The latest word from the Religion of Peace:
September 18th, 2006 | by Craig R. Harmon |The Pope must die! This, not from Iran, Pakistan or Wahhabi Saudi Arabia but from Great Britain.
What was it about? Recently the Pope quoted from a 14th-15th century predecessor about certain aspects of irrationality and violent tendencies within Islam. Oblivious to the irony, Muslims have threatened the murder of the Pope and anyone who in any way disparages Islam by calling it irrational and violent. It is, you see, a religion of peace.
The 39-year-old lawyer organised demonstrations against the publication of cartoons of Mohammed in February in Denmark. Protesters carried placards declaring “Behead Those Who Insult Islam”.
Yesterday he said: “The Muslims take their religion very seriously and non-Muslims must appreciate that and that must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the prophet.
“Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment.”
Remember that the next time you feel like saying something insulting about Islam or Mohammad. Not that you don’t have freedom of speech, its just that certain Muslims think that they have freedom of murder.
He added: “I am here have a peaceful demonstration. But there may be people in Italy or other parts of the world who would carry that out.
To be fair, there were Muslims who accepted the Pope’s apology. One said:
“It was something that should never have happened - words of that nature were always likely to cause dismay - and we believe some of the Pope’s advisers may have been at fault over his speech.”
Cause dismay? One dead nun in Somalia and attacked Churches in Palestine, peaceful protests wherein threats of murder are delivered…I don’t think “dismay” quite covers it:
A nun was shot dead in Somalia by Islamic gunmen and churches came under attack in Palestine.
Just wondering where all those moderate Muslims are condemning this “lawyer”’s words.
41 Responses to “The latest word from the Religion of Peace:”
By REB 84 on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
Interesting that some choose to use violence to prove their religious message is not violent.
By Dusty on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Remember, cartoons piss off the Muslim Fundi’s..the pope running his yap probably makes them foam at the mouth. All fundi’s are dangerous…all of them. Although, I do say only the right-to-lifers used violence here to make their points..or they used to..until they figured out it just pissed off more people than anything.
But, the rightwing pseudo-christians here are fond of wars…
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Dusty,
Pissed people off AND bought them lengthy jail terms.
On the other hand, I’ve known a lot of fundies, people who would describe themselves as fundamentalist Christans who were no more dangerous than Ghandi, who would no more think of using violence to make their point than you would think of throwing yourself off a cliff on the theory that angels would lift you up lest you dash your foot on a stone, who were gentle souls who would laugh, cry, pray for those who laughed at and made fun of them, their religiosity, their theology and their Lord. They were, by turns, earnest, mirthful, encouraging, intelligent, kind, generous, helpful.
I’m sorry that your experiences have led you to conclude that all fundies are dangerous. I am happy to report that it ain’s so.
Disclaimer: I was once a fundi. I was never a danger to anyone but myself.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
And there are also fundamentalists who oppose Middle East peace because it interferes with their Rapture cult’s (an idea that incidentally was first thought up by a Plymouth cleric two hundred years or so ago) prohechies about the end times. Some of them are trying to provoke more violence against Israel so that Israel has to respond with even more violence by funding attempts by Jewish fundamentalists to demolish the Dome of the Rock and rebuild the Temple of Solomon. Some have said that if a Muslim moved into their area, they’d burn their house down to prevent them from polluting their Christian homes.
Fundamentalists are indeed dangerous because they are CERTAIN. Anyone who knows they are in the right is capable of an awful lot because of that (false) knowledge.
By Paul Merda on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Faith without doubts is fanatacism… That one’s mine.
I hear what you’re sayin’ Craig. Although I must say as well, I don’t see the conservative christians in this country decrying violence and war as a means to a political end. But hey at least the moderate and liberal christians are complaining about the carnage. All hail the prince of peace!
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Paul,
Assume what you are saying is true, that still does not translate to Dusty’s “All fundi’s are dangerous…all of them.” I was merely providing a counterpoint.
It is true that many believe that whole armageddon thing, but they believe it because they read it in the Bible. They believe it is prophesied and that it will happen, whether they actively promote it or not. Believing it will happen regardless of what any human being does or tries to do to avert it is not the same as “trying to provoke more violence against Israel so that Israel has to respond with even more violence”, “funding attempts by Jewish fundamentalists to demolish the Dome of the Rock and rebuild the Temple of Solomon” or “burn[ing] [Muslims'] house[s] down to prevent them from polluting their Christian homes” as you yourself qualify by saying “some” have said and done. Sorry but if you yourself cannot provide evidence that all fundies are doing dangerous things, then not all fundies are dangerous. Some are.
It’s just like Muslims: most all of them believe, because the Qur’an and Suras tell them so, that Islam will rule the earth one day…that all the earth will consist of Muslims and non-Muslims under Muslim rule, paying tribute to Muslim rulers under Islamic law. Only some of them are willing to commit mass murder in order to achieve that end. So are most all Muslims dangerous, or only the radical, militant ones? Because if most all Muslims are dangerous then it’s time to start interning Muslim-Americans. We just can’t trust all those fundies believing that America will one day be a Muslim country under Sharia.
Neither you nor I believe any such nonsense. Some Muslims are dangerous, most are not, regardless of whether they believe that Islam will one day rule the world. Likewise, most fundie Christians who believe that Christ will rapture all Christians from the earth and culminate in armageddon are harmless and, in fact, quite loving, caring, giving, generous, kind, etc., etc., etc. in spite of all their certainty that God will bring about what they read prophesied in the Bible.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Paul Merda,
War IS a means to a political end. All war has been exactly that. The civil war was a means to the end of preserving the Union and, in passing, freeing people held in live-long servitude. Many Christians lauded that effort because they believed that holding human beings in life-long servitude was wrong. They may or may not have decried some of the things that were done on both sides in each side’s efforts to achieve their political ends via warfare but few, today, believe that the Civil War was an unjust war or that freeing slaves, whether that was a major or minor part of the Civil War did not justify the deaths of, what, a half million Americans?
What was WWII but an effort to achieve the political end of stopping a megalomaniac with world-wide and genocidal, empirical aspirations? While some few Christians decry all wars, most view wars as being either just or unjust. Which a particular Christian views as one or the other is largely a matter of conscience. I get it that you think Iraq to be an unjust war. That’s fine. As I say, such determinations are matters of conscience.
No one reading the Old Testament can suppose that a blanket condemnation of all warfare by believers in the God of the Old and New Testaments is appropriate.
By liberal vet on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Whatever makes people believe only Muslims have a lock on violence. The RC church was among the most violent of religions ever to exist. We went from a gentle beloved Prelate to an obnoxious former member of the nazi youth corps. What a change, wake up people, this Benedict is nothing but a mouthpiece for the ultra conservatives, he is useless and foments more violence with his irresponsible statements. Granted the fundies of Islam are as bad as they get. However, the XIANS are not far behind, they invite the rapture, mental illness anyone? LV
By Paul Merda on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
I just like to cling to the words of Jesus, who offered a New Covenant, one that was about Peace and Love.
I remember when Jesus pulled himself off the cross and anhilated all of the Romans before him, oh yeah, wait, he didn’t do that now did he? Essentially Craig, I see it impossible to believe both the OT and the NT at the same time unless one practices Cognitive Dissonance.
In any case, yes the radical Muslims are a huge issue and must be stopped. The moderates say little because fo fear for their lives, this is true. But what is also true, no matter what their Quran says, as the populations become more educated and are afforded higher standards of living the radicalism will dissipate becuase these folks will actually have something to lose, right now they have nothing but hate filled sermons to cling to at their local mosques. Just like Europe, education and affluence will make them a more peaceful people; blowing them up with our “christian” bombs and shooting them with our “christian” assualt rifles will never acheive that goal.
By Dusty on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Ok Craig, let me clarify my statement..its all fundi’s who believe in the Shrub’s “crusades” in the Middle East are dangerous..ok?
And those who would take my rights of personal choice away in order to push their agenda of remaking our laws into their religious beliefs..are dangerous.
As John Danforth, a Repube and almost running mate for the Shrub, has said in his latest book when asked if this is a “Christian” nation: “The answer must be no, for to call this a Christian country is to say that non-Christians are of some lesser order, not full fledged citizens of one nation.” Danforth is himself an ordained Episcopal minister.
By Jersey McJones on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
The Islamic world was once very peaceful and quite preogressive in comparison wit the West at that time. Like I always say, if they had airplanes 1000 years ago, there’d have been Christians flying them into the minarets of Mecca. Judaism and Christianity, the tenets and scrpitures, are just just violent and regressive as Islam. No real difference. But history is history and it just so happens that at this time the Islamic world is on a particularly violent and regressive ebb. There are good reasons for that, afterall. Western interests have created and watched over the modern geopolitical organization of the Islamic world, and have done so without regard to culture. Despots from Saddam Hussein, to the royal families of Arabia, to the Shah, and more, have been the result of our hegemony. Now comes the blow back.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Liberal Vet,
Nobody that I know. Not my point. Let’s just take a trip down memory lane, shall we. Some time ago, some cartoons were published that were none too flattering to the prophet Mohammad. Violence, incitement to violence, death and destruction, and calls for beheading ensued. Some time prior to that and “art” exhibit appeared, a plastic crucifix in a mason jar of the “artist”’s urine. No violence, no incitement to violence, no one died, no embassies were destroyed, no one was out carrying signs saying “Behead those who insult Jesus. In comparison to the Muslim reaction to cartoons, the Piss Christ elicited outraged yawns throughout Christendom. In this and other free countries with long histories of freedom of expression, Muslims argued seriously that freedom of speech did not include the right to insult Muslims or their Prophet. You might remember the less than violent reaction to the painting of the Madonna and Christ Child smeared in elephant dung also just as a sort of comparison between where Christendom and Islam are in the scale of reactions to outrages. Both Piss Christ and Elephant Dung Madonna have appeared in numerous US Newspapers, apparently with no fear whatsoever of the New York Times building being blown up or reporters being beheaded. Nearly no paper in the US had the intestinal fortitude to reprint a single Mohammad cartoon. The same news agencies that routinely and fearlessly print outrages against the Christian religion suddenly felt it unseemly to print cartoons that might offend some of their religious readers.
Um, yeh. Right.
So yes. There are violent Christians who have assaulted women wishing to obtain an abortion, doctors who perform abortions and nurses who assist them have been murdered and clinics have been bombed. Christian violence. Disgruntled members of a few Christian Churches have shot up Church meetings. It happens. I guess, at a stretch, Timothy McVeigh, presumably a Christian, committed the second worst terrorist attack upon this nation although I don’t recall reports that he shouted “Jesus is Great” just before the truck bomb detonated or that his faith had the slightest thing to do with the bombing, I could have missed all of that.
And I would not dream of denying the violent past of Christians and of the Christian Church or the outrages that were committed in the name of Christ.
Pope Benedict did not “foment[] more violence with his irresponsible statements.” Muslims did that all by themselves. Please to place blame where it belongs…upon the blameworthy. The pope quoted a 14th-15th century Byzantine Emperor who, throughout his life had been beset by Muslims and their swords. He can be forgiven for thinking, even if not accurately, that nothing good had been introduced into the world by Mohammad. The Pope did not quote him in order to speak about the evils of Muslim violence. He quoted him to introduce the topic of the necessity of reason in theology within the world. The Pope’s speech was against religion divorced from reason, something I read being discussed quite often here at BIO! His speech was not at all about Muslim extremists or Muslim violence or about the Prophet Mohammed. It was much more a polemic against Protestant strains of Christianity that are irrational and not at all about Islam.
Muslims objected, quite rightly. Muslims have, to date, murdered one nun and a bodyguard in Somalia after an imam fomented against the Pope’s message and Churches in Palestine have been firebombed, quite wrongly.
There is a difference between present day Christianity and present day Islam. That difference is quite stark and is revealed by, oh, say, the murder of Theo van Gough, the death warrant under which Salman Rushdie has lived since the Satanic Verses were published, the death warrant under which the Pope now lives, the women who have been raped and failed to sufficiently fend off their attackers and who have been stoned for…adultery of all things, the gay men who have been hanged, the women murdered for refusing the arranged marriages of their parents desire, the mutilation of young girls’ genitals, the death sentence under which any Muslim who dares to convert to some other religion, the suicide bombings in London, the train bombing in Madrid, the bombings of the various US consulates, and on and on and on.
You bid us not to suppose that Islam has a lock on violence. We don’t. I bid you not to suppose that there is the slightest equivalence between Christianity today and Islam today.
By Dusty on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
“Disgruntled members of a few Christian Churches have shot up Church meetings. It happens.”– Why do you separate the nutjobs at home from the nutjobs in the Middle East..they are ALL violent religious nutjobs Craig..The basic Muslims are not violent people, just a few of their counterparts are. I am not buying your brand of separation…sorry. Any religious nutjob is a nutjob..regardless of whether they belong to religions here or abroad or regardless of whether they are “christian” or “muslim”. Christian religions have their share of nutjobs and that is a fact you can not deny. The Crusades killed millions in the name of God and Christ. George Bush is killing thousands in the name of God. We have religious nutjobs here that carry signs stating: “God hates fags” We currently have Duncan Hunter holding a key piece of financing legislation hostage because HE wants the Chaplains to be able to say sectarian prayers at any military event, and the Chaplains aren’t even backing him, stating that would drive a wedge between our military personnel.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Paul Merda,
That’s fine. Turn the other cheek is something that I try to live by. I have, in fact, had the snot beat out of me without putting up the slightest defense or returning attack so I have lived that particular command. Somehow, “If someone flies four planes into your buildings murdering thousands of your citizens, offer other buildings and people for immolation” doesn’t strike me as a particularly sound national policy, however, so it is unclear how “Peace and Love” is supposed to work as opposed to attempting to bring to justice those who do mass murder.
I have to dissent in this. Those who commit suicide bombings tend to be, relative to many of their fellow Muslims, not only well educated but also fairly well off. They already have something to loose. Terrorism isn’t about ignorance and poverty. It’s about a radical interpretation of religion, the idea that God requires them to militantly assist him in bringing pigs and dogs to bay. Would that that meant only porcine and canine mammals. Rather, to them it is non-Muslims, particularly Jews.
Like the peaceful Muslims in Spain that blew up the train or the peaceful Muslims in Britain that blew up the buses or the peaceful Muslims that burned 10,000 cars in France. Those peaceful European Muslims? Sorry but I don’t think so. This is about a radical message, not economic or educational status. Great Britain and Australia are only recently coming to their senses about radical imams in their country fomenting hatred and violence against their own countries.
Whom were we blowing up with our Christian bombs on September 11, 2001? Maybe we aren’t doing counter-insurgency correctly in Iraq. That would take, I think, many more soldiers and a long time commitment, but that doesn’t mean that counter-insurgency hasn’t and can’t be done with means that include assault rifles and the occasional bomb or two. Many of the bombs going off in Iraq, by the way, are not Christian but Muslim IEDs.
By Dusty on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Two religious wrongs do not make one religious right Craig. Pointing out the obvious wrongs in Muslim fundi’s doesn’t make Christian fundi’s any less guilty. Is this one of those “my religion is better than your religion” type of posts?
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Dusty,
Your modification is a slight improvement.
Why do I separate out the nutjobs at home from the nutjobs abroad? Because there are a whole lot more violent Muslims than violent Christians for one. For another, there is no indication from reporters who have interviewed people who attempted to commit suicide bombings but failed for some reason, that they were, in any psychological sense, insane or psychotic. They were not ‘nutjobs’. They were people who were convinced that God had sent them on a mission to execute infidels but it wasn’t like they heard voices in their heads telling them so; they had heard voices in their ears, voices projected by Muslim imams and respected leaders telling them that this was so. Tell me please, which Christian Pastors are telling Christians to take assault rifles into Churches and shoot up other Christians? Whereas, on the other hand, we know that there are Islamic imams, quite a lot of them, who are advising their congregations that violent jihad against the West is not only acceptable but the will of God.
If you wish to argue that those very few Christians who have shot up Christian congregations are, similarly, not nutjobs in the sense of being certifiably insane, I guess I won’t argue with you.
As for Danforth’s statement, I am a retired Lutheran Pastor and I do not say that America is a Christian nation. Certainly not in the sense that Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and others are Islamic nations. It is a Christian nation only in the sense that most Americans are, nominally at least, Christians people but we have a secular government and I like it just fine that way.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Jersey,
Modern historians have put together quite a different picture of the Crusades than the one that you have presented. I am not, myself, a historian of the Crusades, so I couldn’t say for sure, but I do think that there’s a strong possibility that you’re wrong.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Dusty,
I have nowhere said that Christian fundamentalists who have committed violence in the name of their God are any better or more right than Islamic fundamentalists who commit violence in the name of their God. You seem to want to create an equivalence between any Christian, myself included I guess, who supports the war in Iraq with Ussama bin Ladin. I don’t see it myself and I’ve listed a slew of reasons why. If we don’t agree, we don’t. That’s fine. I’m not here to convert you but to present a different point of view.
By Dusty on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
your basic tenant that “most americans are” is a cop-out Craig. And like Danforth says, it alienates those that are agnostic or atheists. We don’t have a secular government, although it would be nice if we did.
Nutjobs = fanatics or fundi’s in my book..not insane. Our stellar Christians are still going after women and homosexuals so that doesn’t make them any less of a nutjob than the muslim’s blowing themselves and others up. Its merely an issue of degree to me. They are all nutjobs trying to force their beliefs on others.
By liberal vet on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Craig with regard to “nut jobs” anyone who believes that god has earmarked them for a special mission is mentally ill. Mental illness is not just diagnosed by the persons demeanor or outward appearance. Statements made in a calm and rational fashion do not a sane person make. Recent history does indicate the Muslims have become increasingly violent. Let us take a look at some potential reasons. We divided them up without regard to religious or cultural differences. We stole there resources especially oil. We raped and pillaged as did they.
The West engaged in a systematic war to bring Muslims to there knees. The Crusades were started mutually both sides committed horrendous atrocities. I will concede perhaps I was harsh on the Pope, but he should have or his advisors should have recognized the potential for problems in making such statements. Also Craig consider the Inquisition the Church tortured and killed millions. Including natives in North and South America. Read the End of Faith by Sam Harris if you would like, he explains it incredibly well. LV
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Dusty,
You are denying that most Americans are, nominally at least, Christians?
Sorry. It alienates no one to point out that most Americans are at least nominally Christians. If someone is alienated by facts, that’s their problem, not mine. It has no effect, whatsoever, on whether agnostics or atheist are first or second class citizens; it is a mere statement of statistical fact.
Sorry but we do have a secular government. We have nothing even remotely like Sharia, we have no Mullahs at the reigns of Government. Non-Christians are not being taxed more heavily than Christians. There are no fewer rights for non-Christians than for Christians in America. Mosques are not being shut down and demolished. Rather they are flourishing. When a Muslim or a Mosque are attacked, the attacks are thoroughly investigated and the guilty brought to justice.
I’m sorry, “going after” women and homosexuals? Have there been governmental hangings of gays in America that I’ve missed, girls genitals sown up that haven’t been investigated and prosecuted when they have been brought to light? Women “honor” killed where the family members involved haven’t been sought, prosecuted and punished while I had my eyes averted from the news? You have an interesting convergence of two entirely different things under the one umbrella of “force” there, it seems to me. People voting for an amendment to their state constitution against gay marriage is somehow force, not of a different kind but merely of degree from people murdering, executing, slaughtering. That’s an interesting case of moral equivalence. I’m not buying it.
You are free to use nutjob to refer to those who aren’t insane just, please, let us know when you are redefining terms so we can follow along with your reasoning.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Liberal Vet,
So my conviction that I had been earmarked to preach the Gospel in the Lutheran Church — the testimony of Pastors, my professors at Seminary, the people of my congregation to the otherwise — that was proof, conclusive, that I am mentally ill? Uh huh! The Pope is not the only one upon whom you are being unnecessarily harsh.
Has the DSM-whatever number we are on, now included religious faith as a mental illness? I guess I missed that.
Sorry. I was unaware that PAYING upwards of $70 per barrel constituted stealing. Our bad.
As for the inquisition, as I said already, I do not deny the attrocities committed by the Church.
So are you saying that militant Islamists are mentally ill or that they are not mentally ill, and I mean in the clinical sense, not in Dusty’s sense of “nutjob”?
By liberal vet on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Any extremist willing to commit violent acts is most likely mentally ill. And by the way I was qualified to do psychiatric evaluations under the DSM-4. We are talking degrees here Craig, you are playing with my words, so let me clarify. Anyone who believes any god has instructed them to commit violent act is ill. Any president who says he gets his instructions from a higher power is delusional I don’t consider you delusional because you preached. I do however consider extremism in any form potentially diagnosable. I also have no idea what you preach. If it was Armageddon I would consider you insane. If it was peace and the betterment of mankind I would welcome you. LV
By Dusty on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Craig its not a question of “most” american’s being Christian. Its alienating those that aren’t, to define us as a Christian nation.
To get back on topic, the pope should of made a blanket statement about religions that promote violence, since Islam isn’t the only one. To denounce all religious groups promoting violence would of been more even-handed than just going after the Muslims…just my opinion.
Our radical christian groups still harass women going into abortion clinics and they are also harassing gays. Beating up a homosexual is a hate crime. Carrying signs stating “god hates fags” isn’t very christian-like is it? Perhaps it depends on which christian group you belong to. That was my point in stating that all fundi’s are dangerous. Anyone that believes you can control how and what other people do based on a religious ideal is wrong to me. Freedom to worship does not include screaming at women who are getting a legal procedure or bombing abortion clinics nor does it allow fundi’s to protest at military funerals carrying signs stating God hates fags or any other type of activity that promotes the hating of homosexuals. There are mentally unstable people out there that take the relgious zealots ideals to an extreme, even in this country Craig.
But your attempt to hold out our christian fundi’s as better than the Muslim fundi’s just doesn’t sit well with me.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Dusty,
I think Craig’s point is that even if the Christian fundamentalists are deeply offensive people, they are not trying to kill their opponents. Portray them as in league with Satan, or make their activities illegal, yes, but not actually kill.
On the other hand, religious literalists, which certainly includes most fundamentalists, may well be mentally ill given that when there is a conflict between their religious beliefs and the world, they believe the beliefs are correct and the world is wrong. That certainly sounds like somewhat delusional thinking. The fact that most, if not all, religious texts contain contradictions that mean the whole thing cannot all be true as written would also appear somewhat deluded if they genuinely believe that everything in their preferred text is all true.
By Dusty on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
There were 1,700 acts of violence against abortion providers between 1977 and 1994, with four people killed in 1994 and one in 1993, according to statistics from the National Abortion Federation. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has logged 167 attacks against abortion clinics over the past 15 years.
In 1984, there were 18 bombings against abortion clinics. In 1993, there were 78 death threats aimed at clinic employees. And, in 1996, bombings, threats and harassment affected about one-third of U.S. abortion clinics.–Now tell me again that our religious fundi’s haven’t tried to kill people inside our borders that didn’t agree with their beliefs…The fact that it happened in our recent history makes them no less violent that the Islamic fundis.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Liberal Vet,
Fair enough. I wasn’t, at least intentionally, playing with your words. I was quoting and commenting on your words. I’m not sure that you made it clear that “earmarked for a special mission” was to be applied only to those who think that God wants them to kill others. “Earmarked for a special mission” was quite close to what St. Paul said of himself, that he had been set apart by God unto the preaching of the Gospel. The only killing — the stoning of St. Stephen and the persecution of Christians — that Paul had participated in were prior to his being earmarked as an apostle of Christ unto the Gentiles so I’m just saying that my confusion was an honest one.
By liberal vet on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
No problem Craig I have always found you to be a forthright person despite our differing views. And rest assured I recognize not all is black and white. LV
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Dusty,
Yes, there are violent extremists within Christianity. Assault is a crime in this country and extremist Christians who assault women are, to the best of the ability of the police, investigated and, where possible prosecuted. I don’t deny the extremists within Christianity. I have, in fact, specifically mentioned them and disavowed them. What I am attempting to do, and you seem to miss this point, is distinguish the violent extremists from the fundamentalist Christians in this country. There are literally millions of Christians who self-identify, proudly, as fundamentalist. It has to do with their faith and doctrine, none of which advocate violence against anyone. Your continued use of “fundies”, as though all fundamentalist Christians are different in degree only and not in kind from those within Christianity and Islam who commit violent acts is overly broad and insulting to peaceful fundamentalist Christians who are as appalled by violent acts committed by Christians as by violent acts committed by Muslims. I do wish you would be more discriminating. “Fundie” has a specific meaning whithin and among Christians that has no connection whatsoever with clinic bombings.
Lest I be accused of hypocrisy by using the term militant Islamists, I have no objection to referring to Christians who commit acts of violence and murder as violent or militant Christians. There are just way more fundies than there are violent Christians and by making no distinctions you lump them all together.
It shouldn’t take this long for me to figure out that, when you say “fundies” you don’t mean all fundamentalist Christians.
As to the “God Hates Fags” gang. They are repulsive. They are also exercizing their constitutional right to peaceful assembly and speech. Since “Pastor” Phillips and his clan have killed nobody, even they are different in kind from violent, militant Christians and Muslims. Repugnant they are but they are not in the same class and they are not dangerous. Far more dangerous than they would be trying to shut them down either through law, infringing upon the right of assembly and speech, or through violence against them.
By Dusty on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
The only reason the violence against pro-abortion entities has stopped is because the Federal Government and many of the state legislatures, and judicial branches are slowly removing abortion as a right of choice. If there was the same level of choice now as there was in the 80’s and 90’s I think they would still be bombing clinics and threatening people that work in them.
Of course, that is my opinion.
There are millions of Muslim believers that are not violent or promote it either Craig..its a two way street.
Ok..remove my use of the word fundi’s and insert believers..is that better? No, I do not wish to label all fundi’s as violent. But my point remains..there are millions of muslims that do not wish anyone harm, just as there are plenty of christian believers that do wish to harm those that do not follow their beliefs here in the United States.
By Jersey McJones on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Craig, wrong about what? heck, I wasn’t even referring to the Crusades! I was referring to the giant mess of Dark Ages Christian Europe as opposed to the Hay Day of Islamic empire.
JMJ
By Dusty on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Christians murder Muslims all the time in other parts of the world as evidenced by the Nigerian violence between both groups taking place now. I simply can not buy that Christians are less militant than Muslims.Both religions have extremists Craig, as you have pointed out. But to single out the Muslims as worse than Christians with regard to violence is wrong. Its only because our President has started a war with all Muslims in specific Middle East nations because of a few, that we are even having this discusssion.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Jersey,
So when you wrote: “Like I always say, if they had airplanes 1000 years ago, there’d have been Christians flying them into the minarets of Mecca” you weren’t referencing the Crusades? My bad.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Dusty,
We’re clearly getting nowhere. No. Replacing “fundies” with “believers” makes you even less specific and particular and more broad in the strokes that you paint.
We disagree.
I hope we’re still friends.
By ken grandlund on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Religion of Peace? Is there really such a thing as practiced by human beings? Perhaps, but neither Christianity or Islam can take that mantle with any sense of reality…not from the historical record or from the present day practices. One does not have to wield a sword or fire a rifle to be ‘un-peace-like.’
Fundies? Moderates? Side-line believers? We’re talking about degrees of the same mentality here. So while the fundies, and by that I mean those who take most of their religious texts literally or believe they personally are carrying out the will of god through acts of violence or discrimination, are certainly the most dangerous of any religiouos group, those who stand idly by without denouncing them are enablers and guilty of at least moral turpitude. Soem leeway is of course granted to those who may instantly be killed because they choose to speak out singly, but therein lies the power of the more sane middle ground, or the moderates who will act against the ruthless dogmas of their fundie bretheren.
However, whatever the Pope had to say, and I agree with Craig that the few lines in his address have been completely taken out of context, and though poorly chosen in these particular times, certainly are no cause for mass violence and calls of death (at least not in a sane mind), is no cause for increased violence and vitriol. In this arena, Islamic loudspeakers are certainly over-reacting in todays world and are directly responsible for the actions they foment.
Freedom to speak is a human right. Freedom to incite violence is not. Religion is of no import in recognizing those rights, and if you subscribe to a dogma that says otherwise, you are surely living in a mindset best left in the dustbin of history.
One must always remember (Christians and Muslims alike) that name calling can not hurt you unless you let it. But when you hurt others for speaking in a way that contradicts your own beliefs, you are likely discarding those things you claim to revere in an effort to make right something that never really wronged you.
I mean c’mon…who really thinks that God or Allah (the same I know) are sitting in the sky holding a tally book, keeping notes of who avenged slander with the sword? Oh, I know…far too many unfortunately.
By Dusty on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Of course we are friends Craig. Its just a discussion. Extremists are in all faiths and none is worse than the other is the only point I was trying to make..and evidently not very well. They will all incite violence if it suits their agenda. A lutheran pastor eh? I was baptized and went to catechism in a Luthern church..Missouri Synod I think. I withdrew from organized religion when they started preaching politcs from the pulpit.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Ken,
No, but then I was using “Religion of Peace” ironically. RoP is what we are continually told, by politicians, journalists and Islamic leaders, Islam is. Clearly, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful in that, whether they think Palestinians are justified in committing suicide bombings against Israelis irrespective of whether civilian or members of the military or with insurgent actions against coalition forces in Iraq, they do not participate in violent, militant jihad.
Hopefully, the majority of Muslims are against the sort of indiscriminate killing practiced by Palestinian suicide bombers or by Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda in Iraq but what percentage that might be I don’t know. May a Muslim who supports indiscriminate killing of civilians, whether American, Israelis or even Muslims by Muslims consider themselves a religion of peace? I think not. On the other hand, that applies to Christianity, too. I have not referred to Christianity as a religion of peace, either. I would not, in fact, refer to any human endeavor as being a _______ of peace. There is so little of peace in us human beings. Even Jesus fashioned whips and overturned the money-changers’ tables at the Temple. He may have never used the whip on another but the very act is something less than what I would describe as ‘peace’.
I have a problem here, pretty much the same problem that I have with Dusty, although differently expressed. That problem is that there is nothing about taking religious texts literally that necessarily implies that one is carrying out the will of god through acts of violence or discrimination. I, for example, take the Bible literally (although there clearly are figures of speech throughout the Bible — God is not literally a rock for example) nevertheless, I would never blow myself up to kill Muslim women and children or blow up a federal building full of people, including children, or blow up a Mosque full of Muslims at prayer or blow up an abortion clinic, even empty. I might carry a sign with a picture of a fetus in utero saying “Killing him is not a choice” but I would never attempt to block an abortion seeker from entering a clinic.
I also have a problem with equating violence against others and discrimination, if what you mean is nothing more than voting for a State constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. One is the exercize of one’s constitutional rights; the other is a crime. Voting does not place one in the same continuum as those who think god wants them to commit violent, criminal acts without justification.
That last is important becasue if someone breaks into my home and threatens to kill or molest my wife, I think God would have no problem at all with my protecting my wife from the attacker. I don’t think that puts me on the same continuum as a person who gets on a bus full of people in London and blows it up. It is a different thing entirely.
As to the Pope’s choice of whom and what to quote, it was probably needlessly provocative but those who read the whole speech will recognize that the Pope did not quote it approvingly, recognized that “there is no compulsion in religion” and made no use whatever of the part that said nothing good was introduced by Mohammed.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Dusty,
Yep. I am LC-MS. I’m not sure what preaching politics means to you. I occasionally spoke about abortion, for example. Any discussion of abortion is political in some sense but I never promoted a candidate or party. Oddly enough, when the Afghanistan war began, I was guest preaching in a congregation in a community that had a military base and, so, a lot of military families. I began my sermon stating that, though what the enemy had done on 9/11 was terrible, I did not think that dropping bombs was the way to handle the situation. The Taliban had asked for the evidence against Ossama bin Ladin and Al Qaeda and, as I recall, we had refused to comply. I said that the Taliban’s request was reasonable. When one state seeks a criminal that has fled to another state, the suspect has a right to challenge his relocation back. The first state must provide sufficient evidence of the suspect’s guilt to show that a prima facia case can be made against the suspect. I saw no reason to think that the same should not apply to cross national actions.
I suppose that was a political speech in some sense but I don’t think it was political in the sense that it in any way crossed the line of impermissibly political speech. It wasn’t particularly popular in parts of the congregation, either, but I think it needed to be said.
What was the preaching that sent you packing?
By Dusty on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
I have always beleived in a womans right to choose. If your beliefs do not allow you to choose, then so be it, but millions of woman want the right to choose when it comes to abortion. I agree that as long as the fetus isn’t viable, its not murder. When a fetus becomes viable OUTSIDE the womb, then it is murder to me. My pastor preached that ANY abortion is murder and it was our duty to uphold the teachings of the bible that abortion of ANY type was murder. He then tried to get parishoners to sign up for a rally he and other men of the cloth were holding outside a clinic that perfomed first term abortions, which were totally legal. I got up and walked out. The next day I went to the clinic and told them what was going to happen and offered to escort any woman that was going to come in that day, to shelter them from the hateful things being screamed at them and the huge pictures of fetus’s they were waving in the woman’s faces as they approached the clinic door. The pastor called it a rally. It was more of a gauntlet those women had to walk through to obtain a medical procedure that was perfectly legal. The hate and venom those people were spewing just renewed my belief in the right to choose and that organized religion can be used for hateful things.
Hate the sin, not the sinner right?
The pastor made it a point of telling me never to come back to his church when he saw me that day. I told him not to worry, when I had left that sunday, I left forever..he didn’t toss me out I walked out.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
That all sounds a bit too activist for me. I haven’t, in fact, ever been involved in any sort of protest against abortion. I could bear a sign and let it be a silent witness but the rest of that…if I went to a protest where protestors were carrying on in that fashion, I would drop my sign and escourt the women into the clinic myself. There’s no excuse for ungentlemanly/unladylike behavior from Christians.
By ken grandlund on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Craig- I simply meant that from an idealistic point of view, neither violence or discrimination represent an ideology that asserts as its central dictum the concept of peace and love.
Clearly, at least I hope, self-defense is not an act of hatred or overt violence, but rather one of self preservation, which, if unpracticed when necessary, represents a similar form of instability. At least to me. Naturally I would defend myself (and family and even friends if necessary, hell, even non-acquaintances unjustly attacked) to my best ability if put into that position. I find no fault with that position nor do I see any inconsistencies between that and promoting-living a peaceful lifestyle.
As for the difference between voting to discriminate and opposing a person (or people) through violence because they are different (discrimination), the difference is merely in degrees. One may not physically kill another (voting) but it certainly prevents them from having the same opportunities as the voter wants for themselves, and thus can be equated to a different bu tno less destructive kind of ‘death.’ Again, I don’t hold that we should not discriminate against murderers or sexual predators, or similar horrible criminals, but rather am referring to the kind of discrimination against people of other races or genders or because of their sexual preferences. To do so, to me, negates any professions of ‘all people are created equal” and thus in conflict with some religious teachings. And those religious teachings that accept and incorporate such discrimination into their dogma are not religions of love but any measure, IMO.