It's a peaceful religion

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

I put a fatwa on this thread

[Mtguide]

Right on; but here again, it's the PEOPLE practicing the religion, who are competing, not the religion ( or the true understanding of it) that's doing it. And really, the Christmas tree is just another cultural manifestation, actually coming from all the way back in ancient Norse and Baltic mythology of the center of the universe as the World Tree.

 

No question that OT Jehovah was a hard case, but again, look at the culture it was coming from: "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", is a legal principle that far predates the Old Testament. It survives today in the laws of various Mideast countries that punish theft by lopping off a hand, or prescribe stoning for adultery (and let's face it, THAT'S jealous rage carried to the untmost). I think if you look at any of the wisest, most enlightened figures from any religion, you'll find that they have pretty profound and broad agreement on most of the essential points.

 

Right now a good example is the ongoing dialogue between the Dalai Lama, the Hopi Council of Elders, the Catholic church,the Druids(yep, there are some still around) the Sufis, the Blackfoot, Northern Cheyenne, Tarahumara, and Yaqui medicine men(and women)and the Zen Buddhists. That's a real mixmaster of cultures to wade through, but they're finding some very deep common ground.

[Mtguide]

I put a fatwa on this thread

[prole]

I put a fatwa on this thread

 

That's culturally insensitive.

[Bug]

The radical/extremist Muslim viewpoint that anyone who "blasphemes" or offends, (real or perceived), against the prophet Mohammed , or against Islam, must therefore die, is a perfect example of what psychologists call "black and white" thinking. No room or tolerance for any subtleties or shades of gray.

 

It's a kind of thinking commonly identified in school shooters, domestic violence, gang violence, and both wet and dry alchoholics, to name just a few. (For instance, George "You're either for us or against us" Bush, a "dry drunk".)

 

It was also described as a prominent cultural characteristic of the Semitic mind, by T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) in his book "Seven Pillars of Wisdom". This book, which is still today a vitally important source for understanding the history and culture of the Middle East, amazingly prophetic of what we're seeing today, starts with an Introduction on the foundations of Arab revolt. The first four paragraphs of Ch.3 are essential reading for anyone who wants to even begin to understand the Arab mind:

 

"In the very outset, at the first meeting with them, was found a universal clearness or hardness of belief, almost mathematical in its limitation, and repellent in its unsympathetic form. Semites had no half-tones in their register of vision. They were a people of primary colors, or rather of black and white, who saw the world always in contour. They were a dogmatic people, despising doubt...They knew only truth and untruth, belief and unbelief, without our hesitating retinue of finer shades.... Their thoughts were at ease only in extremes...they never compromised,...they pursued the logic of several incompatible opinions to absurd ends, without perceiving the incongruity. With cool head and tranquil judgement, imperturbably unconscious of the flight, they oscillated...".

 

So it's hardly suprising to see things like the fatwas and attack on the the Danish cartoonist, or the whole pantheon of terrorism that we face today. It's a very, very ancient, ingrained mindset. What our society identifies as utter madness, is to many in the Arab or Muslim world, perfectly clear and logical. If you're an unbeliever, you must either convert or die, very simple. If you offend the prophet or his teaching, you must die, whether you're a believer or not.

 

This is how America becomes the Great Satan, why enraged masses can't just chant "Down" with America; no, it must be "DEATH" to America. Nor does it matter that nothing in the Koran explicitly mandates this; it's the BELIEF that the proper practice of the faith demands it, from time immemorial. There's nothing about this inconsistency that gives any militant Muslim so much as a moment's doubt; it's just the way it is. The very declaration of the faith is all the explanation necessary: "There is no God but God, and Allah is his name."

 

End of discussion, as simple as that. Lawrence's book is an incredible, brilliant analysis of not only the conditions and experiences of his own time, but of what's happening right now, just with different players. It ought to be required reading and study for anyone in government, diplomacy, the military, business, etc., who's dealing with anyone or anything in the Middle East. And anyone who thinks for a moment that any of this is going to change anytime soon, certainly within our lifetimes, is a total fool.

Your beleifs on this matter seem very black and white.

[Bug]

I put a fatwa on this thread

 

That's culturally insensitive.

 

Not really.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa

A fatwā (Arabic: فتوى‎; plural fatāwā Arabic: فتاوى‎), in the Islamic faith is a religious opinion concerning Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar. In Sunni Islam any fatwa is non-binding, whereas in Shia Islam it could be considered by an individual as binding, depending on his or her relation to the scholar. The person who issues a fatwa is called, in that respect, a Mufti, i.e. an issuer of fatwa. This is not necessarily a formal position since most Muslims argue that anyone trained in Islamic law may give an opinion (fatwa) on its teachings. If a fatwā does not break new ground, then it is simply called a ruling.[1]

 

 

So it depends on what the intent of the fatwa is.

It also should suggest that K considers himself a Mufti.

[billcoe]

Well, we can ask Salomon Rushdie his thoughts on that later.

 

Meantime, it wasn't all that long ago that Catholics were murdering and torturing innocents who would not accept that Jesus was the one and only true son of God, and they finally got over it not long before my Grandfather was born - not that long ago really. 1492 wasn't just remembered as "in fourteen hundred and ninty two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue".....but as the time wherein the Spanish Inquisition Jesuit Catholics murdered Jews (and Muslims to a lesser extent) by the thousands in horrible, terrible, violently bloody ways.....

 

They changed.

[G-spotter]

I kick your fatwa off for being overweight

[ivan]

I put a fatwa on this thread

not being a mullah, i will merely fart on this thread

[Bug]

 

They changed.

Yup.

So will this generation.

Or the next.

 

Sooner than most people think though.

Meanwhile, if you want to be the one to antagonize the mean dog, be my guest. I'm not saying it's wrong. It definately isn't. Its just not wise to do it and expect "your rights" to protect you.

[Stonehead]

Are we assuming that in this point in our cultural history, religion is subordinate to the state, that the state will always hold the highest authority? The assumption is mistaken. Just as many people see religion as being wrong in its particular views, so too can we regard the state. There is nothing inherent or constant about the state, despite ones which have checks and balances, that necessarily demands perpetual and objective self examination to judge the rightness of its moral course especially as regards to its exercise of power in what seems its absolute certainty of purpose. Sometimes religion, not by virtue of its monolithic body but through its process of engendering individual moral conscience, is superior by compelling the state to change.

 

Let's turn everything on its head:

 

Can shoplifting really be justified? Why violating civil law is not always immoral

 

Also refer to Victor Hugo's Les Miserables.

[tvashtarkatena]

Are we assuming that in this point in our cultural history, religion is subordinate to the state, that the state will always hold the highest authority? The assumption is mistaken. Just as many people see religion as being wrong in its particular views, so too can we regard the state. There is nothing inherent or constant about the state, despite ones which have checks and balances, that necessarily demands perpetual and objective self examination to judge the rightness of its moral course especially as regards to its exercise of power in what seems its absolute certainty of purpose. Sometimes religion, not by virtue of its monolithic body but through its process of engendering individual moral conscience, is superior by compelling the state to change.

 

Let's turn everything on its head:

 

Can shoplifting really be justified? Why violating civil law is not always immoral

 

Also refer to Victor Hugo's Les Miserables.

 

Among the religious, there is a continual need to conflate their beliefs with other things that simply do not exist in the same universe. Religion with government. Religion with science. Religion with morality, for that matter. Wondering whether Mighty Mouse could take Superman is a more enlightening exercise. If no laws are broken, religion exists outside of government here; by design.

 

Any specific religious doctrine should play no role in the official conduct of government. This is often tried by one sect or another (and we all know politicians love to invoke God's name to get votes), but the first amendment has actually been pretty effective at sending those who can't grasp the meaning in this most fundamental American value back to their pulpits to lick their wounds.

 

And, in our democracy, 'the state' derives its power from its citizens; it does not and cannot exist as a separate entity. Ultimately, the state, therefore, is only as just and righteous as we are.

 

In other words, we're royally fucked. If,by some miracle, all Americans suddenly wake up on morning as wise, responsible adults who abhor rather than relish cruelty, we still have a system which provides a path to what we could be rather than the embarrassment we currently are.

Edited January 5, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[JosephH]

To be honest, I don't find Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh's tactics of manipulating and inciting the righteous indignation of the far / religious right on racial, religious, and social issues here in the U.S. to be any different than what's been done to radicalize disenfranchised elements of Muslim societies. I also suspect the historical course of U.S. TV evanglism and the strategies which led to the rise of our own religious right have not been lost on the eyes and ears of radical Imams and madrasas in Saudi Arabia and across the MidEast.

 

Hard to say who is more dangerous - Glenn Beck or any number of radical Imams. I do know which has the bigger audience, though.

[Bug]

It amuses me that so many people blame "religion" for problems.

As though if all religion were abolished, then the world would be at peace and poverty would disappear.

 

[ivan]

It amuses me that so many people blame "religion" for problems.

As though if all religion were abolished, then the world would be at peace and poverty would disappear.

naw, as i said sumwhere up thar, people are definitely the problem, and getting rid of all of them sure would solve the problems of war and poverty

[prole]

Among the religious, there is a continual need to conflate their beliefs with other things that simply do not exist in the same universe. Religion with government. Religion with science. Religion with morality, for that matter. Wondering whether Mighty Mouse could take Superman is a more enlightening exercise. If no laws are broken, religion exists outside of government here; by design.

 

Any specific religious doctrine should play no role in the official conduct of government. This is often tried by one sect or another (and we all know politicians love to invoke God's name to get votes), but the first amendment has actually been pretty effective at sending those who can't grasp the meaning in this most fundamental American value back to their pulpits to lick their wounds.

 

And, in our democracy, 'the state' derives its power from its citizens; it does not and cannot exist as a separate entity. Ultimately, the state, therefore, is only as just and righteous as we are.

 

In other words, we're royally fucked. If,by some miracle, all Americans suddenly wake up on morning as wise, responsible adults who abhor rather than relish cruelty, we still have a system which provides a path to what we could be rather than the embarrassment we currently are.

 

Yeah, never say never. Human history proves the fusion of religion and state power to be the rule rather than the exception and the liberal democratic experiment is not holding up well under the strains of late capitalism. The future is wide open and were better off looking to science fiction for an analysis of where we're headed than the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

[Pete_H]

Why? Among other things, religion does tend to create polarized groups of people and foster an Us vs. Them mentality, as well as the aforementioned black and white paradigm.

[Bug]

Yes Ivan.

You are as usual, a positive exception.

I would gladly buy you a beer for your contributions to reason on this site and particularly in spray.

 

As for your bivy buddy, Tvash, he seems to like to argue.

With respect to religious issues, I suspect Tvash is a recovering Catholic. They never seem to get past the damages caused by dogmatic aproaches to spirituality.

[Bug]

Why? Among other things, religion does tend to create polarized groups of people and foster an Us vs. Them mentality, as well as the aforementioned black and white paradigm.

Those are pursuits that all humans tend toward in a herd mentality.

It is as inappropriate in religion as anywhere else. Probably much more so actually.

But the point is, religion is a tool for those who have something to gain from the "us vs them" mentality. It is not part of the spiritual fabric of any religion I have studied.

Christianity is founded on unconditional love for all humanity.

Even Islam has a saying from the Prophet himself that I will paraphrase, "Any man who is pious in the practice of his spiritual beleifs shall be respected and acknowledged by the mercy of Allah."

Follow the money.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Yes Ivan.

You are as usual, a positive exception.

I would gladly buy you a beer for your contributions to reason on this site and particularly in spray.

 

As for your bivy buddy, Tvash, he seems to like to argue.

With respect to religious issues, I suspect Tvash is a recovering Catholic. They never seem to get past the damages caused by dogmatic aproaches to spirituality.

 

One thing Tvash doesn't do is assume someone's experience; that's one of the prime indicators of ignorance, one you display often.

 

I had a great experience with Catholicism. Went to a fine Catholic school with good teachers, our parish priest was a young, liberal Irishman (Father Pat, coincidentally) who did many good works for the community, my religious education was quite open; many other faiths and doctrines were discussed with equal respect, and there were always lots and lots of donuts around. Loving one another was the number one idea pushed, at least in that parish.

 

I gave up belief in God because it no longer made a lick of sense. The process was little different than giving up a belief in Santa Claus. You hold on for as long as you can, but in the end, you've got to decide how much you're willing to bullshit yourself for the comfort gained.

 

As for my attitude towards Evangelicals; I met my first real live thumper in college. What a bowl full of assholes and kooks. Since then, the evangelicals have done nothing to sway that early opinion and everything to bolster it. They are the enemies of true American freedom; far more dangerous to the positive aspects of our way of life than any cave dwelling imam.

 

 

Edited January 5, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Pete_H]

Christianity is founded on unconditional love for all humanity.

 

That's what Christians say anyway. Too bad most of them don't act accordingly.

[Pete_H]

To carpet bomb is to love.

[JosephH]

Christianity is founded on unconditional love for all humanity.

 

That's what Christians say anyway. Too bad most of them don't act accordingly.

Beat me to it. What is a hoot. Unconditional in all those oh so conditional ways.

[Bug]

Yes Ivan.

You are as usual, a positive exception.

I would gladly buy you a beer for your contributions to reason on this site and particularly in spray.

 

As for your bivy buddy, Tvash, he seems to like to argue.

With respect to religious issues, I suspect Tvash is a recovering Catholic. They never seem to get past the damages caused by dogmatic aproaches to spirituality.

 

One thing Tvash doesn't do is assume someone's experience; that's one of the prime indicators of ignorance, one you display often.

 

I had a great experience with Catholicism. Went to a fine Catholic school with good teachers, our parish priest was a young, liberal Irishman (Father Pat, coincidentally) who did many good works for the community, my religious education was quite open; many other faiths and doctrines were discussed with equal respect, and there were always lots and lots of donuts around. Loving one another was the number one idea pushed, at least in that parish.

 

I gave up belief in God because it no longer made a lick of sense. The process was little different than giving up a belief in Santa Claus. You hold on for as long as you can, but in the end, you've got to decide how much you're willing to bullshit yourself for the comfort gained.

 

As for my attitude towards Evangelicals; I met my first real live thumper in college. What a bowl full of assholes and kooks. Since then, the evangelicals have done nothing to sway that early opinion and everything to bolster it. They are the enemies of true American freedom; far more dangerous to the positive aspects of our way of life than any cave dwelling imam.

 

You did confirm my "suspicion" that you were raised Catholic.

 

There are more choices that Catholics or Evangelicals. I would argue that BOTH do more harm than good in a mass media oriented forum. Thus my reference to "damages". And in fact, I beleive that all religions should remove themselves from mass media forums. Especially politics. But that will never happen. So we are left to debate the issues.

We can chose to use the same tactics as the fanatics or not. I would argue that most of the anti-religion rhetoric posted here on this site is more like the religious fanatics they (rightfully) bash than unlike them. Therefore I contend that the issue is not religion but the people who are making the choices. They tend to position religion and science in opposition just like the religious right. Most of the Christians, Muslims, Buddists and Hindus I know do not see any basis for this opposition. And they want peace and happiness for all regardless of their religious or anti-religous views.

[Bug]

Christianity is founded on unconditional love for all humanity.

 

That's what Christians say anyway. Too bad most of them don't act accordingly.

True enough. But that is not the basis of the religion.

It is the choice of the individual.