Ernie: Actually they make no such statements. True, there are objectionable things in the OT from my viewpoint, but none that threaten me or anyone else with death for what one believes. The most anyone can say is that specific peoples ( Hivites, Jerbusites, etc ) were targeted for death, which seems to me to invalidate divine claims in those parts of the OT, but in any case, that era is long gone and more to the point such injunctions are all rendered moot by the NT. Besides all of this, you can't del with the issue honestly simply by passing the buck You don't deal with it, IMHO, because it is a huge contradiction in the center of your argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what else is there to think ? Billy ============================================= In a message dated 5/21/2009 12:56:46 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
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_O ld_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/
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
