Printable View
I agree that faith in the unproven and unsubstantiated can be used for good as well as evil. Although many religions began as cults with con men for founders, the followers were mostly well intentioned men and women who also influenced their religion's evolution.
Embarrassing gammar correction: in the late of night the locution I was seeking was "It's a shame that..."
As the French satirical journal Charlie Hebdo publishes cartoons of Muhammad -apparently a topical response to the notorious film- there is an intra-religious incident in which one group of Amish in Ohio have attacked another, cutting beards and hair.
Is this a hate crime by any standard? Should the Amish be allowed to deal with this issue outside of the law of the State of Ohio or Federal law? At what point should the state/federal govt intervene in the 'internal affairs' of a religion, be it the Amish, Orthodox Jews, or say, a dispute between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims that turned violent -isn't an act of violence an act of violence regardless of its context?
From the LA Times:
To an outsider, an Amish man's chest-length beard or an Amish woman's long locks might not appear all that remarkable. But they hold great religious significance to the Amish: They are symbols of one's devotion to God and to the Amish community.
That's why the head of an Amish splinter group and his followers are facing federal hate-crime charges in an unusual case playing out in Cleveland, Ohio.
Prosecutors have charged Sam Mullet Sr. with leading a band of 16 followers on a series of violent attacks targeting religious rivals: Defendants allegedly slashed off men's beards and hacked off at least one woman's hair. The assaults left victims shaken and in some cases, bloodied and battered.
Steve Nolt, a history professor at Goshen College in Indiana, and author of several books on Amish culture and history, told the Los Angeles Times that such forcible hair cutting is far more than a prank.
"The individuals who did this were targeting one of the most central symbols of manhood in Amish culture," Nolt said. "Choosing to cut the beard is making a pretty dramatic statement."
Hair, he explained, "is a sign of submission to the discipline to the church, and it's also a sign of your submission to the group and devotion to God."
Nolt said the case is being closely followed both by those outside the Amish community and by the Amish, known for their adherence to a simple, non-violent way of living.
"It's so troubling and shocking because of the religious symbolism that the beard holds," Nolt said. "This is just so unprecedented.... This is just completely outside anything that is a part of the Amish culture."
Amish women typically grow their hair long, and keep it covered. Men, meanwhile, often sport a clean-shaven face until they marry -- and then grow a beard that is never trimmed. (There are exceptions, Nolt said. Some single men also grow a beard out of devotion.)
"It's linked to being an adult member of the church," Nolt said. "In some settlements, a man will grow a beard as soon as he is baptized [which takes place around the age of 18].... Almost all Amish churches insist that the beard remains untrimmed."Mullet has been considered a problematic figure throughout the Amish community for some time, Nolt said. A 2006 gathering of Amish leaders took place in Pennsylvania in part to discuss how to deal with Mullet and with people joining or leaving his religious circle.
"The purpose of the meeting was the widespread recognition that there was something amiss," Nolt said.
By and large, the Amish are an insular group that prefers to handle problems without the interference of outsiders. One of the most feared forms of punishment within the community is "shunning" -- a type of excommunication in which the offender is ignored as if he or she ceases to exist.
But the hair-cutting incidents that took place last fall in eastern Ohio were far too serious, and came to the attention of local law enforcement.
There are about 275,000 Amish living in North America, Nolt said.
In testimony in the case earlier Wednesday, an Amish preacher testified that three of the defendants showed up at his home last fall and attacked his father.
According to the Associated Press, Andy Hershberger testified that his father begged the men not to shear him, but the men held him down. Minutes later, the hair from his father's beard had been cut and scattered across the floor, clumps of hair were missing from his father's head, and his scalp was bleeding.
Afterward, Hershberger said, his father was "shaking" and "the women and my dad were crying," he testified, according to the AP.
Defense attorneys don't deny the incidents took place, according to the news service.
They say that the Amish are bound by different religious rules, and that the government should not get involved. The defendants took their actions, their attorneys say, out of concern that some Amish were straying from their beliefs.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,2414485.story
What is a hate crime?
My personal take is that it is a crime that has the following elements:
1) There is a crime in the ordinary sense (e.g. a person or persons are assaulted, or murdered, or robbed etc. or a person’s property is defaced, burnt down, destroyed etc.).
2) The intent of the crime was in part to send a violent warning (to a minority or ethnic or religious group) that “their kind” will not be tolerated by the perpetrators; or the intent was in part to punish the victim for being of the “wrong” minority or ethnic or religious group.
Notice that element (2) entails the consequence that a single hate crime against one primary victim is also a threat of violence against a group of people; i.e. there is a primary victim and there are secondary victims (e.g. when a sikh is beaten to a pulp or murdered out of religious hatred, then all sikhs are being threatened with violence). This second element is why (imo) hate crimes should accrue additional penalities; a single hate crime is more than one crime against more than one person.
The Amish case certainly meets condition (1) above, it was a physical assault on a number of persons. If the prosecuter can establish (2); i.e. it was a warning to others, and if I were on the jury I would be more than half-way toward finding this was a hate crime.
Publishing cartoons and YouTube satires of the Prophet are not physical assaults. In my estimation those sorts of offenses do not measure up to condition (1) and therefore are neither crimes nor a hate crimes. They are directed messages. But they are not messages warning of violence, they are messages intended to point out fallacies, silliness, hypocrisy, etc. ... they are satires and do not meet condition (2) of my admittedly personal definition of hate crime.
Has anybody published a Koran that has the chapters arranged in chronological order?Quote:
Originally Posted by yodajazz
It would be very useful in the discussion of 'Has Islam been 'corrupted' or is it violent at its heart?'
The earliest verses, written in Mecca make up the peaceful, loving and tolerant part. The latter verses, written in Medina, is the violent, hateful and intolerant part. And, since they hateful verses came after the peaceful verses, they overrule the peaceful ones.
The Qur'an cannot be re-ordered. For believers the book, in Arabic, is a perfect entity handed down by Allah to the prophet. Not a word can be changed or omitted. That is one reason why damaging a Qur'an is considered so sacrilegous. When a Qur'an is disposed off finally it has to be given a funeral.
The Koran HAS been re-ordered. Many times during the process of its revelation. It is believed to have been handed down over time, in a series of revelations. Not all at once. So, whenever a new revelation came down, and it wasn't placed at the end of the book, and was placed into the middle of the book instead, thereby re-ordering the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
I'm not suggesting that any words be changed or omitted. Or that any Koran be damaged. Just that it be read in the order in which it was revealed.
As an academic, you should aspire to argue with evidence rather than insinuation. From where I'm sitting, there's no evidence at all that the U.S. government had anything whatsoever to do with this shameful series of events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie Michelle
It seems obvious to me that this was an amateur film made by an Egyptian Christian with long-standing ties to the cult-like Coptic community in Southern California. It's pretty clear that this was a ham-handed vanity project, and the filmmaker has gotten himself in way over his head. And it is apparent that local al Qaeda affiliates in the region have used the film for propaganda purposes, to incite protests that would serve as popular cover for targeted attacks against Western interests and their allies.
This is all based on current reporting from widely available outlets. If you have some secret evidence showing the obviousness of U.S. culpability, please share.
I've been researching Islam for a while, it's quite interesting. Makes you realise that there's a lot of misconceptions about it due to the media, or how one may judge a religion based on how someone acts etc.
Well, firstly, Jesus is their prophet (Christians believe Jesus is God, whilst Muslims believe Jesus is a messenger/Prophet of God).Quote:
Originally Posted by Queens Guy
Secondly, on a more serious level, if a Muslim was to insult him (or any of the Prophets like Moses, Solomon, David etc.), they would go out of the folds of their religion (ie. apostate/become disbelievers). So, although a Jew can insult Jesus, and a Christian can insult Muhammad, Muslims don't really have much to insult without it firing back on them.
I think what's more interesting is that, there's some Christians who are all up for "burning the Qur'an", without realising that, although the Bible never mentions "Mary" (mother of Jesus), the Qur'an has a whole chapter (called "Mary") that's dedicated to her and Jesus. So they end up burning a book that glorifies both Jesus and his mother.
And finally, in general, they're not allowed to insult other religions as their holy book says;
And do not insult those who invoke other than Allaah, lest they insult Allaah in enmity without knowledge.[Quran 6:108].
So the eye of an eye is impractical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queens Guy
Muslims believe that the order of the chapters in the Qur'an are also through divine revelation to the Prophet Muhammad. That is to say, Muhammad himself received revelation that the order should be like so. It's believed to be done in that order with a specific purpose, that one chapter has significance to the other.
Quote:
Explanation of Order
Such an order serves in delivering the message the Qur'an is put for, as it has got another purpose.
If you look at the first surah of the Qur'an, namely Al-Fatihah, you can perceive that it acts as a summary for the structure and the message of the Book (Qur'an) ahead of every reader.
Being Umm Al-Qur'an (the Mother of the Qur'an), it carries all its themes; it summarizes them. It tells us who Allah is: the source of all love and mercy. Therefore, knowing who He is, we should be thankful to Him and worship Him alone. We should seek His help, and He has all the power to give us whatever we need. It makes it clear that Allah is the only One Who can really guide. It speaks about life after death and the consequences of human action and behavior.
The same holds true for Surat Al-Baqarah. The first verses speak about the fact that this Book is above all doubts and it is beyond the abilities of doubters to try to challenge its validity. Then it gives a hint on its main theme — guiding the righteous — and then goes on to speak about the beginning of creation and the story of Adam to establish the theme that humankind is here on earth as a vicegerent of the Creator and should use the Book as a manual to carry out the mission in the right way.
All these themes and messages cannot be carried except through this logical order in which Allah commanded for the Qur'an to be put. If a surah like Al-`Alaq was to be put at the beginning instead of Al-Fatihah, it could have given a significance of course and give a message, but not the exact fully wonderful message that we can get from the order of the Qur'an as it is now.
http://www.missionislam.com/quran/revealationorder.htm
A hate crime is basicly an act of terrorism. The only definitive difference is whether the act sought a political end. BHut that doesn't matter either, because officialdom won't admit that it's all the same. Incitement to hatred is the same thing, even though it's not illegal. All hate mongers know that the hatred will cause violence. They're just cowards trying to get somebody else to do their dirty work, while they hide behind a legit ideal of free speech.
As for Satire:
That's all fine & dandy as long as it isn't lies to incite hatred. We hear sll kinds of lip service given to a "right" to free speech, & I agree that free speech is basic to freedom in general, but there's no such thing as a right to impunity. When you go out of your way to piss someone off, feining surprize that they got pissed off is just another lie. Freedom comes with responsibilities. If you keep kicking the dog, don't claim to be shocked when you get bitten.
I haven't seen this video, & don't really care to, but it just seems to me that there's a whole lot of piling on with the bile toward the Muslim faith. I haven't seen or heard a plausible justification for it yet. Maybe it's just that, as far as hatred goes, they're the new kids on the block, & need to catch up to all the other derided groups. They finally made it to the front of the line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queens Guy
You do know this verse came in the most "violent, hateful and intolerant" time?
Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. [2:256]
And this verse came when Muhammad's uncle not only got killed, but his body also got mutilated. In response to this, Muhammad understandably sought revenge, but these verses were immediately revealed therein -
(O Muhammad), invite them to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching, and dispute with them only in the most politest manner–for your Lord knows best who has strayed from His Path and who is rightly guided. And if you wish to retaliate, retaliate only in a way that is proportionate to the injury done to you. But if you endure patiently (instead of retaliating), it is better to do so. (O Muhammad), endure with patience. Truly, your patience is only possible with the help of God. Do not be grieved by them or distressed because of their schemes–for God is with those who are mindful of Him and who do good. [Qur'an 16:125]
Then there's the conquest of Mecca (where apart from 4 people, everyone was forgiven for the years of torture, killing and abuse they inflicted on the Muslims) and so on. Yes, there are violent verses during this period, but this is because the Muslims were at war with the Meccans who pretty much sought to wipe the Muslims out from existence. It's pretty much expected that verses telling the Muslims "you can now fight to defend yourselves" would come about.
In summary, I agree with Montgomery Watt (who's the most referenced Western Academic in Islamic studies) who says on this very issue;
Watt rejects the idea of Muhammad's moral failures from Meccan period to Medinian one and contends that such views has no solid grounds. He argues that "it is based on too facile a use of the principle that all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Watt interprets incidents in the Medinan period in such a way that they mark "no failure in Muhammad to live to his ideals and no lapse from his moral principles." - Watt, Muhammad Prophet and Statesman
My copy of the Qu'ran is the Penguin edited by NJ Dawood who notes in his introduction that he has abandoned the traditional arrangement of the books and suras, and produced a thematic sequence which 'begins with the more Biblical and poetic revelations and ends with the much longer, and often more topical chapters'. Michael Cook in his excellent The Koran: A Very Short Introduction explains the genesis of the definitive text authorised by Othman c650, but notes that while Othman used the leaves belonging to Muhammad's wife Hasma, it was known that there other inscriptions on bark and clay were in circulation, suggesting that some revelations might have been lost. For example, there was, allegedly, a revelation ordaining stoning for adultery, but it was on some tasty bark that was eaten by a goat. The Qu'ran says the punishment for adultery should be 100 lashes for both guilty parties. As with Hebrew, the absence of vowels renders many words in the Qu'ran ambiguous, more controversially some purists believe it is sacrilege to place diacritical marks on the text. These fine points are best left to scholars, although Cook does acknowledge the difference between the Meccan and Medinan verses which, however, do not seem to need to be separated. At least at an early stage there was a definitive text for the Qu'ran; in the case of the so-called Holy Bible Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon denounced the so-called Gnostic Gospels and insisted that only Matthew, Mark, Luke and John should be accepted, the rest being considered heretical. Although this selection was consolidated in the age of Constantine, the existence of alternative histories which, for example, include the Gospel of Phillip which denies the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection or, another related book the Apocalypse of Paul claims the resurrection was a purely spiritual rather than a physical act. The point being that just as feelings can be inflamed when discussion of the Qu'ran are concerned, so the idea that there has been a conspiracy to prevent Christians from reading all the available stories of the life of the Christ other than those 'authorised' by the Church suggests there is something explosive that is being hidden from us by our masters....Quote:
Originally Posted by Queens Guy
They won't be charged with anything because they did not actively incite violence. They did not encourage anyone to use violence and at the most their offense indirectly led to violence whether they knew it would or not. I highly doubt they will be charged with an infraction of a U.S law. The issue is not that their speech is necessarily protected by the first amendment but rather that there must be a law on the books that would make the production of an offensive film illegal. I haven't followed the case and don't know the specific content of the film, but it's extremely unlikely that even a hateful film is illegal under U.S law.Quote:
Originally Posted by yodajazz
Also I think your insinuations that Mossad was involved strange. But could you please link any article indicating that Mossad was involved in the production or distribution of the film as a tactic to get Americans killed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queens Guy
Fisrt of all, I must publically state, that I had nothing to do with shaving of beards of any Amish person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Secondly, I must say that I am impressed with the knowledge of the Koran displayed here.
Thirdly: With regards to the order of the chapters, (Surahs), I was under the impression that they were placed in order of the longest to the shortest, (or vice versa). However, I was mistaken. It is true that they are not in chronological order. But it is known, as to what order they were revealed. Or, I should say scholars have opinions as to what the chronogical order is. I found this article which gives a listing of probable chronological order, vs. the book's order.
http://www.missionislam.com/quran/revealationorder.htm
According to the article the Prophet himself reviewed the Koran annually which included revising the order, I assume. And those revisions in order are credit to God (Allah), or his messenger, the angel Gabriel. I'll admit to not being God, so I dont completely understand the explanation. However in one case it was stated that the first Surah was like an summary of many important ideas.
I will state that in the Koran, I have, there are introductions by the tranlator, which state the probable order, or context of the chapter. Here's an example of the 'context' issue, I spoke about. One person quoted a couple of verses, in which the Prophet urged his followers to fight an kill. In my reading of the introductory comments, it was explained that the chapter was mainly in response to a rumor that a large army was coming to attack them. So it makes sense that in his role as a war general/leader, he would be urging his followers to fight vigorously. I think he may have referred to the enemies as non-believers. But it is essential to understand that the Koran, mostly does not consider Christian and Jews to be non-believers, since Allah is the the same God that Muslims, Christians and Jews believe in. However, a person who does not understand this, might believe that Muslims are commanded to fight an kill Christians and Jews. There are some people putting this uneducated view out to uninformed people.
Here's one article: http://www.thedailybell.com/bellincl...2#postFeedbackQuote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
But its not just relying on this article, but looking at the facts of who benefits from US-Arab tensions. Israel would be first on the list, in my opinion. Secondly, thinking that the filmakers would be unaware of Muslim protests, over percieved insults in recent years is naive, in my opinion, given the effort they put into making a film about the Prophet of Islam. Also the minister Terry Jones, name has been mentioned with at least, advertising the project. Seems like you are claiming he was unaware of the world wide publicity, and the admonition from the President of the United States, that his planned Koran burning ceremony could endangers the lives of Us military personell, as well as others. I recall that US military lives were lost regarding the harming of the Koran, but I dont remember if it about the Jones ceremony, or another incident. You say they did not incite violence, but I say they most likely would have had knowledge of world events involving Islamic protesters, in recent years. If they had no knowledge that their film would incite violence, or was extemely offensive to Muslims, why did they hide its true intentions from the actors in the film? I have read accounts about Mossad being involved in the original 9/11. I remember reading of polls saying that a signifcant amount of people had doubts about the official 9-11 story. So 4 Americans getting killed is 1,000 times less than that.
If Mossad was involved Americans getting killed was only a by product of the goal, which is getting the US to perform millitary operations, on behalf of Israel. Take for example, Iraq. 'Weapons of mass destruction" were never found, however it was common knowledge that they had rockets whose range reached the edge of Israel. I believe their stated range was 500 miles. And even members of the US goverment admit to staging false attacks, to advance public support for military efforts. Someone recently mentioned the "Gulf of Tonkin incident", as an example.
"The Koran HAS been re-ordered. Many times during the process of its revelation. It is believed to have been handed down over time, in a series of revelations. Not all at once. So, whenever a new revelation came down, and it wasn't placed at the end of the book, and was placed into the middle of the book instead, thereby re-ordering the book."
Handed down over time to the Prophet and re-ordered perhaps at the behest of the delivering angel Gibreel. But not after his death. To the most devout Muslims re-ordering is not really acceptable.
Yodajazz,
In criminal law it does not matter what the filmmaker thought or "knew" (in the sense that he predicted) the film would lead to. Unless a country has racial villification laws, such a film is not illegal. An individual is not held accountable for the behavior of third parties (as in conspiracy) unless there was some sort of coordination with them.
Secondly, the article you link is as low credibility as the rest of what you say. It is not affirmative evidence to say that someone indirectly benefits from something. It provides a conceivable motive but no direct or even circumstantial evidence they were involved in the commission of the act. One could say that you benefit from the act because you now have a subject for discussion in this thread. Are you therefore not accountable for the production of the film?
You have read about Mossad being involved in 9/11? I can only imagine what these sources look like. The evidence provided in this article is as follows: Iranian press tv says Pastor Jones is involved with Mossad and CIA and this is evidence that he is.
Also, if a government engages in a false flag attack on one occasion does that mean no evidence other than speculation is needed to assume they are responsible for every deed they can plausibly (or implausibly) be accused of? You are the reason that propensity evidence such as prior bad acts are excluded from trial. Nobody is arguing about whether it is conceivable for the government to do such a thing. Such propensity evidence would actually be a rebuttal to the argument that it is beneath the dignity of the U.S to ever do such a thing but offers no proof that they did in this case.
Just to flip the issue...
Abby Martin dissects America's love affair with Israel:
America's Love Affair with Israel - YouTube
Interesting book:
It's not flipping the issue. It's called a non-sequitur.
Alright, I think I've laid on a bit too much sarcasm. If you think it's the flipside of the issue, then perhaps it's a good discussion in its own right if unrelated. I don't personally see how it's at all related to a film villifying Muslims or the response to that but if it's a nice distraction then by all means. You should ask yourself why you think it's the flipside of the coin. I don't think Jews and Muslims live in a zero-sum world where we're competing over who can be the most offended. It may seem that way but if it were the scoreboard broke a long time ago;.
I also fail to see how this is "the flip side' of the issue and it is rather a flip thing to suggest it is.
As bronco suggests, there is a complex issue to be looked and dicussed here and, yes, it has a connection to the West's relationship with the Muslim world. For sure the Arab resentment at what they perceive to be uncritical (note i say perceive) support for Israel fuels anger towards the West and, especially the USA..
We've seen however so well illustrated what deep seated hatred of Jews can lead to. That feeling is still abroad today - not least among some sections of islam. It is a hatred of Jews - and not simply antipathy to Zionism. There have been centuries of anti-semitism and it festers in the Government of Iran, in the views of neo-Nazi parties across the West and elsewhere. Let us not develop a similar view of Moslems.
These are complex questions. Let us not speak lightly of them.
Quite an interesting speech:
Innocence of Muslims: Freedom & Foreign Policy: Sean Faircloth - YouTube
I sympathise with a lot of what he says, but I don't think he truly grasps the difference between religion and culture, or the way in which organised religion can manipulate laws or emotions in some countries -India, for example- to create an event that actually has nothing to do with the religion -the 'truth' about Islam in Egypt or anywhere else is that it has no opinion of the USA, but obviously Muslims do -there is a difference. He refers to the problem of girls being bon in Bangladesh, yet he may know -probably should know- that female infanticide in China has been a problem for centuries and has nothing to do with religion -so why is it an Islamic issue in Bangladesh but not in China? He refers to Turkey's recent turn toward Islam and the harassment of the musician Say in spite of the country's secular origins, but there have been many instances of the law being used to crush free speech and protect the state in Turkey which had nothing to do with religion -telling the 'truth' about the massacres of Armenians has got numerous people in trouble with the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by loveboof
Yes, he does acknowledge that fundamentalism in the USA has been a lucrative export; but for all his crusading zeal for humanism, he doesn't really face up the fact that an American seeking election to the White House would not get very far if he said from the outset -I have no religion, I do not believe in God. And while claiming the founding fathers were secular or protective of secular beliefs, can the same be said of the earliest English and Dutch settlers? Surely they were fanatical in their beliefs and left Europe precisely in order to live religious lives in the New World free from persecution by the Church; we have been told there are witches in present day Africa and for that matter London and Birmingham and some have been cruelly murdered before they were ten years old; but there were also witches in Massachusetts when religion governed the way Americans there lived their lives. Its not his argument in favour of free speech that I disagree with, but his reasoning, and the lack of context for his specific examples.
Yes you're right. He doesn't really provide a truly open context for a lot of his examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
However, the fact there are other examples of the same or similar events devoid of religion does not negate religion as a factor (or even whole reason) behind the ones he does raise. Seeing as everyone will agree that these are terrible things, shouldn't we be attempting to limit the affect of factors which can lead to those kind of situations? Of which religion is certainly one.
[Sorry if this response is a little scrappy; I'm in a bit of a rush :) ]
If by the religion you mean its meaning, its texts, its 'message' then I am not sure, if only because most religious systems of belief contain enough 'messages' to be contradictory. If you were to define Christianity as a pacifist system of belief, for example, it would be impossible to justify war, or indeed any kind of violence against another person; if you define Christianity in different terms, a 'Just War' allows individual and mass murder. Can they both be right or wrong? In some cases the arguments of the religion no longer hold -I don't believe that Jews for centuries have stoned to death adulterers, for example. Some of the feebler critics of Islam claim that it is by definition a violent system of belief, but claim that by looking at the Qu'ran, as indeed they could the Old Testament, and relate it to what might be happening in, say, Pakistan. I am not trying to excuse Islam, and arguments about the meaning of the Qu'ran and the Hadith have after all occupied Islamic scholars since the death of Muhammad. I just think that a lot of what is being claimed in the name of religion, is politics in religious dress. If you want to create a stir in Pakistan, claiming your human rights have been assaulted won't do it; manipulate devotion to the 'Prophet' and the result will be different. Which raises the question why? Could it be that for so long now the discourse of politics there has been wrapped up in Islam and the competition to prove that X is more devout than y? Most Pakistanis are actually interested in more basic things, like the crops that aren't growing, the tangle of family relations, jobs and money. Anatol Lieven's Pakistan, A Hard Country, is worth reading for a more nuanced perspective on the place.Quote:
Originally Posted by loveboof
But consider how dialogue goes, and how difficult it can be. I used to work with a Roman Catholic, and we would freely discuss the arts, politics, and so on -he wasn't dogmatic about sex before marriage, contraception or homosexuality. But mention abortion and it was like hitting a brick wall: no argument, no agreement, an absolute refusal to believe that abortion is anything other than murder. There was no dialogue. Which is why it is mostly pointless for an atheist to 'speak the truth of religion' to a believer, not much different from a Muslim or a Christian trying to convert an atheist.
I believe it is inevitable that those inherent contradictions will lead to conflict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I also believe that it is dangerous to foster ignorance and irrationality en masse.
For many hundreds of years religion & religious leaders have manipulated people and capitalised on their most primal fears. Nothing has changed today. If the Roman Catholic church could still throw it's weight around like it used to, it would.
I agree that much of what we say of religion is really about politics. However, for me that just raises the issue of how important it is to keep our politics and religion separate. The two are not compatible!
Politics needs to be everything which religion is incapable of being: Modern, forward thinking, non-exclusivist, peaceful? (among many other things)
Your example in Pakistan about human rights is actually yet another example of the manipulation of religiosity. It is a perfect example to highlight how an agenda can creep into this all controlling sphere of religion...
Should it be at all surprising that religion leads to violence when you consider the primitive & brutal world that it was borne out of. It is not a valid argument in favour of religion to suggest that secular violence occurs too. Nobody has been killed in the name of atheism...
Loveboof - you postulate an ideal which has always been wrecked on the reef of reality. Poliitics and religion are intertwined, much as you might dislike that fact. And to a pious and ultra-orthodox Muslim, there is no higher ideal than faith in Allah and his prophet. All the lecturing and hectoring about they should be modern really won't make a difference. The notion of independence from that is implausible to the ultra religious mind set. Faith informs political decisions in the US among the radical Christian Right and in Israel and among the UltraOrthodox Jewish communities around the world (the Hassidim for instance) key decisions in politics are shaped by the priorities of faith. The challenge for the West and for those where politics is defined by the values you define is to seek a workable arrangement and find a way of co-existing with those whose lives are shaped and defined by faith. The only other path is an atheist crusade!
Sometimes religion can have a great and positive role to play - particularly in the developing world. But also in places like Lebanon where Hizb'allah often helped create social order where the state was wholly unable to in the wake of the civil war and Israel's invasion. It is also worth remembering Roman Catholic liberation theology and the role it played in South America in challenging the military dictatorships there (regimes all too often supported by the US.)
Incidentally millions were killed in the name of atheism - under Stalin, in China, in Albania under Enver Hoxha, in Hitler's germany to name just a few 20th century examples. Much as that triumvirate of faith baiters Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the late Chris Hitchens might argue otherwise.
No Prospero. That is actually quite disingenuous of you. Do you believe that those millions who were killed under Stalin & Hitler (et al) were killed to further the message of atheism? Do you honestly believe it is accurate (and not at all misleading) to suggest those atrocities were committed in 'the name of atheism'?
You know better!
[edit: And as for the positive role religion plays in the developing world, again, that is questionable. Do you think the Roman Catholic position on condoms has helped the AIDS pandemic for example? Is there a single beneficial thing religion has done which could not have been otherwise committed by secular society?]
Second point first. i was not arguing FOR religion. I was saying that some good has come from it. Almost certainly outweighed in the modern world. But two examples - the good priests who stood up to the dictators were a rallying point for opposition in places like Nicaragua and El Salvador where Archbishop Oscar Romero was gunned down on the steps of his Cathedral by Government forces for his opposition to their US backed regime.
in Cyprus Archbishop Makarios was a key figure in the struggle against British occupation in the post world war two period and for union with Greece.
Just two examples plucked from my memory. Could secular society have done it as well? Don't know - but the Church has often been a rallying point against imperialism, against dictators, against oppression. My earlier example of Hizbollah also holds - using the Mosques to provide social services when order ha broken down (And I am not an apologist for the politics of this group)
In the name of atheism is a tricky one. No Stalin did not wave a flag proclaiming atheism. But the Soviet Union was an atheiest state. Churches and icons were destroyed by the million and religion scarcely tolerated. In Mao's great leap forward and during the cultural revolution priests and others were murdered. Many were killed (more than Hitler) in Stalin's Russia including many who clung to faith . In both the case of Nazism and Bolshevism killied in the name of flawed or poisoned political ideals which saw faith as it's enemy.
In my version of utopia there are no religions; but that's utopia. In this world I'm afraid we have to learn to live with religion and religions have to learn to live with each other.
I read once that early in the history of North America native Americans, reacting against European expansion, would sometimes ransack Churches and defile Christian artifacts, defecating on crosses etc. Insensed to violence the settlers would wreak violent revenge.
Fast forward a few centuries to the art piece Piss Christ by Andres Sorrano. It certainly inspired a lot of angry discussion but (fortunately) no violence (of which I'm aware). But not because Christians are difficult to provoke, or non-violent, or peaceful...but because the political situation centuries back between settlers and native Americans was violent and unstable. The political situation between modern artists, atheists and Christians cannot be described as violent and unstable.
In my mind that pretty much explain modern Islam's reaction to Western depictions of Mohammad, especially satirical depictions. You cannot separate the reaction from the unstable politics between the Middle East and the West.
Well with the two examples you gave, I don't think they have discounted the fact that a non-religious person could have done the same. (It's impossible to measure their hypothetical success in relation to the priests)Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
The part of your comment I have quoted I find fairly ironic because religion has a some stage attempted all of them... lol
There is no 'church of atheism'. We are not an organised, collected, tax reductible, unified cult. There are no atheist leaders who determine what the truth is. For these reasons alone, it is ridiculous to point to occassions of secular violence as some counter point to the many horrific massacres religion is responsible for.
Atheism is not responsible for the lives lost under Stalin. Atheism is simply the rejection of religion & the belief in a deity. Those murders had other motives and were part of wider shemes completely outside of the realms of atheism.
One atheist is not responsible for the actions of another atheist, and it is the same on an individual basis for religious people. But religious people do need to own up to the accountability of their (massively profitable) organisations.
If we can agree that politics is about power, and that, for example, the violence in the USSR and China was shaped by the need of the ruling Party to monopolise power at the expense of all other parties, you can then attach to the 1930s Terror, the Gulag, the Cultural Revolution, etc all sorts of labels -protecting the fatherland from saboteurs and spies, getting rid of capitalist roaders in the party and so on. How many dictators have made it illegal to insult them, say by defacing a poster of them -is it because they are sort-of divine, or because the totalitarian mind-set cannot allow a single mark of opposition to be registered?
The USA has an open political culture -look at it as a union of 50 countries- where the political culture in other countries is wholly different. But is the UK as liberal as the US? Even here before the Olympics Johnny Rotten in an interview became defensive over the Sex Pistols' God Save the Queen (rumours that it would be played in the opening ceremony) insisting it was an ironic questioning of the monarchy not an attack on it. For obvious reasons, diaplying Nazi symbols in Germany is illegal, free speech doesn't come into it.
Not sure I can wholly endorse Prospero on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hizbullah or Hamas -in all cases they exploited the absence of the state to provide the social welfare poor people needed -after earthquakes in Egypt, during the civil war in Lebanon, the siege in Gaza (although there was a demonstration recently against Hamaz in Gaza) -thus in the face of failed politics, religion was the modus vivendi whereby social groups could be reached and given food, shelter, and so on: and a voice, as long as the voices were all singing from the same hymn sheet, as it were...Politics and Religion thus combined: organising people to achieve a particular end: power.
But if the people then evaluate the exercise of that power critically, politico-religious administrations fight against criticism as if it were an attack on the faith -it is if anything an attack on them, not the religion- and thus they risk an opposition movement re-asserting its rights through politics by demolishing, or sidelining the faith altogether-the fate of many ideologies of the past.
Here for example, is a quote from today's Telegraph article by Colin Freeman (link below)
Indeed, while Iran, being mainly Persian, is not part of the Arab world, some of the book's most vivid writing comes from there, courtesy of a young Iranian who, after reading George Orwell's 1984 and Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, realises he is living in his very own religious dystopia. It is, he says, a "perennially self-righteous society", allowing its rulers to justify extraordinary acts of brutality. "While you (in the West) are fighting for the rights of pandas over there, people are still being stoned to death in my country." He writes that many Iranians are now so fed up of religious rule that if the regime ever falls, “Iran will form the biggest community of atheists on the planet."
The danger of using religion to infuse political movements, is that one or either, or both run the risk over the long term of being discredited. I was in Prague recently, where the Hussite rebellion against the Catholic Church caused thousands of deaths, all over the identity of Christianity in Bohemia and Moravia and the wider Slavic world (1420-1434) -add in the deaths and misery caused by Communism and together, the obsessions of religion and autocracy and their effects, have created a space for unifying ideologies in the Czech Republic that is still vacant -people are not religious, but not inspired by dramatic narratives of politics either -as if exhausted by the demands of extreme observance by both. Perhaps there is a strain of irreligious feeling in the Middle East, but with the veil of faith so tightly drawn, expressing it is still dangerous, and because, after all, most people in that region do still believe.
Telegraph article here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/co...-arab-writing/
I do find it odd that I am being perceived as a defender of faith - which I am not. I am more someone who wishes to challenge the idea that ALL religion is, per se, bad. Indeed it is the root of much of the evil in the world.
Equally I am not a defender of Hizbollah or the Muslim brotherhood - and Stavros is right to identify other motives in their organisation of social action in the wake of disasters or conflict. But nevertheless they did organise and help where the state and other organisations were unable to do so.
Also I am not in any way an apologist for the regime in Iran.
But what i do argue is that the utopian notion of a world free from religions is simply that. It is not achievable. And we all have to find ways to live alongside faiths and indeed cultures which we find disagreeable - while naturally campaigning to see change. Sometimes even actively supporting it (as in Libya last year).
Oh c'mon! We all know that you're really one of those Satanic, Muslim, atheists; worshiping at the altar of Wiccan secular humanism. There's a stake in the ground, ready to start the bonfire as soon as we catch you & get you tied down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
So why did Stalin target people with religious beliefs then? Or Albania close down religious places of worship and forbid its practice? Or even China today, with its oppression?Quote:
Originally Posted by loveboof
I would look up the term "state Atheism". I mean, it's pretty clear these people weren't fans of anyone with beliefs of any Deity, especially when they themselves endorsed a Atheist-communist belief set.
I believe -not absolutely sure about it- that religion has been more successful in reviving its fortunes in Russia than in Albania where the assault on belief was probably more ferocious than in Russia, and maybe more effective in a smaller country. Why this should be I don't know, maybe worshipping in secret was taking place in Russia, maybe the attempt to replace the Party in Russia needed a strong authority such as the Church, which also had resonance for those for whom 1991 was an oportunity to restore what they think was lost. By contrast, I understand that after the disastrous attempt by Biafra to secede from Nigeria and the grim reaper that visited Eastern Nigeria from 1967 into the 1970s, many people became born-again Christians, as if they needed something that had been endowed by something other than mankind, to offer them meaning in life. As Prospero so soberly puts it, religion isn't going away, so we have to find a way to live with it, just as religion must accommodate disbelief without getting Stalinist about it....Quote:
Originally Posted by jake9jake9
Churches are and have always been organized political institutions (usually on the community level); i.e. social centers and sources of political guidance insofar as moral, ethical and spiritual guidance intersects with political guidance. Old, established, organized, political institutions are an anathema to socio-poltico revolutions.
Moreover Marx saw religion as antithetical to his philosophical materialism.
So there are two reasons Stalin specifically targeted religious belief. It's not so much that Marx or Stalin wanted to spread the word of atheism (there is no such word as loveboof rightly points out) but rather Stalin saw religion as an obstacle to the success of the communist revolution. Pretty much the same is true about the communist revolution in China and their continued oppression of religion. I'll take a pass on Albania, pleading complete ignorance. The goal of the communist revolution was not to establish a new atheist religion or even primarily to eradicate religion, but to achieve a political goal and a new paradigm of economic structure (to which religion, in their view, was by happenstance an impediment).
This is not in any way the same thing as sending Christian missionaries throughout the new world to convert "heathens" and save their souls. Actually it's more like (but not exactly) sending conquistadors throughout the new world to conquer and/or decimate populations of non-believing "heathens," to acquire the subservience of the survivors, their labors and more importantly their treasure. The Inca Priesthood, for an example, was a political impediment to the goals of Spain.
Here's a good analysis of religion - from one of the most thoughtful of Americans
"Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion - several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbour as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven. .... The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste."
Mark Twain "The Lowest Animal"
For anyone wondering about "state Atheism", then...
State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice.[1] In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[2]
State atheism may refer to a government's anti-clericalism, which opposes religious institutional power and influence in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen.[3] State promotion of atheism as a public norm was first practiced during a brief period in Revolutionary France. Since then, such a policy was repeated only in Revolutionary Mexico and some communist states. The Soviet Union had a long history of state atheism,[4] in which social success largely required individuals to profess atheism, stay away from churches and even vandalize them; this attitude was especially militant during the middle Stalinist era from 1929-1939.[5][6][7] The Soviet Union attempted to suppress public religious expression over wide areas of its influence, including places such as central Asia.[8]
State atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I just think we should try to be objective here, especially when people play the typical "blame religion" game.
Methinks there's a huge difference between actual besiefs & power grabs.