan masters, “pays the tax,” and has his sons and daughters carted off to serve the Caliphate. You’ll no doubt regard me as an arrogant American for saying so: but I have nothing but contempt for dhimmis like you. As for us, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto (educated in the US) once cautioned the WWII military command: “You cannot invade the United States of America. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
May it ever be so.
I “expend a great deal of effort” because i am writing a comment?
I “dont believe in anything at all”?
I told that it is “unique to Europeans Wanting to live life in peace and harmony with the rest of mankind” ?
I told that it is “part of my plan allowing religious zealots to murder you (me)or your family or your countrymen” ?
If i read my comment i read other things than you. I was asking why people believe that we europeans hate each other. I was replying to phrases like:
“Secularism is the reason that Europeans feel no loyalty to their nations or Europe or the west. It’s the reason they don’t have children.”
“Europeans can’t defend themselves against a Muslim who feels passionate about his religion. They have nothing to feel passionate about. So they submit to the other person’s passion.”
“the only strong feelings Europeans have is disdain for themselves, their culture, the religion of their ancestors, and their entire history.”
Phrases like this are offending me, and it makes me sad that people in the USA are reading this and perhaps just believe it without a voice arguing this argument.
So my point is that there is a lot more about living in europe than propaganda like this is telling.
i was speaking about history and about different perspectives, but you are insulting me saying that you “have nothing but contempt for dhimmis like you (me)” while i never told that you or anybody else here is “an arrogant American”
I think that it could de discussed which influence the “american way of life”, the enforcement of consumism in the world and the corruption of power has on politics and on the life of normal people and believe-systems. I think it could be discussed why secularism evolved and why the power of organized religion is maybe not so good. But i am afraid discussion is not wanted here.
I am reading the threads here to try to understand what is going on in the USA, trying to get some information beyond the major news companys and MAYBE even get into discussion with some people, but seeing that i get insulted and told that i wrote things i never wrote makes me think that maybe the USA is getting more and more involved in propaganda and is leaving the ground of reasonable discussion with each year passing.
Do you know that much people in europe are afraid that in the USA the next totalitarian regime is evolving? Guess why?
This is a reply to your reply to me, but the website’s software won’t let me drill this deeply, so for technical reasons it looks like an answer to the same thing…
You have made a heartfelt comment in response to Americans claiming Europeans don’t believe in anything. But your comment only disputes whether Americans actually know what they’re talking about vis-a-vis Europe. It doesn’t articulate anything you believe; it simply expresses umbrage at the fact that we think this. When a person spends three paragraphs denying that he has no beliefs, it might be nice if he presented one. You don’t. So, there’s an effort to dispute a claim that you do not, in fact, actually dispute at all.
As a reason for your attitude you say that maybe you’re tired of wars in Europe. This leaves the clear implication that America isn’t tired of war. But we did not pick this fight, whatever people in Europe may believe. My father, like most American father’s of my generation, fought in a war to liberate Europe. I don’t believe you owe us anything for that; it was in our interest, and we had many ties of common culture and common blood. But my father did not want to fight that war: we had no choice. And like most American fathers of ALL generations, he taught his sons to “walk away from any fight that you can … but do not ever run away from one.”
This war is a fight that you cannot run away from, and your words lead me to believe that you — like most Europeans — do not believe in the West enough to defend it; and that you’re going to run. If I did not have so much contempt for that point of view, I would pity you. All cultures are not equally just or desireable. The culture to which you are slowly surrendering treats women — literally — like 1/2 of a human being. What kind of a man abandons his daughters to a future like this, however much he may want peace and quiet and the comforts of materialism? Only the kind of man who actually has no belief in the future for his descendants, or his own life in a world to come.
hello Fred,
dont know if you will read this, as some days already passed, but just for the little opportunity that you will, here my answer to you:
maybe you are right that i was not answering your doubts, because i saw other issues in your comment. So here a direct answer to you: Even if i am not a friend of organized religion, and of any kind of churches and fundamentalism, i still believe in God and in something more big than materialism is trying to teach us the last decades. I believe in soul and in spiritualism. i believe in the Good and the Love as a bigger power than Hatred and Evil. And yes, i also know that women have the same rights and deserve the same respect as men. In fact i have a daughter which is the gold of my life, so you can be sure that i am not indifferent to these questions. i spoke already a lot with her about believes of other cultures, especially the culture of muslims and teach her to do not forget her dignity and her freedom because of some romance with men not respecting her dignity, her rights and her freedom as a women. So i am in fact VERY concerned about this questions.
…But also i have to tell you that all muslim men and muslim women i learned to know a little bit better because of work or school or because i lived even in the same appartement with them were people very intelligent, with much dignity and with no obvious desire to cut down rights, will or freedom of women. So i really cant confirm with a point of view in which all muslims are treated as backward, agressive religious Fundamentalists.
Be sure that if the day of fighting for our freedom and our culture will come if i still live on this world i will NOT run away from the fight, as much people wont run away which look now maybe as liberal cowards. There are a lot of people here in europe who are seeing the problems with muslim culture but who are not joining the chorus of the people being afraid that western culture will just be blown away by muslim masses. We look maybe calm and silent, but dont worry, we are still thinking and we like our freedom and we will fight for our freedom if the fight will come to our doors. We ARE here. But we will never fight preemptive wars.
greetings from europe, gwylim
Matthew. You have no god, but clearly you have a Satan. When you link everything “bad” to Sarah Palin, it just causes everyone to chuckle and think you are a moron.
Congratulations, wanker Matthew, on hi-jacking an important and meaty post and sending so many commenters down some bunny trails.
And now back to the thread.
Given the vitriol from Dawkins, Bill Maher, Hitch and others, I’d say the athiests are the children in the room.
For a start, whilst Britain does not have a separate Constitution, it does have a Constitution and under the British Constitution, England is not a secular state it is a Christian state. In Britain, society is starting to fracture, as the police are increasingly perceived by the non-Muslim community as pursuing two distinctly different interpretations of the law when dealing with Muslims and non-muslims, as for example one can be arrested and charged with a criminal offense if one disputes with a Muslim their claim that Jesus was not the son of God, whilst on the other hand the police have shown themselves extremely reluctant to pursue criminal charges against Muslims when they have engaged in incitement to murder.
I seems like further proof to me that WaPo is actively running from the truth.
(1) ‘rootage’?
(2) “93 years old”?
¡Happy days! (through affordable healthcare)
Mutual understanding of blasphemy will not lead to mutual common ground. It projects our values and way of thinking upon those who follow Islam. They are not like us. Tolerance is not a part of Islam. Peace of Islam is the peace of the the converted or the dead. Even jizya offered by Dhimmis can often lead to death. If they rape a Dhimmi’s daughter, they will then stone her for being a whore, as one example.
Islam cannot tolerate other faiths. An open mind can tolerate a closed one, but the reverse is absolutely untrue. Those who follow Islam have completely closed minds. Dissent is intolerable. “Join or die!” is the doctrine of Islam. Islam is a plague upon all mankind.
But what did you expect, sir? The Washington Post is, by policy, relativist and multiculturalist. Therefore, when an “oppressed minority” — a designation Muslims have somehow attained — is accused of some heinous deed, the Post is required to take its side. If that requires the suppression of the facts of the matter, so be it.
There can be no enduring peace between Christianity and Islam. What peace currently exists between particular groups of Christians and Muslims exists solely because the followers of Muhammad haven’t yet amassed a sufficient presence in that region (3% to 5%) to begin to press for hegemony. The experiences of Europe since it opened its borders to Muslim immigration should be all the proof we need.
Whereas, atheists are continually insulted, accused of ‘conniving with Lucifer/Satan’ (we are atheists! We don’t believe in satan!) and of being immoral and evil.
We cannot shout blasphemy, we may not be offended, females are denigrated and we whisper ‘gender-apartheid’ quietly, so we do not get accused of hate-speech against some misogynistic religious community.
Perhaps, it would be nice if all the inter-faith religious people would agree that, in order to retain their own freedoms, they stop demanding that we non-religious people respect their idiosyncrasies?
Perhaps if ‘beliefs’ were treated as just that ‘beliefs’ – not certainties – we could agree to disagree – as we agree to different fashions in clothes. Meanwhile, inter-faith seems to be a praise-worthy endeavour – if it keeps people from killing each other – but otherwise an empty waste of time, since no consensus can ever be reached and I fear that a compromise could endanger those of us who reject fantasy for fact.
“Perhaps if ‘beliefs’ were treated as just that ‘beliefs’ – not certainties – we could agree to disagree” . . . “those of us who reject fantasy for fact.”
Your vision founders on the shoal of your own special pleading: yours, of course, is not mere belief but fact.
And please don’t reply with the sophomoric “atheism is absence of belief.” It’s not. Theism and religion are utterly symmetric, logically, with respect to a simple proposition: “God is.” The theist affirms, the atheist denies. Denial is not any more a “lack of belief” than affirmation is. Asserting that atheism is somehow exempt from the epistemic critique it claims as its own unique bludgeon against people of faith, is mere naive triumphalist pap.
Only the agnostic has a leg to stand on in this respect, but agnosticism never motivated activism against theists (“especially those cheerfully naive Christians, dammit!”) so it’s a useless worldview to the activist atheist. “You’re no help at all.”
At any rate, the atheist wishes to have the agnostic cake of “lacking belief” while masticating such ambivalence with the teeth of certainty. That s/he speaks of unbelief as “fact” simply showcases the irony.
Since religionists of all persuasions demand that atheism be officially classed as a religion, maybe it is time for atheists to scream “blasphemy” whenever religionists denigrate atheism. Therefore atheists should demand the government come to their rescue and define religionists as hate criminals against the “religion of atheism”. It is the religionists who actually want to have it both ways – defining atheism as a religion, but no wanting to take responsibility for denegrating a religion.
However one thing I like about atheists is that so far not one atheist has ever come to my front door asking me if I love (whoever it is I don’t believe in). Whereas at least once or twice a month a Christian evangelist rings my doorbell, asked me if I “love Jesus”, and wants me to pray with him (or her) to the Christian God. So far no Muslim has come to my door either, to ask me if I love Allah, but I figure that is only a matter of time.
If the past is any indication of the future, when Muslims knock on your door you won’t be ASKED if you love Allah, you’ll be TOLD you love Allah…..or else! And we all know what “or else” means…..if the past is any indication of the future.
Voltaire, I think you are really on to something here. But lets take this idea a step further. If an atheist who does not believe that Jesus was devine, is a member of a specific anti-Jesus atheistic religion – and thus entitled to protection under anti-blasphemy laws, then since I do not believe in the great god Zeus, does that also make me a member of a specific anti-Zeus atheistic religion? But then I also don’t believe in the the great god Apollo, so I guess I am also a member of an anti-Apollo atheistic religion. Gosh, I never knew I now could scream blasphemy against anyone who criticized any belief in any type of god. I may need to get a good lawyer and get rich.
If atheism is a religion, then maybe we can form an atheist church where we can hang out on the weekends and be exempt from taxation.
As a matter of practical fact, you are doing yourself a disservice to lump Christians in with Muslims as “interfaith religious people.” This is a mistake I see atheists make time and time again. In 2010, Christians are not much of a threat to you, more of an annoyance, really. Muslims want you converted or dead. There is a difference. But most atheists (not necessarily you) are so virulently anti-Christian, they will even take up the cause of the poor, downtrodden Muslims. What fools those atheists are.
Of course, you’re in a liberal democratic society that got that way in large part based on the values of Christianity, so you’re allowed to say and be pretty much how you wish. Try that in Saudi Arabia or Dubai and see how far you get.
What do you care what any religious person has to say about you? If a Christian called me “lucifer” I’d laugh about it and move on. He doesn’t know me or define me. You must be really insecure in your atheism, Maybe some doubts there, huh?
So please, spare us the athiest drama queen histrionics. You are not oppressed, you are just not taken seriously, because you think that insulting the religious by calling religious adult women “victims of gender aparteid”. No one is prosecuting anyone for “hate speech” against Christians. In fact, you can get a government grant to insult Christianity.
And if you can’t respect religious “idiosycracies”, that aren’t an involuntary violation of someones individual liberties, why do you think anyone has to respect yours?
In fact, your very tone is complete disrespect for the religion that inspired the men that wrote the Constitution guaranteeing individual liberties, all the while demanding respect for your beliefs. Your inability to see distinct differences doesn’t speak well of athiesm. You sound like a leftist in your ignorant denunciations of the religious.
The only answer you need for religious folks you don’t care for is “no thanks” and “not if it violates the Constitution.” Other than that, they aren’t meddling in your life anywhere near to what athiestic socialists are right now.
“you can get a government grant to insult Christianity.”
That is soooooooo true.
Anyway, I just want atheists to stop calling every theist stupid. It drives me nuts.
Perhaps if ‘beliefs’ were treated as just that ‘beliefs’ – not certainties
But, of course, to Christians it is a certainty! That He existed and taught what he did is a historical fact, attributed to not only by the Gospels but by Josephus and other non-Christian historians. If you look carefully at the Gospels and the various epistles in the New Testament they are phrased very carefully as evidence acceptable in a court of law, with multiple testimonies from different eye-witnesses. That you choose to not believe it is your problem.
This is incorrect. Christians do not take it for a certainty. Your statement is a complete misunderstanding of what it is to have faith. Faith is believing, not knowing. One can state that one knows to such degree, that one is certain, but it is hyperbole. Strong belief is not certainty.
Those who “know” are the dangerous ones, because intolerance stems from such “certainty”. If you know God exists, then all the laws of man are worthless and can be set aside. Believers tolerate blasphemy. “Knowers” do not. Real Christians believe. Real Muslims do not. Christians “spread the good Word”. Muslims “spread Islam to all the corners of the world by the sword”.
Excellent article. However, I think Dr. Elliott, whom I have always greatly admired, misses the point. IMO, ALL organized religion has the same problem: Each sect believes that their belief is the “only true one”, and that all others are infidels and blasphemers. The Christians had their turn at rampaging and killing in the Second Century, with the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Now it’s the Muslims’ turn. Organized religion is one of the great scourges of mankind, responsible for more killing and suffering than all the plagues and natural disasters combined. Believe in God, or Allah, or Jesus or Muhammad if you choose to. I have the utmost respect and empathy for how good it makes you feel. All I ask is that you allow me to do the same for my religion or my god or no religion and no god if I choose. Tne world would be a much better place.
1. Christians were not killing anyone in the second century.
2. As an atheist you should be very grateful for the Crusades. While the Crusades in the Middle East were ultimately a failure, they did succeed in driving Muslims out of Spain and protecting most of Europe from their aggression. If they had failed, you would be praising Allah (or pretending to really well) right now.
3. How many people were executed by the Inquisition? A couple thousand is the historical estimate. How many infidels were killed in the name of Islam during the same period?
4. You write as if Christians have not changed since the Dark Ages – you know it’s not true as you are allowed to worship as you please. Islam truly hasn’t changed since the Dark Ages.
Old Soldier,
Thank you for knowing history. Too often I see urban legends about Christianity paraded around as if fact (The oft repeated/accepted story about the Galileo situation being one of the most easily refuted). Atheists are especially guilty in this respect. Their inflation of the scope and body count of violent episodes in the Christian world caused primarily by religious differences (and not politics) is especially disingenuous. Without Christianity, the tolerance the multiculturalists claim as their own would have had no standing whatsoever. Anti-Christians take for granted the the morality, the freedom, and quality of life that Christinity nurtured in this world.
No doubt about it. Richard is definitely today’s winner of the Rosie O’Donnell “When It Comes To Religion, I Reject History & Substitute My Ignorance” Award. His statement “Organized religion is one of the great scourges of mankind, responsible for more killing and suffering than all the plagues and natural disasters combined” had 1st place written all over it.
One correction: careful historians now agree that there were no “Dark Ages”, the supposed time of Christian bigotry and ignorance after the fall of Rome that was finally ended by the Enlightenment. In fact, Western technology & civilization had progressed far beyond Rome by the Middle Ages. The secular thinkers who came later used the terminology of Dark vs. Enlightened to make themselves look good, but it was propaganda, not fact.
Islam’s history was solidified into a fictional agenda when Caliph Uthman of Mecca ordered that all circulating copies of the Quo’ran be brought to him and compiled into a standard version for circulation. Forced translation into the emerging classic Arabic and rearrangement of chronology by sura length produced seven different translations. Then he ordered that six be burned along with all known associated script. The excuse for the burning was that different readings were the cause of Muslims fighting amongst themselves over different versions.(Book 61 no.510). Can you concede that selective burning in 650 may be the single most effective act contributing to the its “holiness” in thirteen centuries? Or would you dare to assume that it was edited into fact based fiction for the purpose of protecting the elite while held high as the unquestionable shield of Islam? Their sword of conquest continues to be intimidation when their population reaches 5% in any particular geographical locality.
I didn’t see this post until the other one below.
One more point. Don’t confuse what a set of people used religion to justify (Crusades, Spanish Inquisition) with what a religion portends to be.
The argument of the original ariticle or blog post (whatever it was or is) was that the DOCUMENTS that describe Christian or Muslim behaviors to be emulated are in the prior instance peaceful and in later violent.
A Muslim who murders an infidel (read: non-Muslim or Muslim heretic) is to be honored. A Christian who murders ANYONE is a sinner who must ask for God’s forgiveness. If you disagree with this, please provide passages from the Bible (New Testament only as I said Christian) or the Quran to prove your point.
“Each sect believes . . . that all others are blasphemous, to be hated and feared.”
Good GRIEF. Someone needs to get out more. Much more.
@Richard: “The Christians had their turn at rampaging and killing in the Second Century, with the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition”
… which were direct counter-attacks to Islamic invasions of Jewish and Christian lands — Palestine and Iberia, respectively.
No prizes for false equivalence, but thanks for playing.
Dear ‘Richard’,
There is nothing wrong with a faith believing it is ‘the one true religion’, nor in preaching it and trying to convince others to believe it. That is true of religious faiths as well as the faiths of atheism and agnosticism.
But Islam crosses that line by upholding violence, terror, murder, enslavement, rape and genocide as its preferred method of ‘conversion’. It is called Islamic Jihad, holy war, terror to propogate the faith.
“Allah said ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”-Ibn Ishaq: 327
“The Messenger of Allah said ‘I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah’” -Muslim (1:33)
No other religion but Islam demands the universal, unending slaughter of all unbelievers as its prime directive.
And your understanding of the crusades is woefully misguided. The crusades were a defensive measure against marauding Islamic Jihadist armies that threatened to subjugate all of Europe.
And while there is no doubt there were atrocites committed during the crusades, these were done in spite of the teachings, mandates and life examples of Jesus.
Islamic atrocites, on the other hand, are perpetrated in direct accordance with the teachings, mandates and life examples of the sociopathic prophet Muhammed.
~ The Infidel Alliance
P.S. – Some of the greatest mass murderers in history, like Mao Zedong, have been non-religious/atheist, thus your theory holds no water.
“Now it’s the Muslims’ turn.”
You might want to recheck your history books on this one. Muslims have been at it against the Christian west for as long as there were Muslims. They have invaded and conquered Christian lands (the Balkans, Spain, Eastern Europe), enslaved an estimated 3-5 million western Christians alone, and from time-to-time devastated the majority of the European Mediterranean coast and almost succeeded to eliminating shipping through this vital waterway. And what’s more, they continue to hold historically Christian lands including the home of one of its two major branches–Orthodox Christianity (once Constantinople, now Istanbul).
Now it’s there turn? I think they’re fully warmed up already.
This whole discussion caused me to research the crusades, which then caused me to research the founding of Islam a bit. And yeah, you’re 100% correct. Essentially, Muslims spent about 400 years conquering Christian territory, and the Christians finally decided to fight back with the First Crusade. This has been terribly skewed by the Left, I think, as most people think the Crusades were started just because Christian kings and emperors wanted more land that didn’t belong to them. The Left fails to mention that Muslims had been waging war against the Roman and Byzantine Empires for the past 400 years.
The worst abuses in history–the most killings, tortures, rapes and oppression by numbers and scope–were committed by religion-less and god-less communists and fascists. Their religion was no-religion, and it allowed them to self justify anything; just like in today’s far left ideology religion-less or atheism seems to justify all kinds of perversions and injustices as just a sign of the times.
Christianity teaches “love one another,” “love thy enemy,” “turn the other cheek” and “my kingdom is not of this world.” Those who have ever used Christianity to control people, gain political power and justify conquest and murder were never following Jesus’s teachings, while those who in the name of Allah waged jihad and participated in suicide bombings, amputations and stoning were actually following the teachings of the Koran–the whole point of the article.
Rem acu tetigisti! Bravo!
Two points.
re: Christianity. There were plenty of massacres of both Jews and Muslims by Christians. In addition to the horrific Spanish Inquisition, there were regular pogroms instituted against the Jews in Europe up through the early 20th century, not to mention killings of Holocaust survivors by pious Poles after WWII. And the Crusaders did their share of killing of civilians. There were also, of course, periodic Muslim massacres of Jews in places like Syria and Iran that pre-dated Zionism. So it’s not fair to say that only Muslims kill (or killed) for the sake of religious zealotry.
re: Organized religion vs. Atheism. Most of the greatest genocides in the 20th century – Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot – were not acting from motives of Christian or other “organized religion”. They were acting for (warped and immoral) political/ideological reasons. So the atheist canard against “organized religion” fails to hold up. At the end of the day, those Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists etc. who can understand and heed the Biblical injunction “Love thy neighbor as thyself” (which, by the way, is in Leviticus thereby predating Jesus) will be able to behave in a tolerant way to those with different views; those who believe that such strictures protect only those like themselves will not.
And Christians overwhelmingly act as you wish.
This is really not about theology but about values. The concept of unalienable rights is based on “love thy neighbor” and “do unto others”.
Think about it –why should a society be based on unalienable rights?
Dawkins, PZ et al ultimately seek to change this. What they advocate, whether intended or not and I think it is, is to base society on social utility, the bestest for the mostest, with self-credentialed, self-proclaimed elites deciding what the bestest is.
Ultimately, of course, this will not be for the mostest.
And that is the real reason, I think they react so viciously to claims of rights endowed by a “Creator” or the idea of no king but King Jesus.
If you want to be a slave follow Dawkins.
Hang on a second: My impression was that the Crusades were a response to Muslim atrocities in the Holy Land. As for the Inquisition, yes, there were problems there. One is that the informant received 1/3 of the victim’s wealth. Thus, some informants were a little zealous. However, the root of the Inquisition was a problem between Christians and Muslims. Muslim armies had occupied Spain and the Christians worked to reclaim the country. Individual Muslims would claim to have converted to Christianity, only to betray their Christian neighbors once the Muslim army returned. The point of the Inquisition was to see if their conversion was true, and they wouldn’t betray Christians again. So the expulsion of Muslims from Spain was a grace: they could have enslaved them or murdered them.
Interesting how the murders of Christians throughout the Middle East makes almost no news here in the United States and is barely mentioned in the main stream media. But have one Christian anywhere threaten to harm or mutilate one copy of the Koran, and there are riots throughout the Muslim world. Must say something about a relgion where the slaughter of some of its members barely causes as stir in the western world, while the imagined offense against a book, A BOOK, can cause widespread riots, murder, and mayhem. Um, does this say something about the religions involved and does it also say something about which religion really is the “religion of peace?” I think it certainly does.
Great point…. I think it not only says something about the religions involved and which religion really is the “religion of peace”, but it says a great deal about how each religion views their God.
Christians know who has already won the victory, regardless of what someone may say or do. We don’t have to stand up for God in a violent way. He’s big enough to handle it. Jesus was silent as He was spat upon, scourged, and crucified. But at the end, He said, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing.” He had love and compassion for those who hated Him.
Islam’s Allah, however, must not be strong enough to keep his reputation intact, since they are obliged to punish those who get out of line, even if only with words. Where’s the love, mercy, and forgiveness? How is anyone ever sure Allah is pleased with him? Seems like the religion breeds bitterness and hate.
I agree. But the problem exists with all religions. Each sect believes that theirs is the “only true religion” and that all others are blasphemous, to be hated and feared. That has been the problem through the ages and will continue into the foreseeable future. The world would be a much better place if we could all just get over this hate and distrust. Practice your religion (or not – your choice) all you want but give others the same right.
You paint with too broad a brush. Despite the atrocities perpetrated against us we neither hate nor fear christianity or islam. We only want them to leave us alone.
You say that “…the problem exists with all religions. Each sect believes that theirs is the “only true religion” and that all others are blasphemous, to be hated and feared.”
Christianity does not teach hatred of anyone, if you bothered to actually learn about it. And I mean the teachings, not necessary one person’s rantings.
There are many people of all religions that do not follow the tenets, but when you look at the documents (Bible–NEW TESTAMENT, Quran, Book of Mormon, etc.) I think you might find that there is nothing trying to convince Christians that we should be seeking to convert people to Christianity with anything BUT WORDS! And as murder is a SIN, that wouldn’t work either.
So if we believe as you do and behave as you tell us to, the world will be a better place. Agree and obey — I do hope you see the irony.
Jon
Actually, not all religions are exclusive, as in believers maintaining that their religion is the only true one; in Japan, for instance, about 80% of the population is Buddhist, and about 80% Shinto, with considerable (but not complete) overlap. Their view is that Shinto concerns itself with this life, and Buddhism with the next. Weddings are about one-third each Buddhist, Christian and Shinto for cultural reasons, as marriage is a secular process rather than a religious one.
Richard
“I agree. But the problem exists with all religions”
The problem of suicide bombings? with Baptists?
The problem of honor killings for blasphemy? With Unitarians?
The problem with live beheadings? With Coptics?
Murdering film makers, death fatwas’s against authors and cartoonists?
An EQUAL phenomenon, with shared with ALL groups who believe in some form of God?
Too bad reality doesnt reflect your bias…you must be a recent graduate from Bong & Keg U, with a Masters degree in mainstream media moral equivilancy.
If you have a paypal account, I’ll send you a dollar to buy a clue
Make a cross on your abdomen
When in Rome do like a Roman
Ave Maria! Gee, it’s good to see ya!
Gettin’ ecstatic and
Kinda dramatic and
Doing the Vatican Raaaaaaaagggg!!!
And yet, Professor Lehrer still lives to sing the tale. Guess he didn’t pick the wrong religion to satirize (which would have included the religion of Marxism; those adherents can get just a tad testy). I think this may sum up much of the colloquy here that started with “All religions …”
We all must understand the Islamic claim that Muhammed was some kind of holy man, a moral role model for all humanity with a direct connection to some kind of God, is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated upon humanity. It is a massive lie that is propagated by Islam’s power to repress inquiry, dissent and the truth by fear, intimidation and violence.
But the truth about Muhammed cannot be suppressed, because it can be found in the Islamic ‘holy’ texts, the Koran, Ahadith and Sira Rasul Allah, recorded in black and white for the whole world to discover.
The Koran 68:4 upholds Muhammed as ‘uswa hasana’, “an exalted standard of character.” Islamic tradition upholds Muhammed as ‘al-insan al-kamil’ or ‘the perfect man’, to be emulated by all Muslims.
But the hard truth about Muhammed, as recorded in the Islamic ‘holy’ texts, is that far from being a a ‘holy prophet’ Muhammed was a sadistic sociopath, a 7th century Arabian Hitler, only worse – a successful Charles Manson, only creepier and far more evil.
Muhammed was in fact a mass murderer, a sadistic torturer, a heartless amputator, an inhuman decapitator, a savage mutilator, a human slaver, a looting stealing thief, a serial rapist, a human trafficker and kidnapper, a sex trafficker, a perverted child rapist, a twisted sexual deviant, a woman hating misogynist, a perfidious liar, a brutal intolerant genocidist and a self proclaimed terrorist.
By any objective standard Muhammed was one of the most vile and disgusting men in the pantheon of human history, a brutal barbarian and megalomaniacal narcissistic consumed by unquenchable sexual lust, greed and power.
Muhammed should have been incarcerated not venerated, and he should be reviled not revered.
Every pathology that afflicts Islam comes directly from this sick man, Muhammed, and the entire world suffers because of him.
If Muslims and non-Muslims alike are taught the truth about this monster, the entire ‘moral’ foundation of Islam collapses under the weight of this massive fraud.
Please help expose the truth about Muhammed, this literal ‘anti-Christ’, this absolute ‘anti-Buddha’.
~ The Infidel Alliance
@#10. The Infidel Alliance;
Wow~! You really know how to sugar coat things, don’cha?
Dear jb,
This is the hard truth we all must learn and understand.
Muhammed and his sociopathic depravity is the pathology that informs Islamic consciousness and infects the Islamic mind.
~ The Infidel Alliance
You have it exactly right, IA. For those who haven’t seen this, I’ll post it again:
Islam, as defined by its own doctrine, history and the by actions of its followers is the existential enemy of Western civilization. Read Dr. Andrew Bostom’s work to get a sense of the Islamic mindset and what its ascendancy might mean for the rest of us:
The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims
Read Lee Harris’ outstanding work to get a sense of why and how the West’s days may be numbered. We are our own worst enemy unless we face up to the hard choices necessary to remain free and prosperous.
The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West
If you’re still having trouble wrapping your mind around the fact that Western civilization does in fact have mortal and existential enemies, take a quick turn through Lee Harris’ Civilization and Its Enemies
Islam is not so much a religion as it is a supremacist, totalitarian political ideology (no ‘separation of church and state here, eh?), a destructive meme impervious to moderation or change, and with a narrowly circumscribed set of rituals that define every aspect of its followers’ lives. As for ‘tolerance’, here’s a quote from the Muslim Brotherhood and their mission in the U.S, calling for…
Speaking to the ‘religion of peace,” assertion that we hear from Muslims and ignorant (yes, ignorant) Westerners, when Muslims assert that Islam is a “religion of peace” they are not engaging in al taqqiya, they are actually making an assertion in good faith.
The problem lies in the fact that Islam has, from the Western point of view, a defective concept of peace. In semitic languages like Arabic, the consonants are the “root” of the word: islam = submission, and salam = peace have the same root, slm.
The only concept of peace in Islamic jurisprudence is the peace between the conqueror and the conquered, between master and slave. There is no concept of a negotiated peace between nations in Islamic law (and note that law is the defining property of Islam—their clerics are jurists, schools of Qu’ranic interpretation are called fiqh, a legalistic term)—Muslims may negotiate a “hudna” or armistice of limited duration with non-Muslim, but not a definitive enduring peace.
In that regard, Islam was, is and will be a serial murderer of entire cultures and peoples. This is what Islam has done throughout its entire 1400 year history. This is what it has done whenever it has finally gotten the upper hand in whatever culture is has opposed. This is what has been inextricably interwoven into the ‘DNA’ of its operating system. Those whom Islam does not destroy, it enslaves, diminishes and impoverishes. Islam strives for the conversion, enslavement or death of all who do not conform to its sadistic and cruel vision of Mankind. Islam cannot be ‘reformed’ in the light of our Western values of humanity and freedom. Were that so, it would no longer be Islam. For its psychopathic and cruel misogyny alone, Islam is an abomination and worthy only of extinction.
Finally, here’s a wakeup call that will chill you to the core. And if anyone from the West is still defending Islam after this, then you deserve what Islam has in store for you: dhimmitude or death.
The thing is that what you are saying – the essential point, that it is a dominating religion – is equally true of the central character of historical Christianity.
It’s possible that Christianity has gotten over that in the last 100 years, but this is somewhat debatable.
There IS such a thing as a lasting peace, a permanent peace, in Islamic international law. However it can only exist between Muslim nations and those nations that are “of the book” – muslim, christian, or jewish.
As for dominating other nations – disrespecting contracts and treaties with other nations & constantly absolving oneself of responsibility for mass slaughter, violations of the peace, aggressive war, and other large-scale crimes – the Christian nations went around the world killing and enslaving, respecting no treaties other than those they made between themselves.
The christian notion of “Christendom” is not different from the parallel notion of the collection of muslim nations, who grant each other’s laws and sovereignty more respect even than they grant christian and jewish nations (thought they are supposed to offer the same respect, in practice they don’t).
Through the teachings of christianity, entire countries convinced themselves that that they were god’s chosen people, that the human beings they interacted with were far less important than the invisible, intangible “souls” of those people, and thus that,
…wait for it….
killing in this life didn’t matter, slavery in this life was an opportunity for the infidels to become converted, “saved” through association with their christian betters, that absolutely any injustice could be done if it made it more likely that the children of the “unsaved” would become “saved” because the mega-trillions of years living with god were far more important than the few decades of life on earth.
I think that christianity has changed, but only through the failure of imperialism. We of the so-called “West” got to a place where we had to respect all borders because all borders had been drawn up by the christian nations…either by take over and through “ownership” creating a nation that was nominally christian or through failure to conquer creating a boundary that christians respected because they had no choice.
At that point, there weren’t any treaties that were considered “international” that could be disrespected.
Of course, there were many treaties with independent nations that were still disrespected, but the US and other nations in similar situations had unilaterally redefined those independent nations out of existence, rendering them semi-autonomous “dependent sovereigns.”
Now, given the recent end of imperialism in its well-known form, it makes sense that those in muslim countries would take note of the fact that the US kills over 100,000 people in Iraq, installs a puppet sovereign, calls for elections so that a non-puppet can be elected, but totally controls the process of creating the constitution under which the election will take place.
Not only do they take note, but a large number (it’s impossible to say exactly how many) assume that the US is engaging in yet another example of christian, “western” imperialism.
To those people, christianity has given at least as much evidence of being guilty of what you accuse of islam.
even to people like me, christianity has given immense amounts of evidence, overwhelming evidence that it **was** like that.
So the question is – if christianity is still christianity, and hasn’t changed it’s essential character, then why can’t islam,, given a crisis of similar scale to the end of imperialism, reach a new status quo and still be called islam?
The thing is that what you are saying – the essential point, that it is a dominating religion – is equally true of the central character of historical Christianity.
It’s possible that Christianity has gotten over that in the last 100 years, but this is somewhat debatable.
You understand nothing. Your response is an empty collection of leftist talking points, devoid of truth, an understanding of history, reason and logic. Go peddle that nonsense elswhere.
who is not understanding nothing is people like you. whatever is being said opposing your peoples truth is “leftish”, wrong and “without logic”.
what i see here from most comments is a complete one-sided truth, and anything beyond this truth is being denied. No discussion, no arguments, no thinking. the end of most replies is: “go away” -> this is making it very clear that your kind of people want to stay only with people thinking the same way like you.
poor thinking, poor logic, poor words.
there is no debate here, just propaganda.
just sad
I will really stay away here now, leaving you guys alone in your poor little world. I am just wondering how you managed to learn reading and writing with such a closed mind.
At least i really learned something about the “right” people in the USA.
goodbye, hope you wake up some day.
While I like this article he makes one fundamental error. when he writes, how Christians tolerate blasphemy, that is only fairly recent. Until maybe 200 years ago (and only 80 years ago in some parts of the world) if a Jew said anything that Christians found as blasphemy, he would be killed, and it was either by mob or by the government. I give credit to my Christian friends is that unlike Islam their faith has changed to become tolerant (b/c in muslim countries my fellow jews are still persecuted).
Well, I think Christians on occasion have adapted to power all too readily and bloodily. Still, it’s an interesting historical discussion, and the very fact that the Post is unwilling to have it demonstrates that Islam is now considered to exist outside the normal rules of historical and political discussion by perhaps our most politically important newspaper. It is a short distance from that to the entire newspaper bowing down at every prayer call.
Pillorying Islam probably wasn’t quite what the Post had in mind.
Cultural relativism don’t you know. General Patton and a peace loving hippie: if they’re the right skin tone, same guy.
Drawing cartoons and killing Christians: same thing.
Not blowing up muslims in America indicates Islamophobia.
It’s liberal math. Success plus European Americans plus politeness towards non-Europeans for that imperialism thingy equals The Twilight Zone.
Here is the proof that a Supreme Being cannot exist.
Scientific proof/evidence is true when it can be falsified for it exists in infinity, else it is mono causal and finite..
The two major philosophies which deny one another are Idealism and Materialism. Religion, superstition, sects etc. are all part of Idealism. [original rephrased by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc]
Idealism accepts only faith as source of truth (morality) and rejects scientific evidence. Materialism derives truth (knowledge) from scientific evidence and rejects faith to that end.
A Supreme Being cannot exist and – besides the empiric and semantic necessity of a material, physical, tangible character of a proof thereto – with the materiality of such a proof, with this matter only can be meant the smallest (constant of Planck) and not the largest matter (curving of space). Furthermore that from faith no proof can be derived for the existence of anything whatsoever. Simple faith is optimistic, and religious faith is construed phantasy.
Moreover, from infinity follows the existence of the graviton beyond the thus far smallest known particle. From these gravitons has – by reasoning – become clear that there are both free as well as fixed gravitons. Beyond the increasingly smaller realm of gravitons there is an infinite increasing ratio between the amount of matter (gravitons and ever smaller particles) and in annihilation being matter.(infinitely smaller particles)
The free gravitons ‘stand’ relatively still in space within their frame of reference in relation to the atomic objects like electrons and protons out of which man, planets and stars are formed. Their protons are formed from electrons and electrons from fixed gravitons. Gravity, and the four other quantum mechanical forces are the consequence of the interaction between free and fixed gravitons. (Unification)
Existence of both free and fixed gravitons furthermore assumes that the Idea is electronic. Products of the human mind are material particles.
Man-interpreted-surrounding-reality consists of continuous new progressing, material tautology (semantic necessity.
European atheism grew by reactionary Krupp-Flick bourgeois caused atrocities in two World Wars leading to postmodernism (nothing is true, equals to: faith without a god) among social-democrats and social academies.
Contemporary, nihilistic moral and cultural-relativism which developed out of post-modern thought is – in contrast to it’s interpretation by ‘historians’ – in it’s non-realism non-cognitive, unreal, not-knowable, unaware, not able to recognize reactionary stealth and kinetic Jihad and Islam insinuation for Shariah. But all this is not to be confused with semantic tautology.
In The USA, Christian intellectuals realize American atheists are not their opponents, but vulgarized philosophical materialism, which results in Big Mac mass consumerism, money talks etc. They attack atheists by insinuating that they idealistically, ‘believe’ that god does not exist. [original rephrased by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc]
Smell, heat etc. are nothing but colliding frictional particles. Feelings of insult like ‘blasphemy’ are… self-inflicted neurological activity, and laws against defamation, libel insult and blasphemy, without proven material damage, must be abolished, for they prosecute the messenger. [original rephrased by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc]
So, although color, form, pressure, superconductivity etc. can be very relative, even tautology, in viewing around us, all massive visible objects can be related with extreme scientific precision within the conceptions of space and time, while faith – with or without a god – can relate totally nothing.
The previous mentioned semantic necessity lies herein that besides semantic ideas, man also thinks spatially as well, so without word content, as Roman intellectuals like Lucretius, who, by projection of architectonic constructions got texts of law in their head who in their turn spoke about primitive man who did not yet have a semantic definition of a Supreme Being although they already knew from India of 12.000 year old atheistic semantic premises.
Semantic thought – in distinction of spatial thought – comprises of exact defined, restricted and prejudiced, so mostly dogmatic, free-thought-indoctrinating contents of Ideas, definitions. (Semantic necessity)
The mentioned semantic necessity simply means that the previous mentioned content ‘micro and macro space’ in the logic context of their infinity – so these cosmologic and atomic infinity – so the identical semantic definition infinity – is imperative above every other content of definition, so therefore exists above that of the content of the so called definition of a Supreme Being.
There can be no Supreme Being because the material evidence of the (thus far known) outer boundaries of the astrophysical atomic and cosmological spatial definition Infinity – and herewith all inner lying, containing definitions and phenomena, and, as said, that the largest imagination of infinite expanding space is explained with the infinite conceivable smallest, and constituting the largest from the smallest or vice versa mutually semantically deny an intelligible Supreme Being – are described as such by the scientific community in laws of particle ‘attraction’, spin, motion and exclusion, repulsion that herewith no Supreme Being could be interpreted or indicated and that it outside and beyond the continuously expanding spatial boundaries ever again and again lacks of semantic word definition.
The semantic definition of ‘Infinity’, encompasses more than the semantic word definition ‘Supreme Being.’ [original rephrased by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc]
A Supreme Being is therefore secondary, and every deducted moral assumption, and sanctions such as [in Islam] revenge for criticism of doctrines of the faith, and apostasy are the result of imaginative fiction. [orig. rephrased by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc]
Credulous belief in an invisible and merciful authority is primal. The apparently ‘weaker’ morality of a nonbeliever has been denigrated for centuries through brutal domination by the imagined superior morality of the believer. [orig. rephrased by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc]
” A G-d you could explain I could not worship. ”
Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits
I like that. Very much.
Yoohoo. I think that quite a bit more rephrasing would be helpful.
I think someone is off their meds…
Interesting argument, if somewhat incoherent. I can’t respond to all of it, but I will point out that the construction of “Idealism” vs. “Materialism” is a false dichotomy. You’re saying that a person can believe in the natural or the supernatural, but not both. Why not both? You’re excluding the middle, and that’s a logical fallacy.
Christianity, for instance, believes in “special revelation” (the Word of God) but also believes in “general revelation” — i.e., truth about God that can be derived from the natural world. St. Augenstine (sp?) did a lot of philosophical work in this area. Many of the world’s great scientists were and continue to be Christian.
Also, the stuff about infinity… you have heard of the Big Bang, right? The universe is not infinite.
Where did you get this from, anyway? The translation into English needs quite a lot of work.
“God” by definition has to be external to the universe and is thus beyond the ability of those of us bound by it’s laws and logic to comprehend or logically explain. It’s fun to see you try and square that circle, though.
Yo, Bubba: To prove that something exists, you must first define it — genus plus differentia — and then produce an example that fits the definition. To prove that something cannot exist, you must define it, then show that the properties ascribed to it by the definition are mutually contradictory.
So here’s your homework assignment: Define God. Then get us theists to accept your definition.
(When you’re finished with that, calculate the value of pi to the last digit.)
The fool has said in his heart,”There is no God.”
In other words, “I can’t believe in something I cannot measure.”
I abandoned that school of thought at about age 6, but, okay.
Um – I think that your reverse phlogiston transcollimator is in need of a tune-up.
Posting while crazy. Please do keep the Thorazine nearer the keyboard, and the bong further away. As an agnostic, I don’t believe in very much, but I do believe that was the longest uninterrupted string of non-sequiturs I’ve seen on a blog in a very long time.
Where is that bunny with the pancake on his head?
This article is fairly soft on Islam. Muhammad was an incredibly violent pedophile sexual predator. Islam was and still is spread through the use of violence.
The violent raids of the 7th and 8th centuries have been replaced by terrorists. Same purpose – to spread fear and destabilize regions targeted for Islam.
The other key difference between Christianity and Islam – there are no excuses in Christianity. It isn’t okay for Christians to lie to, steal from, rape, or murder non-Christians. The Koran encourages this behavior in Muslims.
Having now read it, I’m not entirely convinced it deserved to be published. The importance of its points notwithstanding, it is a very poorly written article. “…Mohamed Atta’s theological justification for the attack he led, “9/11””? Is “9/11″ the title of the attack now? Just one glaring example of the substandard writing throughout.
If I were WaPo editor, I would not have published this in its current form. But if it were re-submitted with some basic, competent editing, I would not have rejected it on content.
Given the quality of writing in the WaPo (some of it would have to rise several quantum levels to reach, say, sophomoric bilge) it’s very hard to believe their style manual would’ve been offended by anything here. It’s all about thoughtcrime, and nothing to do with Strunk and White. But thanks for trying to come up with a lame excuse all the same.
I agree with several of the points, essentially which add up to the obvious truth that Islam is the aggressor today and is coddled, though it should not be. The article could have used more aggressive editing though, since the points are not posed in a parallel way and thus it’s harder to find the overall point, and uses such as “rootages” are distracting.
The problems facing Western Civilization just from Islam are multiple. One of the largest is that probably less than five percent of the Judeo-Christian population of the West has taken any kind of serious look at Islam. Most do not realize that it is not just a “religion” but, rather, a social/political/economic/religious movement designed to conquer the world. It is all of the things “The Infidel Alliance”, above, says.
Another is that the leftist/socialist/progressive elites of the Western world have decided that, since most Muslims are non-white, it must be an aggrieved and victimized people. They have no clue that Islam is an ideology, not a race, or that Islam is perfectly happy to have members from all races. However, Arabs are first among equals, always and where ever they may be found. The Western elites are, as they were when they acted as Lenin’s ‘useful idiots’, dolts trying to destroy the very civilization which raised and nurtured them. I suppose they believe that they will not be the first in line for the Islamic gulag…but of course they won’t since they will convert before they fight.
Then we have those who say we must look for the “moderate” Muslim. The real problem with that is that the faithful in Islam have no qualms about slaying their brothers if the brothers don’t do what the true believers demand of the rest. As the Russians proved with communism, it only takes five to ten percent of the population to keep the rest in line. While it is the “Islamist” among the Muslims community which is the root of our current problem, the entire Muslim community constitutes the tree.
There is no moral equivalence between Judaism and Christianity, and Islam.
He who beats his sword into ploughshares will one day soon be plowing for him who did not.
Actually, “leftist/socialist/progressive elites of the Western world” haven’t got a clue about ANYTHING, let alone “that Islam is an ideology, not a race…”
BTW, consider this:
The Region: Revolutions, walk-outs and fatwas
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=203876
“In Egypt, an extraordinarily important fatwa has been issued by Dr. Imad Mustafa, of al-Azhar University, the world’s most important Islamic university.
“He began by stating the well-known doctrine of ‘defensive jihad,’ that is Muslims must go to war against infidels who attack them. Of course, the word ‘attack’ is often spread rather thinly to justify aggression.
“But now Mustafa has publicly and explicitly come up with a new concept, one that up until now was supposedly restricted to groups like al-Qaida: ‘Then there is another type of fighting against the non- Muslims known as offensive jihad… which is to pursue the infidels into their own land without any aggression [on their part]…
“’Two schools [of Islamic jurisprudence] have ruled that offensive jihad is permissible in order to secure Islam’s border, to extend God’s religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it, such as the Pharaoh did with the children of Israel, and to remove every religion but Islam from the Arabian peninsula.’
“What does it mean about extending ‘God’s religion,’ i.e., Islam? On the surface, ‘where the governments do not allow it’ and the reference to Pharaoh seem to imply the complete prohibition of Islam.
“But in the current context, this means that it is permissible to wage jihad against a country if anything ‘necessary’ to Islam according to (hard-line) clerics’ interpretations is blocked (polygamy, child marriage, special privileges at work places, building mosques anywhere, permitting the wearing of head scarves or burkas).
“In practice, according to this doctrine, then, any non-Muslim can be attacked anywhere. Thus, mainstream, powerful clerics are now calling for a seventh century- style jihad against non-Muslim lands even if the victims cannot be accused of attacking Muslim ruled lands. Merely to ‘extend God’s religion’ to others is a sufficient motive. Mustafa says that two of Islam’s main schools have always endorsed offensive jihad, but I doubt if he would have made that argument ten or 20 years ago.
“Of course, that doesn’t mean most Muslims will accept this new stance. But it does mean that radical groups now have mainstream support for their most extreme, aggressive behavior. Even if nobody repeats Mustafa’s statement publicly – if for no other reasons than it is bad public relations in the West – this idea will be more and more taken for granted. Presumably, Mustafa won’t be forced to retract this fatwa by his colleagues or Egypt’s government.
“Moreover, we probably won’t see senior clerics denouncing and rejecting the doctrine of offensive jihad.
“This is a development of stupendous proportions that will probably not be covered in the Western mass media. If this viewpoint continues to spread, along with the growing al-Qaida type doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood, it could be a historical turning point that will greatly intensify revolutionary Islamist terrorism and attacks on the West.”
Christians are charged with spreading the Good News of the Resurrection. Muslims are charged with conquering and converting ‘unbelievers’ by force.
Islam is an ultraviolent personality cult.
In reply to the Infidel Alliance, I have only one comment:
He is absolute correct about Mohammed. How can the idiots in USA ignore
the truth. If you offend them you will be prosecuted, reversed nothing will happen.
Capt. BJ
“How should political and religious leaders in America and abroad deal with these challenges to interfaith relations?”
Very interesting article. But it didn’t answer the question. Might not that have something to do with why the article was spiked?
Actually, it did answer the question in the first five words.
What I can’t get through my head is the audacity of this Wapo editor in framing the theme of the article: “How should political and religious leaders in America and abroad deal with these challenges to interfaith relations?”
This is a complete misunderstanding of what an editorial or opinion piece should be, though I have no doubt that graduates of joints like the Columbia School of Journalism would see it as just every day work in their profession.
Let’s do some more: “Discuss exactly how Obama should secure peace in the world among various faiths, nationalities, cultures, and economic systems.”
And, “Delineate precisely how God should have contrived the universe to make the subject of Cosmology much simpler for people to master.”
Gee, it must really be fun to be a Wapo editor, except for the fact that about half the country thinks you are a moron.
Truth and defense of non-mulism faiths’ rights is “racist” and “hate speech,” apprently. WaPo are left/liberal traitors to our culture and way of life, not to mention “useful idiots” for jihadist aims.
I speak for myself as a Christian. I have never “hated” anyone for their religion, or lack of religion. I believe in Jesus as my personal Savior and Lord. I witness to others about Jesus and if they accept Christ, I know it was not due to me, but the Holy Spirit that helprd that person know Him. I do not argue about religion, because I have a personal relationship with God, and as much as I have sinned against Him, He has not forsaken me. I cannot force someone to accept my beliefs and I would never try.
I do not agree that Islam is from God. In my studies, I have found that there are inaccuracies and contradictions throughout the Koran. The Bible is God-inspired and has no contradictions, but that is my belief, and it is not for me to judge anyone else’s beliefs.
For me, the clash between Islam and Christianity is as inevitable as the Sun rising in the east tomorrow. Both are expansionist religions, dedicated to spreading “the Word”. Granted, they currently have different means of accomplishing that mission, but that hasn’t always been the case. From Charlemagne and the Bloody Verdict of Verden, through the Crusades to retake the Holy Lands, and on to the many sects of Catholic priests who traveled to newly captured colonial lands, Christian churches have engaged in the many of the same brutal acts that Muslims are currently undertaking.
In my humble opinion, the only thing that can head off a massive world conflict between adherents of these two faiths is for their parent organizations to formally and officially repudiate their expansionist missions.
Christians, possessing religious institutions which are centrally organised, have, to their credit, officially repudiated the violence of the past expansionism, but still insist on spreading their faith to non-believers. They have, however, exerted strong control over local practitioners of their faith to prevent them from engaging in violence in the accomplishment of their mission. So that’s good.
Muslims, on the other hand, have a more intractable set of problems. Their religion is not as strongly centrally organised, so whatever Islamic “big cheeses” there are, have less control over local practitioners than do most Christian churches. Iran has its Ayatollah, but he doesn’t speak for all Islam and can’t exert much local control over imams spread around the world. Additionally, because Mohamed wrote many times that Islam should be spread by any means necessary including by the sword, for those who take the Qu’ran as the literal words of Allah as transcribed by Mohamed, the path is clear – death to those who won’t submit. For these people, killing infidels is an act of faith and one puts them on the path to heaven. For these adherents of Islam, to deviate from the current direction would require a serious revision of the holy texts and that would be a blasphemy and blood offence on its own. Not a very flexible position, that.
You’ll have to pardon me for being so skeptical, but I don’t see anyone, any process, or any institution which can prevent the inevitable.
As to the WaPo – it’s clear that their editorial board has graduated from the Lloyd George College at BOHICA University. Cowardly submission is their middle name.
But that’s not news.
Well said, one important point, however: WRT Christian churches have engaged in the many of the same brutal acts that Muslims are currently undertaking: The perennial problem that Christianity faces is that of the corruptibility of humans. Many of the acts done in the name of Christianity are, in face, totally against its teachings and were put forth by people who were more interested in their own power and wealth than in spreading the true Faith and see it as nothing more than a tool.
Islam, on the other hand, historically embraces violence and conquest. So long as you perform the 5 pillars of Islam (faith – or the Shahadah, daily prayers, almsgiving, jihad, and the hajj (http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.html) ) you are justified (although only those who die in jihad are guaranteed paradise).
Exactly, Paul. It’s the singer, not the song that’s the problem. It’s not that I think Christianity is flawed, it’s that some of the people who profess to be Christians have been subject to normal human flaws.
This is almost totally wrong. The priests who traveled to colonial lands did not serve as tools of the conquerers, and for the most part, did not use that power against the natives. They came to convert the natives (through voluntary conversion) and to serve them. They sometimes stood up for the natives against the authorities.
For example, the conquest of Mexico was greatly helped by conversion of natives to Christianity. But it was a conversion of choice, to a religion that offered safety and comfort rather than a justification for human sacrifice by their native overlords.
Sir, I didn’t mean to imply or infer that all Christian priests were evil. Only that some of them were and they did some pretty nasty things in name of Christianity. If you’re offended by that fact, I’m sorry for you that you can’t accept that part of your own past and culture.
The issue here is that all religions are carried to fruition by people, and people, as we all know, are imperfect and fallible. All people are subject to corruption of ideals, greed, envy and the other “deadly sins”. The point that I’m trying to make is that Christianity, by dint of being a religion exercised and communicated by humans, is as prone to the evils of humanity as is every other religion.
For me, history includes the fascinating study of the inhumanity which all mankind has shown to other humans. Find me the tribe, clan, race, ethnic group, culture, religion or civilisation which hasn’t engaged in conquest, slave-taking, genocide, land-grabbing and the like at some point in their history. I dare you. I make that challenge secure in the knowledge that you’ll never find those “perfect angels” among us because they just don’t exist. Keeping track of who’d conquered whom and who’d taken lands from whom was one of the first reasons people started keeping history in the first place. People can choose to be thin-skinned about their particular race, ethnic group, culture or religion, but the facts are that we’ve all been about as blood-thirsty and cruel as everyone else over time.
Which leads me to conclude that it’s a universal human constant.
None of which keeps me from being a proud, Christian American. I’m just not going to turn a blind eye to the less-than-positive things which have been done in name of both Christianity and America. It is, after all, just as much a part of us as the good we’ve done.
What’s important here is that the martyrs like Isaac Jogues are the missionary priests who are venerated, not the ones who mistreated Native Americans. Christians are urged to be willing to die for our faith, not kill for it. Google “North American martyrs” but not if you’re eating something.
Christian churches have engaged in the many of the same brutal acts that Muslims are currently undertaking.
Sorry – the ‘moral equivalence’ ploy doesn’t fly if you know anything about the history of Islam. Christianity has at least reformed itself over the centuries, unlike Islam. Excesses performed in Christianity’s name pale before the wholesale genocide, slaughter and enslavement perpetrated by islam since its very beginning.
” Christianity has at least reformed itself over the centuries, unlike Islam.”
If that were a true statement the world would have perhaps 20 million more Jews.
Next time someone dies of cancer ask yourself what the odds are that the cure went up in smoke.
You win my nomination for non-sequitur of the day, you crazy guy, you.
Mr. Dorrity – I wasn’t offering what I said up as a moral equivalence argument about anything – it was my intent to state what I did solely as a fact of history.
A lot of harm, death and destruction has been done in the name of Christianity by people who professed to be Christian. In Christian Europe alone, for example, during the early modern period, perhaps as many as 100,000 people were executed for being witches. And that figure doesn’t include the witch-killings of the Dark Ages, Middle Ages before it and the 18th century after it, nor does it include the 3,000 – 5,000 killed during the Spanish Inquisition. And that’s just Christian Europe. Take into account the deaths resulting from Western colonial expansion and we’re talking about a lot of killing. I include Western Colonial expansion, because part of what we brought with us was our religion.
And it’s not just killing – it’s also attempts to expunge native cultures and replace them with Westernised, Christian ones. A decade ago we were all appalled that the Taleban destroyed the Bamyan Buddhas in Afghanistan. But I think a lot of us would like to forget (or never knew in the first place) how often Western Christians did the same thing to a number of other cultures’ religious and cultural artifacts. In almost every civilisation we turned into a colony, we carted off their antiquities, and sometimes their dead, to put them in our personal collections and our museums. We’d know a lot more about the Maya, Aztec and Inca civilisations today, for example, if the Spanish Catholic priests hadn’t destroyed almost all their written documents because they thought them to be dangerous pagan writings.
Be offended if you will, but that doesn’t change the facts. I’m Christian and it’s not my interest to attack Christianity. I have no interest in seeing Christianity being smeared. But I’m also not going to turn a blind eye to the evils which have been perpetrated under the aegis of Christianity and Christian Western culture. It’s part of our history, like it or not.
Yes, Christianity has reformed itself, and Islam hasn’t. I thought I made that point eminently clear in my original statement. But having reformed, it’s incumbent on us as Christians to not forget how good can be turned into evil in the right circumstances.
Frist of all, I’m not offended – merely pointing out a logical fallacy in your argument. So let’s take a look at a couple of your items:
Some of those cultures were entirely deserving of being, if not ‘expunged’ as you claim, at least rendered more civilized. On the other hand, if we follow the multi-culti all-cultures-as-equal mindset then we’d have no problem with normalizing things like torture, cannabalism, female circumcision, slavery and human sacrifice. Damn those British for intruding upon and ending the Indian practice of suttee, eh?
With respect to Aztec and Mayan civilizations, the practices of slavery and human sacrifice were an integral part of their cultures, too. Who were we to deny them the delights of holding a freshly severed and still beating human heart in their hands (well, the priests’ hands, anyway)? 5, 10 and sometimnes 20,000 at a time?
Were the Conquistadores greedy, and at times cruel bastards (by modern standards, at any rate). Why, yes they were. Did they destroy priceless cultural artifacts? Yes, they did, and much to our modern regret. But that certainly doesn’t make them the equivalent of the blood-drenched and inhuman cultures they supplanted and ultimately reformed. And it certainly doesn’t even come close in terms of mass murder and atrocity to the Muslim conquest of India, whose history will appall you if you choose to look into it.
So don’t even think about holding the Taliban up to comparison with Christianity, as you have done. There is no doubt that much evil has been done in the name of Christianity, but do not confuse that with what Christianity teaches. Many of the qualities of Western mercy and justice owe their origins to Christian influence and thought – even if they have been honored more in the breach. No such qualities exist, or did exist in the cruel and sadistic worlds of East Asia and the monstrous evil that is Islam.
You see, some cultures are demonstrably better than others. The freedom and the prosperity enjoyed by Western civilization has been nowhere else equalled. Christianity has shown that it has learned from its mistakes and excesses – and ended them. Islam and other Oriental despotisms seek to perpetuate them.
Anti-Christians always bring up the Crusades when they try to make a moral equivalence between the horrors perpetrated by Islam and the Christian faith.
Instead, the Crusades were a desperate attempt to stop the onslaught of violent Islam, an attempt that worked. Islam was turned back and the hideous acts of barbarity that were and are committed in Muhammed’s name were forced to retreat. Muslims were never peaceful and they never allowed other religious people to live in freedom within their lands. Muslims were always rapists and murderers, and art, sciences and medicine were stifled under their barbaric reign. Some revisionists try and present it differently, but the truth is abundantly available.
Today the violence against Christians is obscene, and yet when Muslims slaughter Christians in the streets the news reports this as “Christians and Muslims clash,” as though there is no difference between peaceful Christians and violent Muslims. The truth is becoming more and more obvious. Eventually, we’re going to have to stop these barbarians in our midst.
When I see anyone lump millions of individuals with diverse attitudes into a ‘one size fits all’ label, I stop reading. This type of thinking is on the same level as dividing everyone into ethnic groups then pontificating about each as if it were an amorphous mass. I’m too inclined to logical thinking, and prejudiced attitudes always attempt to over-simplify by labeling.
The gist of the article is anti-deist and is an insult to Christian and Muslim Americans. It’s not surprising that the WaPo rejected it.
There are so many stupid and ignorant assertions in this article about both religions that it’s just not worth engaging. What is this liberal retard doing writing for a faith column?
Spike!
What would you expect a major leftist organ to do but defend through censorship a very important, major ally ? They know who the real enemy is, and it’s not islam.
You can’t fool a liberal, or progressive, or whatever the hell these nuts are calling themselves these days.
so, on the muslim side you have dar es harb and on the Christian side you have … longing for religious freedom?
wow.
I know which one I choose.
And I know which one has no place in a free society.
I can see why WaPo spiked Dr. Elliott’s article. It is simply the most sensible clearly expressed thing on the subject that I have ever seen. WaPo’s editors firmly believe their readers cannot handle the truth, or that it is too dangerous. Thank you for making this available where WaPo isn’t having it. Dr. Eliott, thank you for writing it.
“I can see why WaPo spiked Dr. Elliott’s article….WaPo’s editors firmly believe their readers cannot handle the truth, or that it is too dangerous.”
I’m going with “that is is too dangerous”…..the danger being their building would go BOOM!
So WaPo can’t stand the truth about Islam!!! This is the problem with all liberals and PC con artists, they like to hide the truth about Islam and Muslims so that their sky in the pie multi-cultural vision is not tainted. They will do anything including suppressing freedom of expression to prevent the truth from getting out and reach the “naive” masses of this country. It seems like an alliance of neolibs covering the entire country with NYTimes, LATimes, WaPo, etc., to convince the country that there is nothing wrong with Islam and Muslims and they are just like us so lay off them!!! How naive, stupid and dangerous for all of us!!1
Who is the Blasphemer?
The article should have been spiked because the author is the one who ignorant of the Christian faith, the Virgin Birth, and the nature of the Trinity.
If a Muslim is trying to criticisze Christianity with the reference “God does not have a son,” then it should be explained to him that Christians would also agree with that assertion. The relation between God and Jesus is not like Zeus to Hercules. Jesus is not a created being. Jesus is God and there is only one God. The Muslim is simply misinformed about what Christians believe.
So rather then start with the name calling, Blasphemer! The Christian should try to explain the mystery of his faith. No easy task to be sure, but there is no need to get upset because others outside the Faith are ignorant. (Anyway, it would only be blasphemous is another professing Christian said Jesus is not God. Not a Muslim).
There is going to be a reckoning.
Violence will not advance a religion. This goes for all religions. Those who advocate violence against another for what they believe need to sit down and contemplate what they’re trying to do. It will not work in the long run.
Charging another with Blasphemy is wrong. Were someone to take violent action against another, they can expect naught but more violence. This is not the way toward a more civil society. If a religious leader can not agree with this, there is no basis for civil discussion.
We need to recognize when someone makes threats and advocates religious violence. Putting our heads in the sand and pretending not to recognize this will not address the problem.
I found the point about Christianity being “anti-violent” to be a bit loose and imprecise. The difference between Islam and Christianity isn’t an aversion to violence per se, but a difference as to what that violence is put to use for. For instance, Christianity places the use of violence outside the realm of the individual–that is, the *state* may use violence to stop those who might do evil, to protect the innocent, and to see justice done. But it should not do violence in order to force conversion. Individuals can really only use violence in the defense of others and themselves. But not for the pursuit of justice (not that this is inherently wrong, just that it is prone to abuse).
In Islam, violence is more evenly distributed. The call to use violence on the behalf of the religion is fundamental to Islam, even for individuals. Violence is not carefully proscribed as it is in Christianity, but in some cases demanded by Islam.
“….Christianity places the use of violence outside the realm of the individual–that is, the *state* may use violence to stop those who might do evil, to protect the innocent, and to see justice done. But it should not do violence in order to force conversion……”
Christian abjuration of forced conversion is 150 years old at most. At most. Throughout most of its history Chrsitianity was as eager to forcibly convert as Islam. That’s what universalist religions do. If you think everyone should join your religion to create the perfect society, conquest and forced conversion aren’t far behind. Unlike us Jews and other particularist religions, which are called racist or exclusionary, meaning we just want to be left alone to do our thing. (I think the largest Jewish empire ever was maybe the size of Maryland.)
I believe that most people don’t do their own research. And in not doing so, stick reverently to what “leaders” tells them. Weather that is political or religious. I personally have not read the Koran, however I have read the bible and studied a lot of the origin and translations.
I feel that the author had a good point regarding tolerance, however I don’t feel he is tolerant himself.
Christianity has a long history of intolerance.
Jesus was violent, and intolerant. Don’t believe me, do your homework.
If you’re referring to Jesus throwing the moneychangers out of the temple — whom did He injure? Whom did He kill? On one particular, specific occasion, He threw some furniture around to make an important point. He did not stone, stab, behead, burn, hang, strangle, suffocate, or blow up anyone. Muslims have done all those things thousands of times, specifically in the name of their religion.
If you’re going to try to prove Jesus was “violent and intolerant”, you’ll have to find a better example than that. When did Jesus say, “Kill the unbelievers”? When did Jesus (who lived a Jew) ever call the Jews “sons of pigs and monkeys”?
I think you know a lot less about the Bible and Christianity than you think you do — and a lot less about the Koran and Islam than you should.
” When I yelled, “Blasphemy!” the assemblage was shocked to silence and he was so unnerved that he initiated a handshake with me seven times before he left the church.”
Perhaps the reason for that is due to the fact that the charge of blasphemy in his religion brings with it the cutting off of the heads of those who offend his religious sensibilities.
That incident also demonstrates, yet again, that when you stand up to a bully he will show himself to be a coward. Which is why such an immediate counter-attack (even a verbal one) is so utterly essential when dealing with radical Moslems.
Unless the government was involved in spiking the story, this isn’t a freedom of speech issue. The Washington Post is a business. They made a business decision. End of story.
A quibble, but a theologically significant one: Jesus was not a “failure” because he got executed. If you read the New Testament, Jesus’ death on the cross was THE WHOLE POINT OF THE EXERCIZE.
“…..Nations need some glue to hold them together and in the US, christianity has been one element. It matters that people have the same religion based rituals, that most of the nation celebrates Christmas, so people can say everyone is doing this at the same time……”
Um, Thanksgiving? Independence Day? Genuine AMERICAN holidays which “everyone is doing at the same time,” which are more relevant and more widely celebrated glue to hold the nation together, than a religious holiday only subscribed to by the majority religious group. (If you are talking about shared experiences of holiday shopping and Christmas symbols dating to Victorian England – that’s commercialism, not Christianity.)
(Anyway, it would only be blasphemous is another professing Christian said Jesus is not God. Not a Muslim).
Perhaps “blasphemy” was the wrong word to use. But it is, at the very least, the height of disrespect and rudeness to say such a thing in a church, as a non-Christian who is a guest in that church.
In re Muhammad:
http://islamcomicbook.com/
Concerning atheism: it always amuses me to watch atheists go into a frenzy when it is pointed out to them that, yes, atheism is also a belief system — a religion, in fact. This is true because proving “there is no God” is no easier than proving “there is a God”.
The atheist has proclaimed that the concept of deities makes no sense to him, and that he rejects it utterly. That’s fine. But it’s not Truth; it’s a belief. The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with whether or not it makes sense to YOU.
Someone or other once said: “Don’t judge a religion based on whether its precepts make sense to you or not. All religions, when seen from the outside, can be made to look ridiculous. Instead, judge a religion based on whether it makes its practitioners become petter people.”
Speaking for myself, I’ve lived both a secular lifestyle and a religious lifestyle at different times in my life. I find that my belief in God does, in fact, make me a better person — so I don’t fight it, I glory in it!
As for others — well, Cat Stevens became famous for his songs of love and peace. Then he converted, became Yusuf Islam, and was quoted as saying that he was sorry Salman Rushdie was burned in effigy, because he’d “much rather they’d burned the real thing”. Did belief in Islam make him a better person?
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
A follow-up thought –
If we look at religions to see if their practitioners become better people, we should look at atheism in the same light. And, as James Lileks once pointed out, every time there’s a natural catastrophe, it is the religious service organizations who are there first. Think of the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, Chabad, and all the rest. When do the atheist organizations show up, and in what numbers?
Just asking…
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
As a minority (Jewish) who has lived in USA all my life among the majority Christians, I must say I have never heard one single Chrsitian, Catholic or other candidate for office insist upon making the USA into a theocracy ruled by their own sect. In fact quite the opposite is true-MOst evangelicals candidates campaign upon PRESERVING the Constituion and protecting it— as you take Sarah as example- please tell us when she has ever advocated that YOU live under HER faith rules – This is not to say I have never been evangelized and I have and do deny that JEsus is God-(for me that is a blashphemy) – it is my right in USA to refuse conversion and to say what I like about other faiths without being killed for it–No Christian has threatened me with death -Our differnces have nver prevented me from having good relations with others, as we have a government that does not use religious law and laws are in place that treat all people regardless of faith or non-faith equally.
That Christians support ISRAEL is a BONUS I appreciate.
ISLAM is here to make my country into THEIR theocracy- ISLAM by it’s very definition declares RELIGIOUS war upon us ALL and MUSLIMS are here attempting to OVETRTHROW the laws we have done so well with so far- I find no threat from Christians or athiests- people are free to practice and believe as they like- If ISlam was like that no problem- but it isn’t and no amount of wishful thinking or LOVE outpouring will change that prime directive of ISLAM.
ISLAM is more than praying or gathering- it is a militariistic imperialist totalitarian movement whode goal is to DOMINATE all others, first by asking and if you refuse then itis MANDATORY for themt o kill you- the highest JIHAD the best reward is for KILLING US. The idea of interfaith dialog with those who will kill you for blasphemy or less, a cartoon or words about their so-called prophet are not people you can “just get along with”.
To “tolerate”, to extend benefit of the doubt, to allow this danger to grow unchecked is foolish and dangerous, like trusting a known child molester to watch your kids
Mr. Elliott, I don’t think the two sides are going to stop trying to convert one another thus, I have sadly resigned myself that I will be reading about death and mayhem perpetrated in the name of religion for the remainder of my life.
Class,
In the world today, the Grobnits kill Boodles every chance they get. The Boodles do not routinely kill the Grobnits.
Can anyone propose solutions for how these two groups can learn to mutually respect each other?
*raises hand*
But haven’t the Boodles bombed the ever-loving sh*t out of the Grobnits every day for a decade?
Recently Glenn Beck said the truth has no agenda. Obviously the Washington Post does. They can’t handle the truth about Islam and ignoring it does their readers no favors.
Allah means the god. Allah Akbar means the god is greatest. Greatest of what? Greatest of all other gods at the kabba. There was 360. Mohammad made everyone worship only the god. The god was understood to be the moon god. That is History.
In a correct History book Noah, Moses, and Abraham followed G-d the Father who made heaven, earth, and all creatures. This was several thousand years before a mad man named Mohammad raped, and murdered his way to power.
Around 3AD, G-d the Father sent the word into the world to die for the sins of mankind. The human body, spirit of G-d was named Jesus Christ. He lived a perfect life, was murdered, and rose from the dead for mankind’s sin.
When we talk about murdering in G-d’s name, people should understand which god is being talked about. For example: When the followers of Mohammad flew planes into the WTC, they did so for the god of the kabba, known to all as Allah.
When Jesus is pictured in urine, Christians know the G-d they worship is strong enough to defend himself, and does not need anyone to die for him.
Now, we all understand why Muslims do not believe the god had a son.
Interesting essay, but I find it very strange that someone with a serious scholarly background would claim that “never is violence commanded or even suggested” in the New Testament. Just one counterexample off the top of my head is Matthew 10: 34-36 (and yes, some people go through somersaults to explain away this particular passage)
But the larger point in the essay is certainly true, that contemporary Christians put up with blasphemy, the equivalence of which provokes massive violence in a lot of Muslim-dominated countries.
So Moe-Hom-Id, would have definitely used a “cross-hairs” metaphor on his Christian and Jewish enemies, right?
No, he’d use REAL cross-hairs, if he’d had ‘em.
Your claim of non-violent response by Christians to perceived blasphemy is historically inaccurate. Perhaps you should google the following terms: “pogrom”, “jews”, “massacre of worms”, “spanish inquisitiion” to suggest a few.
As far as this being relegated to the mists of social immaturity in a long dead era, as someone who works in IT, I remember an incident that occurred about 17 years ago at a Unix convention in Texas, wherein a woman system administrator wearing a BSD tee-shirt with the Unix daemon imp on the front had to be rescued from a group of threatening Christians who accused her of being a devil worshiper.
So please own up. Doesn’t Christianity say something about folks who live in glass houses?
David
Dear David,
You are confusing ‘Churchianity’ with ‘Christianity’.
Anyone or any organization can claim they are doing something in the name of Christ, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a Christian act. The real test is whether it conforms to the teachings and life examples of Jesus, who was after all the ‘Christ’ of ‘Christianity’.
I challenge you to sho any example of Jesus personally killing, raping, stealing, decapitating, chopping off peoples hands and feet, burning their eyes out with hot iron pokers, enslaving, terrorizing or committing genocide. I also challenge you to cite any reference in which Jesus condoned or mandated those atrocities for his followers.
You simply can’t. What you do find is imperfect men, misguided men, hateful men, greedy men, intolerant men, and violent men committing those acts, as they do in every strata of society and within every type of organization.
The point you seem to miss is that the so called ‘peaceful Muslim’ is the counterpart to the so called ‘violent Christian’.
Just as the ‘violent Christian’ violates, twists and denigrates the teachings and examples of Jesus, so does the ‘peaceful Muslim’ violate, twist and denigrate the teachings and examples of Muhammed.
‘Peaceful Muslims’, except in their disavowal of Jesus, are really acting as Christians, whereas ‘violent Christians’, except for their disavowal of Muhammed, are really acting as Muslims.
Please examine critically the lives of Jesus and Muhammed. You will find, objectively, that Muhammed was in every way a (the?) proverbial Anti-Christ, and was a truly evil human being.
~ The Infidel Alliance
Interestingly, it wasn’t the Church that provoked or encouraged the massacre of Jews. Perhaps you should do some more reading yourself?
Quote: “Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV, absent in southern Italy, ordered the Jews to be protected when he learned of Emicho’s intent. After some Jews were killed at Metz in May, John, Bishop of Speyer gave shelter to the Jewish inhabitants. Still 12 Jews of Speyer were slain by crusaders on May 3.[4] The Bishop of Worms also attempted to shelter Jews, but the crusaders broke in to his episcopal palace and killed the Jews inside on May 18. At least 800 Jews were massacred in Worms when they refused Christian baptism.[4][9]” – Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews_in_the_First_Crusade)
The Ultra Left always come out of the wood work, when they have the opportunity to Trash Christanity and America. The self proclaimed Atheist always make sure we Christians know they hate America and our false religon. The Elite Left Atheist can only survive in America or maybe what is left of Western Europe.
Their self important position is really one of not participating in the struggle, they are only watchers, no contribution to anything that counts. Never on the field of battle or holders of ideals and core values.
I often wonder what Elite Left Atheist think the current form of Muslims would do, would they live in a Muslim country and declare their Atheist positions.
Ever wonder why there are no Christian Church in Sauda Araba, why Iraq has become a battleground for chasing the Christians out of democrat Iraq. Maybe study the history of Lebanon and the civil war of the 60′s 70′s and 80′s. I don’t think there was any Atheist position in that battle.
I think we all know what America and their Allies will need to do in the future if we are going to stop the Muslim infusion into the Western Christian Countries. Not sure France or Belgium will join but we can get Germany, Canada, Spain, Italy for sure. The time to really confront this Muslim Terrorist State will be upon us sooner rather than later. Be ready for the battle.
First and foremost Islam is not a religion, it is a totalitarian style of government with a little religion mixed in. A lot like the Catholic Church was for a very long time in the middle ages. You say that Christianity and Islam are at war with each other, truth is Islam is at war with all nonbelievers. You left out that Islam teaches it`s people that it is okay to lie and kill infidels, as long as it expands Islam. Why did you not write that both Christianity and Islam have their roots in the Hebrew religion?
Point 3 is (to me)is so blatantly blasphemous. Christ was/is no failure. He defeated death, he has the keys to heaven and hell. Does anyone here know what a christian is? Have you been there?(a christian)
Does it even occur to you what actually happened on the Cross? Jesus was on earth not as God but as a common man. He willingly gave his like for your victory. He was blameless yet he went thru degradation, pain and torment and finally the cross. Hung on a tree like a common criminal. And in the end even God left hom to hang there tormented and suffering. And he says My God, My God why have you forsaken me. The greatest torment of all dying and separated from God.
you put him there. I put him there. We put him there.
If you care get yourself and your facts right. Do it now. In the grave there is no repentance. Victory in Jesus. Amen and Halleluah.
Atheists, keep in mind that under Chrisians you live amiably. Under Muslims you will not live. Religious liberals permit dissent, even though incorrect. Religious fascists like the Muslims do not permit dissent, and if someone is so foolish as to dissent, he is punished more harshly than I hope you can imagine.
All of Theo Prinse’s meandering arguments are, according to his own logic, but the chance collision of atoms in his brain. Even the most ardent empiricist must acknowledge that he is exercising faith in the accuracy of his own observations.
Many crimes have been charged to past Christian civilizations, many unfairly, (the Inquisition actually introduced the idea of a trial by fact and evidence, as opposed to by ordeal or combat and was typically merciful exept againt repeat offenders) but Christianity still bears some guilt for violence, prejudice, slavery, etc. What is often missed however, is that such inhumanity was never unique to Christian influenced Western Civilization. What was and is unigue to that Christian civilization is the development of a moral argument against such inhumanity. The criticisms of earlier Christian failures to consistently demonstrate Christian benevolence are utterly dependent on Christiainity and are unintelligible in a world absent its benevolent influence.
the Inquisition actually introduced the idea of a trial by fact and evidence, as opposed to by ordeal or combat and was typically merciful exept againt [sic] repeat offenders
Your assertion is logically silly and historically laughable.
First of all, to claim that an ecclesiastical court could put a victim on “trial” for a “fact” which is not — and never could be — material, stands the very concept of evidence on its head. Material claims must be falsifiable in principle to be regarded as evidential. Theological claims fail this test.
Second, Magna Carta guaranteed the right to trial by jury — a right already widely recognized throughout England in 1215. That predates the supposedly “enlightened” Inquisition by more than 250 years. The Inquisition did not even introduce the concept of trial by ecclesiastical authorities based on evidence. Check into an interesting book referred to as the The Gospel According to Matthew sometime, for just one example. Therein you will find that Jesus Christ was publicly tried by the Sanhedrin and offered the opportunity to confront the evidence against him. That is 15 centuries before the Inquisition “introduced” the novel concept of evidentiary proceedings.
Third, your claim that the Inquisition was merciful except to repeat offenders is genuinely disgusting. The Inquisitors presumed upon themselves an authority they did not possess. The quality of their putative mercy is thus suspect in the first place. To say they reserved death instead of merely torture to those free men who denied their authority and retained their integrity is despicable. Drawing your attention again to the ecclesiastical trial of Christ, his outcome could have been quite otherwise had he been as compliant to the demands of the Jewish authorities. But like many brought before the Inquisition, he received no mercy. He was unrepentant, you see.
The Inquisition is indefensible.
All of Theo Prinse’s meandering arguments are, according to his own logic, but the chance collision of atoms in his brain. Even the most ardent empiricist must acknowledge that he is ultimately exercising faith in the accuracy of his own observations. Epistemology should breed humility.
Many crimes have been charged to past Christian civilizations, many unfairly, (the Inquisition actually introduced the idea of a trial by fact and evidence, as opposed to by ordeal or combat, and was typically merciful exept againt repeat offenders) but Christianity still bears some guilt for the violence, prejudice, slavery, etc. practiced in its name. What is often missed, however, is that such inhumanity was never unique to Christian influenced Western Civilization. What was and is unigue to that Christian civilization is the development of a moral argument against such inhumanity. The criticisms of earlier Christian failures to consistently demonstrate Christian benevolence are utterly dependent on Christianity and are unintelligible in a world absent its benevolent influence.
Come on Oscar, The Declaration of Independence pre-dates the founding of the Republic? The Republic federation was organized under the Articles of Confederation, and then they were replaced by the Constitution, hence a Constitutional Republic. The Declaration of Independence is not nor ever was a founding document, it explains the reasons for breaking a political union.
Admit it or admit your argument is based a on a false assumption.
No answer to the John Adams quote on his descent into Hobbesian’ ‘religion as control being more important than its truth.’??
Good point. I should asked: Given the historical context do you believe the founders-children of the Enlightenment-would dare to allow ANY religious organization access to political authority?
The Massachusetts Bay Colony, The Virginia experiment, the anti-Catholic Maryland colony, and even the peaceful Quakers of Pennsylvania (not to mention the recent religious driven political strong-arm purge in England) all show the inability for religious organizations to control themselves when given unfettered access to political power over other religions and even sects within their own religion. So the question is indeed valid and not trying to muddy the waters. Religious freedom and ‘matters of conscious’ are to be established and practiced without interference from the limited authority of the federal government. But if one seeks the federal government for special privilege, then that affects the ‘establishment’ does it not? Take the orthodox Jews who do not conduct business on Saturdays. Did they lobby the government to prevent other non-Jews from conducting business on Saturdays? Now, why is it again that the post office isn’t open on Sundays? or the ‘blue laws’ established? Indifference is not persecution. Special pleading and use using the government to favor your religion is persecution of all the other people and their right to ‘maters of conscious.’
O yea, atheists didn’t pressure congress to add ‘one nation without a god’ to the pledge of allegiance, they were fine with the indifference. It was the Christians who pushed for ‘one nation under god’ to be added. Again, Indifference is not persecution. Special pleading and use using the government to favor your religion is persecution of all the other people and their right to ‘maters of conscious.’
WaPo
Glenn Palin
Sarah Beck
http://www.freakingnews.com/Get-Off-The-Cross-We-Could-Use-The-Wood-Pictures-85416.asp
“49. Michael
Just one counterexample off the top of my head is Matthew 10: 34-36 (and yes, some people go through somersaults to explain away this particular passage)”
No need for twisting- the sword represents division – in many families becoming a Christian results on division and expulsion- (In Muslim families it can mean death) Read all of the gospels and get context and metaphor Look at all of what Jesus taught and did – don’t cherry pick in ignorance.
Look at for example Matt 26:52,Luke 14:26John 1: 11,36 for the PATTERN/THEME
actually, I’m waiting for someone to notice the overwhelming number of Unitarians, or that the “catholic” token writer is a bit left of the National Catholic reporter.
I stopped reading it last year when Thistlewaite wrote about “global weirding” and implied that it was god punishing us for our ecological sins. WHERE IS RICHARD DWAKINS WHEN WE NEED HIM?
The stand out factor is that America must be credited for saving Christianity – saving this religion from Europe. If that sounds surprising, consider that today’s Islam is emulating yesterday’s medevial European Christianity like a pea from the same pod.
The bad news is that the European virus is attacking America, a strain seperate and underlying Islamist terror. Remember that all the ficticious Arab Regimes were created by Briton – for 30 barrels of oil and its gross anti-semitism, shown immediately after the terrible events of W.W.II: the worst post-W.W.II crime was the corruption of the Balfour – not in anyone’s radar, nor that a death-to-Israel 3-state is being spun as a false 2-state today. The math says seriial 2-states in the same tiny land = genocide. This is a residue of medevial Europe.
It was a Jew fleeing from the ghettoes of Europe who penned GOD BLESS AMERICA. Europe has become a distant, past species in a host of manifested ways, now termed as Eurostan – but Christianity is saved thanks to America.
Three cheers for Willis E. Elliott. He has it just right.
Yelling “blasphemy” when others dare to disagree with your religion? What age does this guy live in? Why is this kind of reaction so typical of Christians regardless of their denomination?
Howdy, i read your blog from time to time and i own a similar one and i was just wondering
if you get a lot of spam feedback? If so how do you protect against it,
any plugin or anything you can advise? I get so much lately it’s driving me insane so any help is very much appreciated.