Hi Billy,
On May 18, 2009, at 2:42 PM, [email protected] wrote:
As usual ( actually just about always ) you do not deal with the
crux of the problem for myself and many others, the explicit death
threats that are made in the "holy book" of Muslims, the Qur'an,
against people of faiths Muhammad disapproved of.
Included are Goddess devotees of many kinds, including Hindus,
neo=Pagans, religious traditonalists like Native Americans and
Brazilian "African spiritualists," Mormons, and many New Agers.
Also, included are Atheists, Christian missionaries who seek
to win soul for Christ, Muslims who convert and who do not
return to Islam, and anyone who "blasphemes" Muhammad.
So remind me again, how do you deal with the fact that the Jewish holy
books make very similar claims
http://www.religioustolerance.org/exe_bibl1.htm
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Actions_which_demand_the_death_penalty_in_the_Old_Testament
While admittedly from a biased viewpoint, this seems more than just a
"few" references.
Which is to say that this is not a hypothetical
that anyone can disregard as if the issue is moot.
Moreover, observance of strict Islamic ( Shariah ) law
has the potential to increase around the world at any time
that another Taliban-like movement arises.
I agree that the usage of the death penalty is a present day problem
in Muslim countries (some European would argue that its usage in
America is a similar problem :-).
However, blaming it *entirely* on the Koran and not on cultural
factors seems a double standard:
Islam, because of this fact, plus some other also heinous facts
like approval of wife beating and draconian legal punishments
( cutting off hands for theft, etc ) which are intrinsic to the
religion per se,
simply cannot be regarded as belonging in the same community of faiths
as any other religion of consequence.
Do you really mean to say that Moses, Joshua, Saul, and Elijah didn't
think the death penalty for idolatry was an intrinsic part of their
community's devotion to Yahweh?
I agree that such laws *are* intrinsic to many contemporary
communities understanding of Islam. However, the historical record
implies that it is possible for religious communities to evolve away
from that understanding -- as I guess you admit:
While it is true enough that in most Muslim societies such punishment
is seldom carried out, with lesser penalties being the norm, it also
is a fact that in strict Islamic states these prohibitions are taken
literally and the courts do, in fact, mete out death to the "guilty,"
which is the case in Iran ( with some inconsistency these days ),
in Saudi Arabia, probably in Yemen, in Sudan ( again not with
consistency, even if for real) , in northern Nigeria at least as often
as not, and so forth.
So, is your real point that we don't have realistic reason to hope
that these practices will completely die out "on their own" in a short
enough time scale, even if some Muslim societies may liberalize in part?
Finally, while it can be said that Islam embodies much that is evil,
in fact
waaaaay too much, too much to tolerate by any rational human being,
this is not to say that there is no good in it and certainly not to
say that Muslims,
especially if they are mostly ignorant of Islam, cannot be good.
Cool, thanks for that clarification.
True enough, but irrelevant since the Qur'an is regarded by all
orthodox Muslims
as not only "inspired" but as the living presence of Allah on
Earth, a text
that cannot be interpreted or revised in any way since it " is "
God, not only
God's words.
I know that is what they *say* -- but is that really true in
practice? Isn't that why their are rivals schools of Islam, because
of differences in interpretation?
What this means in practical terms is that all "reform movements "
in Islam
have resulted in formation of new religions --Druzes, Sikhs, Baha'is
So how do you classify Quranists?
http://www.quranists.com/
Sure, they are considered apostates by many Muslims, but the Sunnis
and Shi'ites have said the same about each other for centuries.
Well, even Al Capone may have had some good qualities, but
we don't worship him. or regard him as a prophet.
We regard him as a criminal of the first magnitude
which is exactly how we ought to regard Muhammad.
I'm not real fan of Mohammed, but you didn't directly address the
analogies with Joseph Smith, whom many also considered a criminal...
Hate to say it, but this is regurgitated Muslim apologetics.
Actually Islam imposed tribalism of approximately the most primitive
form upon the great civilizations of its era, the Christian
Byzantine Empire and the Zoroastrian Sassanid ( Persian )
Empire, and upon a variety of cultured independent states like
Sheba ( Yemen ) and ultimately principalities of India and
parts of China.
And yes Islam unified tribal Arabia, but at what cost ?
It wiped out the Jewish community of Arabia, and likewise the
Christian community, not to mention the viable Goddess centered
community of Mecca, probably the most "civilized" state on
the peninsula.
I'm not saying it was uniformly (or even a net) positive, just that it
was an impressive achievement to build such a civilization that was
effective in defeating so many others.
And it is far from clear that history would judge our own civilization
any kinder...
Your larger point is well taken, of course, there were real
achievements
among Muslims in history, especially in the arts and sciences. but we
can keep those accomplishments without any need for Islam itself.
You can always say that, but that sounds a bit like atheists who want
to deny that Newton and Einstein were in any way a product of
Christian theism/deism. Yes, the ideas and fruit may stand by
themselves, but their origination is probably impossible to
disentangle from the cultural influences of their time.
Any "proposal of a frontal assault focused on "shaming" Muslims
would seem doomed to failure. "
Good point, except this is not my view. Rather my outlook derives
from Baptist example, but which might just as well be Catholic or
Buddhist.
That is, be clinically truthful, make honesty about matters of faith
absolutely essential . Not to "shame" people, but to wake them up
and to take conscious responsibility for belief in falsehood and
for valorizing immorality.
The model is also medical, diagnose the illness or injury, look at
the facts objectively, and take appropriate remedial actions,
especially
resolve to quit old ways as completely as possible and to start over
with new values and a new worldview.
As someone who is married to a physician, actually getting people to
change medical lifestyles is rarely as simple as just telling them the
truth. Yeah, truth-telling is important, but it is rarely the first
thing or the last thing that needs to be said.
I don't have a problem with wanting to speak the truth -- I have a
problem with ignoring all the *other* dynamics necessary (like
love :-) to make that truth-telling effective!
What do you tell a mafia don ? Sure, the mafia has some good points
and you should feel free to stay in the Gambino organization as long
as you seek to reform it ? Hell no. We say, whatever good is in the
mafia
is vastly overweighed by the evil in it and your very best choice is
to quit, immediately and completely.
Have you ever actually gone up to a mafia don and said that? Would you
actually suggest doing so?
I just know what I see on TV, but I'm pretty sure that isn't our
current policy for handling mafia dons. Rather, I think our current
policy is to use violent force to a) stop them, b) imprison them, and
c) utterly destroy their organizations.
THAT is my biggest concern with your "frontal approach". It feels
like you are telling the Mafia (or Muslims):
"Your organization needs to be destroyed, and we will devote our lives
to eliminating your belief system from the face of the earth -- but of
course, we ourselves will not use any violent or coercive means."
It seems to me that either:
a) such an approach would be utterly ineffective
b) if it became effective, violence would be used against us, and we
would either be destroyed ourselves, or also resort to violent means
I mean, do you really think the Mafia could be eliminated simply
through forceful argument?!?
-- Ernie P.
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
