Author |
Message |
   
Threeringale
Citizen Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 27 Registered: 1-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 7:37 pm: |
|
The problem with Moslems who truly want to emulate Mohammed is they want to emulate a guy who is roughly a cross between John Gotti and David Koresh. The only good thing about this issue is that some people are beginning to open their eyes to the false distinction between moderate Moslems and Islamists. The problem is Islam itself. If I read him right, even Daniel Pipes might be coming around to this view: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21192 I would just like to add that one problem in talking about church/state separation in ancient Israel is that of anachronism. An Israelite would probably have conceived of the state more along the lines of classic liberalism's night-watchman state rather than our own modern welfare states which provide many things that would have been left to families and local initiative. But I still think the distinction can be made, unlike in Islam. Cheers
|
   
J. Crohn
Supporter Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2367 Registered: 3-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 11:01 pm: |
|
"I know very little of Judaism or the Torah, but the Old Testament I read is pretty clear: the people of Israel asked for and got a king against God's advice and admonition, and were warned they would find a king oppressive. Saul, their first king, found himself at odds with Samuel almost immediately and lost his political legitimacy as a result." Saul was not dethroned because the people found him oppresssive--just the opposite. Saul found himself at odds not only with the prophet (and kingmaker) Samuel, but more particularly with G-d. The proximate cause of this was Saul's accession to his people's reluctance to slaughter every last Amalekite down to the women, children, and livestock, as G-d had commanded. So here was an example of popular representation at work: Saul and his subjects (who, as you point out, had in the first place asked for a ruler, who was then divinely elected) took pity on the enemy's king and preserved the better livestock, which they proceeded to sacrifice to G-d. But G-d was not pleased. Samuel makes it clear to Saul that he is nothing but a regular schmuck whose regal legitimacy derives entirely from G-d, and only so long as Saul is blindly obedient to G-d. "To obey is better than to sacrifice," Samuel tells him. The merest rebellion is as bad as witchcraft. "Stubbornness"--i.e., human will as opposed to divine command--is equivalent to idolatry. And that's that: henceforth, the days of Saul's reign are numbered. He repents out loud to Samuel: "I have sinned because I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and thy words; because I feared the people, and hearkened to their voice." So then Samuel has Saul bring Agag, the captured king of Amalek to him, and Samuel hacks Amalek to pieces. Samuel and Saul part and never see each other again, probably because Samuel is too busy grooming Saul's replacement, David. And that brings me back to Iran: Don't you recall President Mohammed Khatami, the erstwhile reformer, getting his wings clipped by the Guardian Council every time he attempted to enact anything he was elected to do? Eventually he just buckled down and toed the clergy line. One assumes he studied the fate of Saul. (By the way, the whole David-and-Saul story has a fascinating parallel in a parable about a prince, Dighavu/Dirghayu, told by the Buddha about 500 years after the time of David. The moral of the parable, though, is completely different.) |
   
J. Crohn
Supporter Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2368 Registered: 3-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 11:54 pm: |
|
I wonder if anyone knows there was a female ruler of Judah: Athaliah, daughter of King Ahab, who reigned for six years. She obtained the throne when her son died, having promptly thereafter had all the rest of the males in the royal family murdered--all except her baby grandson, that is. He was preemptively hidden away by Athaliah's step-daughter, who, with her husband, eventually martialed the army, crowned the boy (Jehoash) at the age of seven, and had Athaliah executed. |
   
Bob K
Supporter Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10592 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 5:01 am: |
|
Talk about violent religions. Why does violence in the Torah and Old Testament get a pass, while violence in the Koran doesn't, at least as far as posters here are concerned?
|
   
Eric Wertheim
Citizen Username: Bub
Post Number: 179 Registered: 1-2005
| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 7:12 am: |
|
Bob The bible's violence is in stories. They are not incorporated in the teachings of Judiasm or Christianity as far as I know (except perhaps for the racist wacko groups out in Idaho). |
   
Bob K
Supporter Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10593 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 8:04 am: |
|
Smarty, Gotfon and Eric, I think a lot of your arguements are a little like the difference between scratchy your butt and tearing it all to pieces. There is a huge void and difference between not supporting a basic respect for others and condoning polygamy. BTW, I believe some of the Native American tribes legally use peyote (sp) in their religious ceremonies. Freedom of speech doesn't allow one to to yell fire in a movie theater.
|
   
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3007 Registered: 9-2001

| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 10:03 am: |
|
I don't always agree with David Brooks, but he has a great opinion piece in today's New York Times. Perhaps someone who is a subscriber (as opposed to a Manny-purchaser) can copy it and post it here. It speaks to a fundamental (pun intended) intellectual rot at the core of radical Islam. |
   
Gordon Agress
Citizen Username: Odd
Post Number: 340 Registered: 8-2004
| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 10:06 am: |
|
It's true that the Old Testament teaches that departure from God's will leads to disaster, and that policy should be based on divine law and inspiration. But it is not very helpful to kings on the important questions of who interprets divine law and provides divine inspiration. God's will is spoken not through Saul or his successors, but through the prophets, who are never themselves seated as kings and often oppose them. Later kings who might claim they speak God's will, simply because they are king, would have to confront the story of Saul, and David, and Ahab, and many others. Nor could a king claim that God would not raise up a prophet against the king in light of the stories of Samuel, Nathan, or Micah. That's a crucial limitation on royal authority. Theocracies need more than an agreement that everyone should submit to God's will; any deist is prepared to grant that. They need a concept for how they know God's will in sufficient detail to make law and policy. That's the tricky bit, and stories that go on and on about the confusion and corruption of kings don't help a government's claim of unique knowledge of God's will.
|
   
LibraryLady(ncjanow)
Supporter Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 2992 Registered: 5-2001

| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 10:10 am: |
|
ESL....
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- February 9, 2006 Op-Ed Columnist Drafting Hitler By DAVID BROOKS You want us to know how you feel. You in the Arab European League published a cartoon of Hitler in bed with Anne Frank so we in the West would understand how offended you were by those Danish cartoons. You at the Iranian newspaper Hamshahri are holding a Holocaust cartoon contest so we'll also know how you feel. Well, I saw the Hitler-Anne Frank cartoon: the two have just had sex and Hitler says to her, "Write this one in your diary, Anne." But I still don't know how you feel. I still don't feel as if I should burn embassies or behead people or call on God or bin Laden to exterminate my foes. I still don't feel your rage. I don't feel threatened by a sophomoric cartoon, even one as tasteless as that one. At first I sympathized with your anger at the Danish cartoons because it's impolite to trample on other people's religious symbols. But as the rage spread and the issue grew more cosmic, many of us in the West were reminded of how vast the chasm is between you and us. There was more talk than ever about a clash of civilizations. We don't just have different ideas; we have a different relationship to ideas. We in the West were born into a world that reflects the legacy of Socrates and the agora. In our world, images, statistics and arguments swarm around from all directions. There are movies and blogs, books and sermons. There's the profound and the vulgar, the high and the low. In our world we spend our time sifting and measuring, throwing away the dumb and offensive, e-mailing the smart and the incisive. We aim, in Michael Oakeshott's words, to live amid the conversation — "an endless unrehearsed intellectual adventure in which, in imagination, we enter a variety of modes of understanding the world and ourselves and are not disconcerted by the differences or dismayed by the inconclusiveness of it all." We believe in progress and in personal growth. By swimming in this flurry of perspectives, by facing unpleasant facts, we try to come closer and closer to understanding. But you have a different way. When I say you, I don't mean you Muslims. I don't mean you genuine Islamic scholars and learners. I mean you Islamists. I mean you young men who were well educated in the West, but who have retreated in disgust from the inconclusiveness and chaos of our conversation. You've retreated from the agora into an exaggerated version of Muslim purity. You frame the contrast between your world and our world more bluntly than we outsiders would ever dare to. In London the protesters held signs reading "Freedom Go to Hell," "Exterminate Those Who Mock Islam," "Be Prepared for the Real Holocaust" and "Europe You Will Pay, Your 9/11 Is on the Way." In Copenhagen, an imam declared, "In the West, freedom of speech is sacred; to us, the prophet is sacred" — as if the two were necessarily opposed. Our mind-set is progressive and rational. Your mind-set is pre-Enlightenment and mythological. In your worldview, history doesn't move forward through gradual understanding. In your worldview, history is resolved during the apocalyptic conflict between the supernaturally pure jihadist and the supernaturally evil Jew. You seize on any shred — even a months-old cartoon from an obscure Danish paper — to prove to yourself that the Jew and the crusader are on the offensive, that the apocalyptic confrontation is at hand. You invent primitive stories — like the one about Jews who kill children for their blood — to reinforce your image of Jewish evil. You deny the Holocaust because if the Jews were as powerful as you say, they would never have allowed it to happen. In my world, people search for truth in their own diverse ways. In your world, the faithful and the infidel battle for survival, and words and ideas and cartoons are nothing more than weapons in that war. So, of course, what started in Denmark ended up for you with Hitler, the Holocaust and the Jew. But in your overreaction this past week, your defensiveness is showing. Democracy is coming to your region, and democracy brings the conversation. Mainstream leaders like Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani are embracing democracy and denouncing your riots as "misguided and oppressive." You fundamentalists have turned yourselves into a superpower of dysfunction, demanding our attention week after week. But it is hard to intimidate people forever into silence, to bottle up the conversation, to lock the world into an epic war only you want. While I don't share your rage, I do understand your panic.
|
   
Gordon Agress
Citizen Username: Odd
Post Number: 341 Registered: 8-2004
| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 10:30 am: |
|
Bob, I don't see anyone criticizing violence in the Koran; they're criticized modern Islamists who want to kill people with actual names like Theo Van Gogh and Salman Rushie. Nor do I see anyone giving contemporary Christians or Jews a pass on such violence. You don't see many Christians citing the dismemberment of Agag as precedent for killing someone; and if/when you do, you see a vast Christian majority denouncing such people as nuts and not true Christians. Pat Robertson is roundly denounced by most Christians when he mumbles about divine retribution through the weather, when they bother to pay any attention to him at all. I also don't see a broad mass of Muslims condemning fatwas against cartoonists, though I do see occasional sane voices like Sistani's. It would be a lot easier to be comfortable respecting Islamic prohibitions against images of Mohammed if we had more Muslim voices condemning their coreligionists who are trying to intimidate us.
|
   
chiquita
Citizen Username: Chiquita
Post Number: 67 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 10:48 am: |
|
Bob--What I don't understand is how "respecting" their religion means that I, a Catholic, need to abstain from doing something the Koran tells them not to do. I don't eat fish on Fridays during Lent, but I don't expect my Jewish friends to do the same. My Jewish friends who keep kosher don't eat pork, but none of them has ever been insulted when I've ordered a BLT at lunch. The restriction is something that they follow because they believe in it. So if Muslims think you shouldn't depict Mohammed, then no strict Mulsim should, but Christians, Jews, Native Americans, what have you, should follow their own beliefs. Would I purposefully do something to offend someone else's religion? No. Have I seen cartoons that are offensive to my religion? More times than I can count. Have I participated in, or encouraged others to participate in, riots, arson, vandalism, etc.? No. I can understand that they are upset. I even understand the boycott of goods--it's their prerogative to decide who to buy from. But their reaction is over-the-top and unjustified, no matter how offended they are. As someone stated previously, they are merely reinforcing the stereotypes many people have of them. |
   
Eric Wertheim
Citizen Username: Bub
Post Number: 181 Registered: 1-2005
| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 11:08 am: |
|
Bob I believe social peace requires us to refreain from gratuitously attacking each other about a good many things, from deeply held beliefs to your wife's looks and your kids' intelligence. But its clear to me that you are putting "religion" on a higher plain than other things, including matters of conscience that are not religious. I wonder if you are equally unhappy about wackos who pigeonhole me on the subway and tell me I'm going to hell, or famous wackos like Pat Robertson and Mel Gibson who give me the same message on TV? As for the Danish thing, it did not come out of nowhere but rather occured in a period of aggressive and fanatical anti-western, anti-Christian and anti-Jewish ferment in the Muslim world (not that they were exactly respectful to us in quieter times - check out a Saudi text book) |
   
Bob K
Supporter Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10595 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 11:11 am: |
|
Gordon, I agree that most Muslims don't condemn the violence. However, I don't think that that is reason enough to dis one of the core values of their religion. Chiquita, everything is a matter of degree. When I attend a bar mitzvah or a marriage at a Jewish synagogue I borrow a yamulke (sp) and wear it. When I go to a Catholic church I kneel, something not done in most protestant denominations. I think not depicting The Prophet, especially not depicting him in a bad light, kind of falls in the same area. |
   
tjohn
Supporter Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4033 Registered: 12-2001

| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 11:18 am: |
|
Bob, I disagree. Depictions of The Prophet fall into the realm of politically relevant free speech. Islam, for better or worse has successfully branded itself as the religion of the AK-47, bomb and decapitating sword. Thus, it seems relevant to me to protray The Prophet with a bomb in place of a turban. If, at some point, yarmulkas and kneeling at Mass become politically relevant, I could imagine political cartoons portraying these actions in a, perhaps, unfavorable light. |
   
Phenixrising
Citizen Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 1406 Registered: 9-2004
| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 11:37 am: |
|
"We all need to respect each other's religions, we need to respect freedom of the press. But ... (with) freedom of the press comes responsibility." Condoleezza Rice Makes alot of sense. Why add fuel to the fire? "But let George Bush and the arrogant world know that if we have to ... we will defend our prophet with our blood, not our voices. "Defending the prophet should continue worldwide, let (U.S. Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice, Bush and all the tyrants shut up. We are a nation that can't forgive, be silent or ease up when they insult our prophet and our sacred values," Hezbollah Chief – Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah It was only a matter of time before the US is blamed for this depiction. The fanatics will distort, manipulate in any manner to use and promote violence as Nasrallah quoted above. They will look for ANY reason to justify violence against the US & western world and this cartoon mess is one of them.
|
   
Bob K
Supporter Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10597 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Is the Prophet the issue or is the violent turn Islam has taken recently the problem? To be honest the wholesale condemnation of a religious group always strikes me as wrong. |
   
Phenixrising
Citizen Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 1407 Registered: 9-2004
| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Bob The Prophet IS the issue with the majority of non-violent Islamic followers, however, you have the radical Islamic fundementalist that would love to use this Mohammed Cartoon as a recruiting tool for violence. I believe in free speech and all, but with tensions in the Middle East (Israel & Palestine)the wars (Iraq & Afghanistan) which has a good amount of Islamic followers, the press does have a responsibility and should be sensitive to issues at hand. Again… the Mohammed Cartoons is adding fuel to the fire. Why give these extremist an excuse to justify violence? |
   
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3009 Registered: 9-2001

| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 12:58 pm: |
|
Phoenix--if not this, it would be something else. The problem is not with the Messengers here. |
   
chiquita
Citizen Username: Chiquita
Post Number: 68 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 1:00 pm: |
|
Bobk--I don't think your parallel is valid. If you are in a synagogue, you are in a Jewish place following Jewish rules. The cartoons were printed in a European country with freedom of speech. It would be different if someone had plastered the cartoons inside a mosque in Iran. The Muslims in Denmark are not respecting the right of free speech, offensive though it may have been to them. I agree with Phenix that the situation adds fuel to the fire and we should avoid agitating them, but a part of me also feels that my having that "Don't show the cartoons, it'll piss them off!" attitude merely placates them, and in a way proves that if a group of people throw a big enough fit, others will bend to their will. |
   
Bob K
Supporter Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10601 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 2:37 pm: |
|
Denmark is a modern European democracy. While they have established the Lutheran Church as the official religion of the country, they hold themselves out as a place that offers freedom of religion. Not exactly the same as entering a Synagoue or a Roman Catholic Church, but not all that different either. I am about through here. I am running out of steam as a minority of one.
|
   
J. Crohn
Supporter Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2369 Registered: 3-2003
| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 2:43 pm: |
|
Gordon: "God's will is spoken not through Saul or his successors..." Not so. Sauls's succcessor, David, speaks directly to G-d (see for example Second Samuel, chapter 2). "...but through the prophets, who are never themselves seated as kings and often oppose them. ... That's a crucial limitation on royal authority." Sort of. But my point is that Islamic governments today function in more or less the same manner. Basically, the right to rule is approved (or not) by the ulemma (religious scholars), who determine whether the king or "president" is a good enough Muslim by their standards. Keep in mind, the very word "islam" means "submission." A Muslim is "one who submits to the will of G-d." If the ulemma decides who is properly submissive to the will of G-d, and therefore who has a divine right to rule, how is this any different from Samuel deciding Saul was unfit to rule because he was insufficiently obedient to the will of G-d? (I mean, aside from the fact that the ulemma is a body of scholars, as opposed to one guy. Arguably, the Islamist version of Old Testament rule is a slight step forward. Or would have been, in the Bronze Age.) The fundamental qualifying factor of being submissive to the will of G-d as interpreted by clergy is why the secular governments of Syria, Egypt, and Iraq under Saddam have not been considered legitimate, whereas the religious monarchy in Saudi Arabia more or less is. In pretty much the same sense, post-Davidic rulers acquired power through descent and conquest and all that, but retained popular legitimacy (or lost it) via the prophets, who claimed, just as modern imams do, to know the will of G-d. |
   
J. Crohn
Supporter Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2370 Registered: 3-2003
| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 2:58 pm: |
|
"Why does violence in the Torah and Old Testament get a pass, while violence in the Koran doesn't, at least as far as posters here are concerned?" Hey BobK, why does violent Muslim contempt for the right of free speech (in western countries, no less) get a pass, while orthodox Jews who wanted an eruv in Maplewood made you fear a black-hat takeover via some imaginary breach in the wall of church-state separation? |
   
Phenixrising
Citizen Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 1408 Registered: 9-2004
| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 3:16 pm: |
|
Phoenix--if not this, it would be something else. The problem is not with the Messengers here. ESL Your right when you say "if not this, it would be something else". They'll find something, however, the "Messengers" have responsibilty when using “free speech” given the hostile climate in the Middle East. In the US, there is an understanding of “free speech” in the Arab countries which are protesting the depiction of Mohammed, this is not so. ''The reaction of Arab regimes betrays . . . a lack of understanding of the nature of press freedom," said Robert Ménard, head of the Paris-based media watchdog group Reporters Without Borders, The countries that have most vehemently protested the cartoons -- including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Syria -- have no tradition of free speech, he noted.” Here is a quote a Muslim editorialist: ''It is no longer a matter of thought or opinion or belief," a journalist, Samir Ragab wrote in Egypt's state daily, el-Gomhuria. ''It's a plot hatched against Islam and Muslims. Imagine, if this cartoon was created by an individual living in one of these countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Syria), they most likely would be executed. |
   
Bob K
Supporter Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10602 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 3:32 pm: |
|
JC, I am really trying to get out of this thread because I have failed to be able to explain the difference between basic respect and affirmation of many of a groups acts. They are two different things imho, although nobody agrees with me. I do not now or did I in the past have an issue with the Eruv. I was curious about it and how it worked and who was going to pay for it. I admit to, however, like Alberto and the Geneva Convention, find the concept "quaint" in modern day America. |
   
tjohn
Supporter Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4034 Registered: 12-2001

| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Bobk, Freedom of speech isn't conditioned upon respect. I don't much like insults directed against religions, but no matter how great the insult, I am not entitled to riot in response. |
   
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen Username: Casey
Post Number: 1911 Registered: 8-2003

| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 4:12 pm: |
|
absolutely. the cartoons were no doubt deliberate provocations, but a free press has the right to be offensive and provocative, even deliberately so. and the targets of the cartoons have the right to protest, demonstrate, boycott, condemn, etc. But they don't have the right to make threats, and to engage in violence. that said, it appears that the current wave of violence has been a result of Muslim leaders whipping their constituents into a frenzy of rioting for their own purposes. the cartoons happened to be a convenient excuse to incite anti-Western violence. |
   
Bob K
Supporter Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10605 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 6:13 pm: |
|
HOw about hate speech? One persons "joke" can be a deadly insult to another. |
   
kenney
Citizen Username: Kenney
Post Number: 751 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 7:11 pm: |
|
If a joke becomes deadly, we are in troubled times. And anyone who defends the idea a joke can be deadly is a jackass. |
   
Stevef
Citizen Username: Stevef
Post Number: 168 Registered: 5-2005

| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 7:36 pm: |
|
Wonder what happens when South Park animates Mohammed killing Kenny. |
   
Nohero
Supporter Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5025 Registered: 10-1999

| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 7:45 pm: |
|
Mohammed was on "South Park" years ago. But, since it didn't serve anybody's political interests to make a big deal about it back then, it didn't cause a fuss, I guess. And, Bobk - If it's any consolation to you, a lot of us out here agree that this whole episode says less about Islam, than it does about how some people are able to stir up hatred to serve their own ends. |
   
hariseldon
Citizen Username: Hariseldon
Post Number: 431 Registered: 5-2001

| Posted on Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 11:07 pm: |
|
In return for oil, the best thing the West can do is to pay Islamic cultures in Zoloft. All of the Near-Eastern Islamic cultures have severe anger problems that are probably attributable to their faith, and perhaps also to some shared Serotonin imbalances. There is no way Western societies should placate these fanatics. Every newspaper and web site should publish and re-publish those pathetically innocuous cartoons along with new ones until the Islamists realize that temper tantrums won't get respect for their religion; responsible action against terrorists and extremists would. We won't see that kind of action from "moderates" because there aren't many of them, and because anger is the narcotic of choice in the Middle East. |
   
Bob K
Supporter Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10611 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 7:46 am: |
|
Nohero, I have been talking mostly in theroy about something I believe is an important part of having a reasonably harmonius diverse society, something I don't think Europe is very good at. The aftermath with the Danish Imans traveling to the Middle East to spread the word and the actions of Syria and Iran (both of whom are doing this to divert attention from other issues)are certainly not admirable. Nor is the attempt of some European companies (and I suspect some American ones as well) to pick up business because of the growing boycott of Danish products (the only Danish product I can think of off the top of my head is ham. I doubt there is much of a market for this in the Middle East). |
|