In a message dated 10/11/01 2:24:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << I did not read the article since access required a subscription to _Salon_. However, the abstract/trailer for the article indicates that it is seriously biased toward painting Islam in a negative light and overstating certain proclivities in the religion as a social phenomenon toward violence and anti-democratic political theory.
I highly suspect that it will be a feel-good article for western conservatives and cultural patriots that renders Islam in an excessively negative light and white-washes the real political and theological history of Judaism and Christianity. In short, read with caution. Regard this article as propaganda, not scholarship. >> Thank you for the referral to the author's website. I'm not going to argue the value or accuracy of the essay, in part because I'm not a religious scholar, and in part because I'm not sure I agree with it in its entirety. I never take sides in a debate unless I believe in what I'm writing. :) However, I *would* say it's inappropriate to say definitively that an article you haven't bothered to read(!) is propaganda. I venture to also suggest that perhaps before attacking this article on the list based on a single excerpted paragraph you should actually *read* the article. As before, it was and is available to you. Just ask. BTW, I would say this to *anyone* who critiques written material without even reading it. How else would you confirm that what I excerpted was the author's main argument, or even an accurate representation of his message? <<Note that this R.C. might be a fairly accomplished amatuer religious comparativist.>> He was credited at the bottom of the article as: Richard Connerney is a visiting professor of religion at Sacred Heart University and Iona College and a freelance writer living in New York City. The former senior editor of Tricycle: The Buddhist Review, he is the author of "Safe in Heaven Dead." I have no idea what a "visiting professor" is, (I suspect it's better than "nutty" but not as reputable as "tenured"?) ...but he does sound like more than an amateur. Jon
