Topic: Foreign Policy
On the fearmongering against Islam Hawks frequently paint a picture of sharia rule in America. It is an insult to the largest libertarian nation in the world.by Jack Galway
(Libertarian)
Thursday, February 14, 2008
To even speculate that Islam will overcome Christianity is a sorry joke. There are 2 -- exactly 2 -- major religions in terms of adherents. There are 3 christians for every 2 muslims. There are millions of advantaged christians for every advantaged muslim.
In my little Kentucky town, there are hundreds upon hundreds of Christian churches, while there is 1 Islamic center with maybe 200 members (ie. a whole Christian congregation or 2 for each individual muslim. Can you imagine the amount of pure chickenheartedness it takes to cry that we* should be afraid of the amateurish lunatic fringe of Islam?
The Chicken Little routine is an immense insult to Christianity, its teachings, its followers, and the goodness at its core. Christianity outnumbers Mohammedanism 3-to-2, globally. Christianity dominates nearly all of the world's major countries. Islam has never permanently replaced an advanced religion, government, culture, or economy. Islam apparently, based on where it thrives, is the self-destructive religion of the 4 horseman of the apocalypse. It is large because chaos reigns in many regions of the world, but it is incapable of coalescing into the thoughtful philosophical forms that rule the world.
If you believe that there will ever be a United States of Sharia, or similar such dither, then you are thinking as a loser, as a traitor to your country, and as an infidel to Christianity. Mark it down. It ain't gonna happen.
We may get invaded by Martians someday, but they are gonna have both Christians and Muslims for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
* note -- I was raised a Christian, and I still see the evidence of God in the world around me. I am now philosophically a Taoist (not religiously a Taoist). In other words, I am not big on ritual and dogma. Therefore, when the battle comes I will still be on the side of Jesus, with sword in hand, whether we are fighting Klingons or Islamofascists. But to even pretend that these ululating extremist fools are on the same plane as Christians or Americans is a humiliation that we should reject with all our might. Otherwise, we will lose . . . to our fearstricken selves!
The neo-con military industrial coup will not be televised.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4 thumbs so far
2008 Jack Galway, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, February 14, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, February 14, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jack Galway only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jack Galway is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Jack, you started with a good premise: "Hawks frequently paint a picture of sharia rule in America. It is an insult to the largest libertarian nation in the world.", yes I agreed with that and you had me hooked at that point... but then you derailed and started insulting Muslims instead of the "Hawks". It is not Muslim's fault that their religion is being used for political purposes by the warmongers. I also do not blame Christians, whos religion is also being used for political purposes by the warmongers.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-02-14 15:31:11
As soon as science finally permeates the most backwards portions of America, Christianity, too, will wane and shrink.
People will finally admit that men can't ride inside of whale bellies. Dead people do not crawl from their graves and dance in the streets. If you nail a man to a two by four, future generations of humans will not be absolved of their responsibilities for behaving morally, There are too many species of mammals in the world to fit two of each of them on a boat... and so on and so forth.
No matter what religion you adhere to, there is still ZERO evidence that any kind of god exists. There is ZERO evidence that there is anything resembling divine intervention. There is ZERO evidence that there is life after death. The only thing we know for certain, is that man creates religion because he fears death, and men use religion and this fear to control other men.
To place Christianity on a higher plane than Islam is like saying that Charlie Brown is less of a cartoon than Homer Simpson.
At some point, you just have to lump the belief in silly things together and hope people wake up from their delusions.
Not to derail onto a side topic but I have to toss in a simple counter-argument to Scott....
Scott, you are discounting the positive effects of most forms of religion. Faith. Faith in something greater than oneself, and also in the power to both distinguish good from bad and to make a choice towards making a positive impact in the world around us. Free will is a major tenet of most forms of Christianity (at least), and is therefore a foundation of our free society. Whether or not you believe in the supernatural aspects of religion does not mean that you should automatically "throw out the baby with the bathwater".
I have traveled all over the USA and Canada and I find blind adherence to dogma everywhere - not just among Christians but even among scientists. I also find logical, scientific reasoning everywhere too - even among Christians.
Scott, you are describing a stereotypical Christianity. Unfortunately this stereotype is very common. But, IMO, there is no "one" religion called Christianity - it is even more splintered than the Libertarian Party, LOL! oops, just kidding ;-)
You are probably correct in saying that physical science is reducing the number of Christian "literalists", but not all Christians are "literalists". OTOH physical science will not reduce the number of people who have concluded through logical reasoning that love is a universal principle.
IMO the Old Testament was not intended to be a history book - it was intended to be a metaphysical textbook. This textbook was developed by editors who longed to preserve and pass-down their religion (which was their national identity). To get their lessons across to their students they did what any teacher does: use facts from history, as well as legends and myths, that the students are already familiar with, to help students discover principles for themselves.
The importance of the Bible is not in its history and not in its stories, but rather in what the stories reveal: divine Principle: Life, Truth and Love.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-02-14 18:29:45
"what the stories reveal: divine Principle: Life, Truth and Love."
Can someone tell me how stories of infanticide, patricide, genocide, human sacrifice, incest, war, tribalism, famine... etc... teach these Life, Truth, Love, principles you attribute to the bible? It seems to me these stories are horrific reminders of the sick and gory mindset of Middle Easterners long ago. I say, better to leave them in the past than to worship them and teach them to children. If you want to teach children to love, don't tell them about a vengeful invisible man who killed people who made him angry... Number one, it is a lie and lying to children is immoral. Number two, it is a sick and immoral lie.
Divine principle- means a principle held to be true by something divine, right? WEll, if there is nothing that is actually divine, i.e. there is no after life, there is no heaven and hell, no angels and no invisible man you want to call god, then "nothing" can't have a principle. Our morality comes from man living together with man and our morals are evolving continually, regardless of the existence of man-made religions. Christians are actually running out of parables to cherry pick out of the bible that still fit in with modern morality, just as Muslims are running out of hadiths that conform to the modern world.
"FAITH"-- Faith, as used by those to promote religion, means believing in something without evidence. In practice, it also means lying to one another, lying to children and lying to yourself. I see nothing moral or advantageous about "faith". What kind of a human are you that you need to believe in things that are demonstrably untrue in order to do good deeds for your fellow humans? I don't get it?
The corollary to the good deeds argument, is of course, the immeasurable amount of evil deeds done throughout history using "faith" as justification.
Scott, you are a good sparing partner! You have valid questions.
There are many stories in the Bible that illustrate the depravities of human thought - but I don't have to read the Bible to get those illustrations, I can just read the news or look out my window. Should I discourage my kids from keeping up with current events just because those events might reveal the despicable side of humans? Or should I encourage them to "look and learn".
Christianity is not based on the Old Testament - that is Judaism. It is the New Testament which bases Christianity, and which presents the "good news" as demonstrated by the man Jeshua ben Joseph. He proved that humans have the ability to rise above their animal instincts and become history-changing landmarks of virtue and compassion.
Whether the story is historically true or not, the moral of the story is the same: This idea (the Christ idea - not the man Jesus) has appeared throughout human history in varying forms wherever and whenever human thought is receptive to its demands.
But again, as I tried to point out in my previous post, it is my opinion that the Bible stories are not for the purpose of relating historical, physical events. A story may appear to be concerned with human murder for example, but in most cases the story is a metaphor - a metaphysical "thought experiment" - which attempts to reveal a truth or principle within your own conscious experience. The Bible is not concerned with the past - it is concerned with the here and now of your own thinking.
As for the word "faith", it is the word the interpreters used for the greek word "pistis". To me, pistis means "conviction of the truth of something", "deebly rooted foundation", "constancy" or "understanding". From this perspective I can say that I have faith that the Sun will rise tomorrow - not because of blind belief, but because of my understanding of science which convinces me of this truth.
Islamic fear mongering isn't about religion. It's about race.
Brown people are the ones left that are socially acceptable (in America) to hate for no rational reason.
After all they just want to trade in burkkas and take one-way flights.
All three believe in one god, have heaven and hell, no reincarnation, nearly identical 'moral rules', angels, prophets (the same prophets), judgement day, free will....
The differences are all minor technicalities. Jesus vs. Mohammad vs. Abraham, ect...
Islam, Judiasm, and Christianity are so similar it turns the stomach that people use it as an excuse to kill and hate. At least go after Hindus or Buddists where there are actually some significant dogmatic differences.
"Religion is the province of fools". Faith - to believe something without evidence is irrational. Agreed that the US will never become a Muslim nation. But ignorant of the fact that the Muslims were once the keepers of the highest advances in science and thought. During the dark ages, they advanced mathematics, surgery, geometry, etc. Consider Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi, called the Father of Surgery, wrote a 30 volume encyclopedia of medical practice in the year 1000. It is too easy to fall into the trap of cultural chauvinism, ignorant of other people's contributions to our culture. Think about that the next time you write 1-2-3 and not I, II, III - you know, arabic numerals, not roman, get it?
" "FAITH"-- Faith, as used by those to promote religion, means believing in something without evidence. In practice, it also means lying to one another, lying to children and lying to yourself. I see nothing moral or advantageous about "faith". What kind of a human are you that you need to believe in things that are demonstrably untrue in order to do good deeds for your fellow humans? I don't get it?"--Scott From Oregon
First, let me ensure that you understand something about myself. I am not prosthelyzer. I have faith as a basic foundation in my life that is typically buried so far beneath the surface that few would realize I'm at all religious. What you presume about me, or anyone else who has faith for that matter, shows more about your lack of understanding of others than my lack of understanding of the world.
Apparently you too have faith Scott, faith in the modern creation "myths" of science. You have faith that what you were taught in a classroom by a "preacher" of the scientific method has all the answers. I too was taught the same things, and I do not reject them; but I do not believe they are all inclusive, and you should not either. Science is primarily concerned with categorizing, theorizing, testing, and proving things. But anything that is not easily placed into one of those categories is all too often discounted, ignored, or demonized. Why is that acceptible? Science itself is constanly doubling back on what it has already "proven" and deciding there is a better rationale, method, or explanation. While there is nothing wrong with that per se, it does show that science simply cannot and does not have all the answers, your faith in science is in fact your own form of religous blindness.
I have faith in the essential goodness of my fellow man as an individual and a distrust of the mischief that my fellow man can get into when he places himself subject to a group. I believe that science is great for quantifying, measuring, and explaining the mechanisms of the physical universe, but it falters when it attempts the same methods to explain the social "sciences". Since science cannot quantify faith should I presume that there is no such thing? I beg to differ, faith is demonstrably true. After all was it not faith in something better, and faith in non-violent methods which pushed the civil rights movement to success? Can science rationalize that?
There is nothing wrong with scientific principle, or thought, and it does not have to be incongrous with religious or faith based principle or thought. They both have their own spheres of influence and study. The problem is that adherents of each try to demonize the other sect to glorify their own; and that is nothing but foolishness.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-02-14 23:06:16
MikeFoster- "He proved that humans have the ability to rise above their animal instincts and become history-changing landmarks of virtue and compassion. "
"There are many stories in the Bible that illustrate the depravities of human thought - but I don't have to read the Bible to get those illustrations, I can just read the news or look out my window. "
I don't recall when the last time stripping a guy naked and nailing him to a two by four was considered acceptable behavior? Or placing an infant on a stone and driving a dagger into them? Or giving up a girl-child to be molested by an old man in order for my crops to be spared by the wrath of an invisible man...
Religion is not the antidote to immoral and grotesque behavior. In fact, historically (and even up to the present in Darfur, the ME and in the men who crashed planes into the WTC) it has been the cause.
Morality exists outside of religion, and grows by consensus and assimilation. So does science.
Religion is an outdated way of looking at life and the universe as we now know it.
The stories illustrate very little of value. Morality rises not because of religion, but in spite of it.
Ummmm, how did he "prove" that, and what makes you think there were not millions of other humans who had already lived that were capable of demonstrating the same compassion? The fact that humans were able to survive and procreate for almost a hundred thousand years as hunter gatherers before this guy is testimony to that ability.
"Religion is not the antidote to immoral and grotesque behavior. In fact, historically (and even up to the present in Darfur, the ME and in the men who crashed planes into the WTC) it has been the cause. Morality exists outside of religion, and grows by consensus and assimilation. So does science. Religion is an outdated way of looking at life and the universe as we now know it. The stories illustrate very little of value. Morality rises not because of religion, but in spite of it."--Scott from Oregon
I get the feeling that you are somewhat anti-Christian(anti-religious) because of the actions and hypocrisy of some less than perfect Christians. Although I know no perfect human beings, I do know a few that are exemplarary in some or many ways; each of whom happens to be a Christian. Blaming all Christians (or the Bible) for the actions of a few is analogous to blaming all Americans (or the Constitution) for the actions of Dubya and the neo-cons.
Regardless of the imperfections of many Christians (or others who profess to be faithful), choosing to disregard the inherent value that their tradition offers shows an essential ignorance of the values that have been imparted to western culture through it. Religion, and consequently the religious, are often misused by those who come to power to achieve goals that are not in accordance with the core tenets of the religion which they espouse. This does not mean that the religion is at fault, but rather those who misused their power were. Simple logic would prove the fallacy of trying to link the failings of these followers with the failings of the traditional teachings.
History shows us that values and morals are mutable by a culture, particularly by cultures which ignore or re-write their traditions. Religions tend to resist changes within cultures to ensure continuity of morality and consequently are often targeted by those who wish to provoke change. The provoked change may or may not have more claim to morality (largely depening on whose definition is used), but hasty changes in a societal morals and norms often lead to power in the hands of those who would abuse that power and the traditions of the people. Good examples include communist Russia and China where not being "progressive" was a good excuse for state sponsored murder. Those who practiced the weeding out of the non-progressives certainly felt they were acting in a moral manner to create a new and better society. But were they acting morally, or were they actually serving the misguided notions of those in power? Surely those practicing these murderous ideals did so with consensus (they were not effectively resisted) and assimiliation (they trained the new generations to do as told).
I disagree with your statement about religion being outdated and having little value. Science is always coming up with new ideas and new inventions, many of which should create in us the need to pause and deliberate on the moral values which they impinge. All too often however science does not ask questions of should, but only of can. This only makes sense, because science does not situate itself within the sphere or morality, but only possibility; ergo a society which bases itself solely on science will itself often not asks questions of morality. Is it outdated to question whether or not it is moral to create living and breathing (and possibly thinking) life only to harvest that life for components for the needs of those who created it? If that morality question should be asked then how do we argue or answer it without a basis in the past from which to begin? While science fiction (or reality) can raise those questions, where do we find common values in a diverse society from which we can arrive at a consensus of morality?
I do not believe the stories have little value. I offer a challenge to you. One of my favorite New Testament parables is that of "The Prodigal Son". Go read it (not a synopsis, but the actual words) and then come back and explain to me how it has no value in todays society. The trick to any religious parable is to read it and ponder its significance. This parable has value in any society which values mercy and forgiveness. Another example, where would non-violent resistance be without the example of "turn the other cheek"?. Furthermore, you should not mix-up the importance of the stories of the New Testament of Christian belief, with that of the Old Testament which is shared by all Abrahamic religions. While there is much value in the Old Testament, there is also much that can be twisted by those who choose not to partake of the whole.
Religion is the guardian of morality and spirituality. While one can be moral without religion, in a society in which religion is discounted morality is often brought down to the lowest common denominator of "what is good for me is good for society". So long as science fails to address morality or spirituality in any way other than a derisive or unthinking manner it will not be effective in supplanting traditional religion. Without a guardian of traditional morality society suffers a continual decaying slope, not a glorious upward rise. At least in terms beyond those of technological achievement.
It's been fun, but I'm going to let it go now. There are other forums where we could discuss this topic. NolanChart is for politics. Sorry for getting so far OT.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Jack Galway, all rights reserved.