I mean, seriously. Let’s ponder this for half a second. If you’re the sort of Muslim who thinks violence in the name of Islam is OK, then why would you be offended by the linkage of Islam and violence? And, on the other hand, if you’re the sort of Muslim who thinks violence in the name of Islam isn’t OK, then why are you firebombing churches? Can someone please explain this to me?
Anyway, Casey has (as per usual) a thoughtful post on the subject.
Interestingly enough, from a theological perspective, the Surah quoted by Casey could easily be construed as a pro-monotheism message designed to encourage “idolaters” to instead choose a worthy form of worship, whether Islam or Judaism or Christianity, rather than the obviously-unworthy idolatry … on cannot therefore conclude that said Surah seeks the forced conversion of folk to the Religion of Peace aka Islam, now can we ?
The irony is that the pope’s comments were about a dialogue between a Byzantine emperor and an “educated Persian”. People were coming out yesterday lamenting that the pope’s comments had injured the dialogue between Christians or the world and Muslims. Wait ? It sounds to me like the kind of things the pope said, whether or not it was his personal belief (and 95% of the context suggests it was not), is exactly the way a dialogue starts.
Ignoring the reality of muslim violence in the world is not the way to have a dialogue. But that’s what the must-appeasers want. Let’s not talk about Muslim violence in the context of world history or today, let’s just throw up how Christians have a history of violence like Rosie O’Donnell. Let’s talk about how “religion isn’t logical”. Let’s grind every pathetic axe we have in our self-serving id until we have to talk about the actual subject - the culture of violence in the world. Screaming “you guys did it too! (waaaa!)” doesn’t move the dialogue forward. Of course, the Muslim response has not been to respond with words but with violence. These agressors didn’t give the pope the benefit of the doubt (which he certainly deserved if you read the speech), didn’t offer intelligent criticism, they went out and beat their chests, slapped their shoes, burned effigies, and attacked churches. We saw the same thing with those innocuous Danish cartoons.
Do these agressors represent all Muslims ? the inevitability of Islam ? No. But they are muslim. There is a lot of them. And they are deeply motivated to spin deep hatred at the slightest offense. That’s something important to talk about, not just in accusing them, but in learning more about people generally. But instead of learning, you Rosie O’Donnells out there have to make this an opportunity to talk about how what Frederick Barbarossa did in the Crusades or what the U.S. is doing in Iraq impeaches the merits of Christianity.
Anonymous, your illogical and demonstrably false cliche verbal excrement is not welcome here. Perhaps if you picked up a history book instead of attending a rally and learning a bunch of nonsensical chants and stupid lies, you could contribute to the conversation in a valuable way. But alas, you’d rather spout inane craptastic slogans like “fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.” Wow, how insightful. Did you see that on a t-shirt somewhere?
Do you ever stop to think about the far-reaching conclusions of such a stupid philosophy? Why bother having something like municipal police forces fighting to keep our cities in order? Why forcibly separate two dogs fighting at the dog park? I think you’re on to something, anon. We should just let our base instincts run wild so we can all have the freedom to kill one another without intervention or sanction. Only then can we truly have peace. It’s so much more merciful to allow the strong members of a civilization to brutalize and subjugate the weak without the intervention of the law or the enforcement of civic principles designed to balance the personal and public good. You’re right, instead of fighting for democracy and an eventual period of peace and prosperity, we should have bent over and taken it in the ass from the Brits, thanking them for taxing us and exploiting our land.
You stupid, stupid ‘tard. If you aren’t willing to fight for peace or democracy or civic stability, what are you willing to fight for?
Perhaps you believe that brown people in the Middle East and elsewhere don’t deserve peace, that it isn’t worth it for our guys to fight so that some cameljockey can enjoy the fruits of stability and prosperity. Maybe you think that it would be better for those people to have a violent dictator because that’s what they are used to. That’s a pretty repulsive philosophy, you unthinking simpleton.
Perhaps, if you weren’t a complete moron, you would realize that the relative peace and undeniable prosperity our nation now enjoys were afforded to us by the blood of our forefathers, by people who understood the fundamental truth that peace is a hard-won luxury and not the natural state of the naked ape.
Becky, let’s put some of your assumptions to the test. Let’s look at actual points in human history that have been outright anarchic - not a single law, not even against murder. Have people gone around just killing people for no apparent reason? Well, no. Tribalism is anarchist, and Bushmen, Maasai, Navajo, Iroquois, Taino, etc. all managed to get along quite well. Granted, they all have strong anti-murder taboos, and murder is still likely to get you killed or exiled. So let’s look at full-on anarchy, right in the middle of civilization. No consequences for murder, not even exile as a custom, let alone a law. The Commune of Paris didn’t see people killing each other in droves. Nor during the Spanish Civil War when Barcelona experimented with anarchy. Things ran quite smoothly, actually… until their own allies conquered them in the name of democracy. You see, people don’t just go around killing people because they can. They just don’t. Sorry if reality doesn’t coincide with your misanthropy.
PS Firebombing churches is inherently stupid, no matter the reason.
Although Becky’s rhetoric may have been somewhat over-the-top (like that ever happens! hehe…love you Becky), I think her basic point is sound: the statement that “claiming war leads to peace and democracy” is inherently “insane” is utterly absurd. One need look no further than World War II to recognize how wrong-headed that statement is. If we’re talking about the Iraq war specifically, we can have that debate; but as a general statement, it is utterly undeniable that war is sometimes necessary to create peace and democracy. Just as you can cite history to show that anarchy doesn’t necessarily lead to rampant violence, I can cite history to show that when nations that desire peace and democracy do nothing to stop war-mongering tyrants, the latter will keep pushing the envelope until someone has the balls to stand up and stay, in the words of a certain starship captain, “The line must be drawn here! No further!” War sucks, but sometimes it is necessary.
Well, danger of religion in a debate and all, I’m throwing in a few thoughts anyway.
I’ll accept on the authority of those quoting it to me that the Koran (or however you chose to transliterate it) is a violent book. But I think people tend to overlook how violent the books of the Old Testament are. I’m not a biblical scholar by any means, but things such as David Plotz’s blogging the bible series have been useful to me. Islam preaches that conversion by the sword is an acceptable practice. Exodus 23, on the other hand, merely states that the Israelites have been promised a particular tract of land and should drive out everyone there, slaughter any who don’t leave, and destroy all which they’ve built. Exodus also speaks of God hardening the heart of Pharoah to make him refuse to let the Israelites go, so that way the glory of the Lord could be vindicated with ever more horrific plagues; seems a bit blood-thirsty to me. And there’s far more violence directed within the tribe: death for all sorts of infractions that seem downright trivial in my view (for instance, insulting a parent), and even rewarding people for taking it upon themselves to, for example, kill those who marry outside the tribe.
It’s true that the Old Testament doesn’t go along with conversion by swordpoint–in fact, some Orthodox Jewish groups believe that conversion to Judaism is impossible–but that in and of itself doesn’t make it obvious that the holy text of Islam is more violent than that of other monotheistic religions.
While I don’t believe the Pope’s decision to bring up the remarks of a 14th Century Byzantine Emperor right now was such a keen idea, nothing justifies this kind of violence. I think it is interesting that the Palestinians are targeting many of the churches that the PLO leadership has taken refuge in from Israeli forces over the years. What a bunch of fuckers.
Sean writes: “Have people gone around just killing people for no apparent reason? Well, no.”
That is one of the dumbest, most naive and absurd comments I’ve seen posted on this site—and that’s really saying something.
People kill for countless reasons—jealousy, rage, desperation, greed, etc. etc., most of which have no connection to any legal regime. People kill because of psychological disorders (the Son of Sam killer, for instance) or because of sexual pleasure (BTK and Jeffrey Dahmer are examples). And still others kill for no other reason than to kill—to satisfy a curiosity (the Browns Chicken Massacre killers would fall into this category).
Make no mistake—no matter what society one lives in, there will be killers. There will be a derranged lunatic, or a scorned lover, or a troubled teen curious about death—and that individual will murder, regardless of laws or taboos or religion. And it takes a coercive authority exercising force–the police or the prosecutor, for example–to protect society from these individuals. And while law enforcement can never completely protect society—they can certainly save future victims from their would-be killers.
Leave your silly examples of the Paris Commune for the ivory tower of academia–in the real world, people kill other people for no good reason every single day.
Good question, 4-7. Does the majority of Muslims who haven’t participated in these firebombings represent Islam? How about the apparently Muslim firefighters who put out the fires in the churches? You tell me.
sure, MME, the oddity of instant Muslim rage at cartoons in a newspaper thousands of miles away and an academic musing by the pope should be ignored because the fire was put out by Muslims.
How is the Commune of Paris not a real world example?
Your examples of BTK and Son of Sam, etc, happened within a legal framework. Laws didn’t prevent them. Belief that murder is wrong is a far better motivation against killing. Yes, people kill… but the idea that if we didn’t have laws, everybody who wasn’t a killer would suddenly go a-killing… just ludicrous.
But alas, you’d rather spout inane craptastic slogans like “fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.�
Well, the problem with that analogy is the verb is wrong. Fighting for peace is more like masturbating for virginity; if you get yourself off before you’re in a situation to be tempted to have sex, you’re in a better position to say “No thanks”. And if you take out your enemies before they have a chance to cause trouble, you guarantee that domestic chaos and existential war will be avoided.
Sean, your citation of Native American tribalism as a good example of anarchism is laughable. Do you think tribalism is truly anarchic/libertarian, or that there weren’t frequent wars and raids between competing tribes? Get real. Tribalism is hierarchical and authoritarian, and to the extent that it isn’t governed by a set of written laws and codes, it is governed by a strict culture of conformity. Perhaps these latter non-legal “rules” that govern behavior are why George Washington cited the religious nature of the American people as the key to the United States’ young democracy?
I also find it amusing that you cite the peace and stability of a group of Spanish anarchists during a civil war. Oh the irony!
Sean, communes are not societies.
Mike, it’s fair to bring the biblical texts into debate for comparison purposes, but for the most part, the passages you cite are descriptive, not prescriptive, whereas the Quran passages cited are prescriptive. I mean, come on, think about it: Do you see an Israelite temple anywhere, with blood sacrifices and ritual purification for the priests? No. Jews regard the Torah as a holy text, but they do not read it as a manual or divine order to conquer and convert anyone outside their unique group of believers.
I was responding to your rhetorical question about whether or not a few hundred Muslims fire-bombing a church represent all Muslims. I gave you examples of Muslims - the vast majority of Muslims - who either weren’t fire-bombing the churches or a few who were actually trying to stop the fires.
I personally don’t understand how a blog that supposedly is visited by such wise individuals is constantly filled with gross generalizations of entire ethnic or religious groups based on the acts of a few. Sounds like those advanced degrees failed to cut through an inherent ignorance.
“No. Jews regard the Torah as a holy text, but they do not read it as a manual or divine order to conquer and convert anyone outside their unique group of believers.”
Moses didn’t convert anyone by the sword. He just killed them for not being Jewish.
Thanks, Mullah Casey. I WAS feeling rather Snubbed for a minute there. :> (After all, I AM the very Incarnation of the dreaded BIGfat Wah-wah-wah. :)
Courtesy of the Vatican website, here is the full text of the Holy Father’s ignorant, despicable & inflammatory Rant to the Crusaders at Regensburg University. ;>
Concerning which, here from that infallible Pontificate Across The Pond, The New York Times, is a pertinent reportorial excerpt ~
…On Tuesday, at Regensburg University in Germany, Benedict delivered a long, scholarly address on reason and faith in the West. But he began his speech by recounting a conversation on the truths of Christianity and Islam that took place between a 14th-century Byzantine Christian emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, and a Persian scholar.
“The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war,� the pope said.
“He said, I quote, ‘Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,’ � the pope said.
While making clear that he was quoting someone else, Benedict did not say whether he agreed or not. He also briefly discussed the Islamic concept of jihad, which he defined as “holy war,� and said that violence in the name of religion is contrary to God’s nature and to reason.
He also suggested reason as the basis for “that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today.�
And from the Holy See of Her Majesty’s United Kingdom, the BBC, the relevant portion of today’s papal Statement ~
…At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.
These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.
Yesterday, the Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words.
I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect.
In light of the utterly absurd Muslim reaction, I’m fighting the Temptation to conclude that what’s Sad about all this is that Benedict disagrees with Paleologos. :|
Mad Max, you express a putrid ignorance of the difference between the orthodox conception of Judaism and the biblical historiography of the Israelites. The Middle East was a kill-or-be-killed world (kinda still is, actually), and the Israelites — having been taken captive by the Egyptians — went to Canaan to attempt to settle a land. Despite the wonderful manna from heaven, Sanai really was not a livable environment in which to remain. The concept of an entire people or tribe asking for permission to settle somewhere is completely foreign to human history, so your perception of Israelite history is a tad unrealistic and skewed by modern sensibilities.
A Nun Mouse, I would accept your statement on its face if you could show me an unprovoked war in the Middle East. The war in Iraq, while undeniable mismanaged and questionable in validity, was not unprovoked. I’m reminded of a mom and a little kid. Mom says don’t put peas in your nose (or conform to UN resolutions as the case may be). The kid puts peas in his nose and then, BAM, consequences and a time out. A child with no attention span won’t understand why they got put in time out. But I assume, A Nun Mouse, that you are not a child and therefore, you can recall that while there were stockpiles of WMDs found in Iraq, that does not, in fact, eliminate the reality that the goverment was failing to comply with UN resolutions and therefore, did provoke consequential actions. A lam justification? Perhaps. But still justification enough to make your previous statement inapplicable.
Sean, sometimes it frightens me that you’re a teacher because you say some seriously stupid shit sometimes. (Don’t worry. You don’t have a monopoly on that.) I have this mental image of reading your claim that the Iroquois were an anarchistic society to a group of Native American historians and watching them all weep with mirth at the ridiculousness of it. It reminds me of Carlos Mencia’s skits on Dee Dee Dees.
Everytime I hear about how peaceful and loving this religion is I think of Austin Powers and say “riiiiiiiight” to myself. I mean, you kill a nun and her bodyguard, fire bomb and and shoot up half a dozen churches and burn the pope in effigy and your upset because no one out side of your religion sees the peace and love you claim to be all about.
My Arabic is a poor, so far I think “Jihad” means I am fixing to kill a bunch of fellow Muslims or some Jews and Christians are fixing to kick my ass…again.
Don’t worry Casey, I know you are busy declaring jihad and fatwas, so I have declared a fatwa myself.
Actually, there ain’t too much difference between jihad and crusade … if you ignore that the old Crusades were waged to liberate Christendom from invading military Islamist forces by killing said military Islamist forces - and the current jihads by the Islamist terrorists are waged to liberate lands (occupied by Islamists for 1400 years or less) from pretty much anyone the terrorists don’t like by killing mostly civilians in civilian settings …
When the Crusades were being launched, just yesterday in the minds of some folk, they were a reasonably (at the time) measured response to the then-jihads which had spread Islam by force out from Mecca and Medina … in effect, they were an ineffectual set of Wars of Liberation, doing their then-best to rescue their co-religionists from the invaders that were Islam.
The jihads being proposed today are supposedly to rescue the Islamic co-religionists from the invading infidel.
And that’s why *I* propose we consider going back just one ‘day’ further, past the “yesterday” of the Crusades, to the ‘day before’ - which puts us before the start of Islam …
September 17th, 2006 at 4:04:45 am
because religion is man-made and humans are funny by nature. do you really think religion is logical?
September 17th, 2006 at 5:53:33 am
Interestingly enough, from a theological perspective, the Surah quoted by Casey could easily be construed as a pro-monotheism message designed to encourage “idolaters” to instead choose a worthy form of worship, whether Islam or Judaism or Christianity, rather than the obviously-unworthy idolatry … on cannot therefore conclude that said Surah seeks the forced conversion of folk to the Religion of Peace aka Islam, now can we ?
September 17th, 2006 at 7:03:21 am
It’s just as insane as claiming war leads to peace and democracy.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:24:34 am
The irony is that the pope’s comments were about a dialogue between a Byzantine emperor and an “educated Persian”. People were coming out yesterday lamenting that the pope’s comments had injured the dialogue between Christians or the world and Muslims. Wait ? It sounds to me like the kind of things the pope said, whether or not it was his personal belief (and 95% of the context suggests it was not), is exactly the way a dialogue starts.
Ignoring the reality of muslim violence in the world is not the way to have a dialogue. But that’s what the must-appeasers want. Let’s not talk about Muslim violence in the context of world history or today, let’s just throw up how Christians have a history of violence like Rosie O’Donnell. Let’s talk about how “religion isn’t logical”. Let’s grind every pathetic axe we have in our self-serving id until we have to talk about the actual subject - the culture of violence in the world. Screaming “you guys did it too! (waaaa!)” doesn’t move the dialogue forward. Of course, the Muslim response has not been to respond with words but with violence. These agressors didn’t give the pope the benefit of the doubt (which he certainly deserved if you read the speech), didn’t offer intelligent criticism, they went out and beat their chests, slapped their shoes, burned effigies, and attacked churches. We saw the same thing with those innocuous Danish cartoons.
Do these agressors represent all Muslims ? the inevitability of Islam ? No. But they are muslim. There is a lot of them. And they are deeply motivated to spin deep hatred at the slightest offense. That’s something important to talk about, not just in accusing them, but in learning more about people generally. But instead of learning, you Rosie O’Donnells out there have to make this an opportunity to talk about how what Frederick Barbarossa did in the Crusades or what the U.S. is doing in Iraq impeaches the merits of Christianity.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:30:46 am
Then there was a Quaker friend of mine who bashed someone over the head with a cafeteria tray in a heated debate about Pacifism and the Vietnam war.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:31:09 am
Anonymous, your illogical and demonstrably false cliche verbal excrement is not welcome here. Perhaps if you picked up a history book instead of attending a rally and learning a bunch of nonsensical chants and stupid lies, you could contribute to the conversation in a valuable way. But alas, you’d rather spout inane craptastic slogans like “fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.” Wow, how insightful. Did you see that on a t-shirt somewhere?
Do you ever stop to think about the far-reaching conclusions of such a stupid philosophy? Why bother having something like municipal police forces fighting to keep our cities in order? Why forcibly separate two dogs fighting at the dog park? I think you’re on to something, anon. We should just let our base instincts run wild so we can all have the freedom to kill one another without intervention or sanction. Only then can we truly have peace. It’s so much more merciful to allow the strong members of a civilization to brutalize and subjugate the weak without the intervention of the law or the enforcement of civic principles designed to balance the personal and public good. You’re right, instead of fighting for democracy and an eventual period of peace and prosperity, we should have bent over and taken it in the ass from the Brits, thanking them for taxing us and exploiting our land.
You stupid, stupid ‘tard. If you aren’t willing to fight for peace or democracy or civic stability, what are you willing to fight for?
Perhaps you believe that brown people in the Middle East and elsewhere don’t deserve peace, that it isn’t worth it for our guys to fight so that some cameljockey can enjoy the fruits of stability and prosperity. Maybe you think that it would be better for those people to have a violent dictator because that’s what they are used to. That’s a pretty repulsive philosophy, you unthinking simpleton.
Perhaps, if you weren’t a complete moron, you would realize that the relative peace and undeniable prosperity our nation now enjoys were afforded to us by the blood of our forefathers, by people who understood the fundamental truth that peace is a hard-won luxury and not the natural state of the naked ape.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:54:14 pm
Becky, let’s put some of your assumptions to the test. Let’s look at actual points in human history that have been outright anarchic - not a single law, not even against murder. Have people gone around just killing people for no apparent reason? Well, no. Tribalism is anarchist, and Bushmen, Maasai, Navajo, Iroquois, Taino, etc. all managed to get along quite well. Granted, they all have strong anti-murder taboos, and murder is still likely to get you killed or exiled. So let’s look at full-on anarchy, right in the middle of civilization. No consequences for murder, not even exile as a custom, let alone a law. The Commune of Paris didn’t see people killing each other in droves. Nor during the Spanish Civil War when Barcelona experimented with anarchy. Things ran quite smoothly, actually… until their own allies conquered them in the name of democracy. You see, people don’t just go around killing people because they can. They just don’t. Sorry if reality doesn’t coincide with your misanthropy.
PS Firebombing churches is inherently stupid, no matter the reason.
September 17th, 2006 at 1:17:41 pm
Although Becky’s rhetoric may have been somewhat over-the-top (like that ever happens! hehe…love you Becky), I think her basic point is sound: the statement that “claiming war leads to peace and democracy” is inherently “insane” is utterly absurd. One need look no further than World War II to recognize how wrong-headed that statement is. If we’re talking about the Iraq war specifically, we can have that debate; but as a general statement, it is utterly undeniable that war is sometimes necessary to create peace and democracy. Just as you can cite history to show that anarchy doesn’t necessarily lead to rampant violence, I can cite history to show that when nations that desire peace and democracy do nothing to stop war-mongering tyrants, the latter will keep pushing the envelope until someone has the balls to stand up and stay, in the words of a certain starship captain, “The line must be drawn here! No further!” War sucks, but sometimes it is necessary.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:24:38 pm
Well, danger of religion in a debate and all, I’m throwing in a few thoughts anyway.
I’ll accept on the authority of those quoting it to me that the Koran (or however you chose to transliterate it) is a violent book. But I think people tend to overlook how violent the books of the Old Testament are. I’m not a biblical scholar by any means, but things such as David Plotz’s blogging the bible series have been useful to me. Islam preaches that conversion by the sword is an acceptable practice. Exodus 23, on the other hand, merely states that the Israelites have been promised a particular tract of land and should drive out everyone there, slaughter any who don’t leave, and destroy all which they’ve built. Exodus also speaks of God hardening the heart of Pharoah to make him refuse to let the Israelites go, so that way the glory of the Lord could be vindicated with ever more horrific plagues; seems a bit blood-thirsty to me. And there’s far more violence directed within the tribe: death for all sorts of infractions that seem downright trivial in my view (for instance, insulting a parent), and even rewarding people for taking it upon themselves to, for example, kill those who marry outside the tribe.
It’s true that the Old Testament doesn’t go along with conversion by swordpoint–in fact, some Orthodox Jewish groups believe that conversion to Judaism is impossible–but that in and of itself doesn’t make it obvious that the holy text of Islam is more violent than that of other monotheistic religions.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:40:02 pm
Rebecca,
Are you in a manic phase?
September 17th, 2006 at 3:49:40 pm
While I don’t believe the Pope’s decision to bring up the remarks of a 14th Century Byzantine Emperor right now was such a keen idea, nothing justifies this kind of violence. I think it is interesting that the Palestinians are targeting many of the churches that the PLO leadership has taken refuge in from Israeli forces over the years. What a bunch of fuckers.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:55:31 pm
Sean writes: “Have people gone around just killing people for no apparent reason? Well, no.”
That is one of the dumbest, most naive and absurd comments I’ve seen posted on this site—and that’s really saying something.
People kill for countless reasons—jealousy, rage, desperation, greed, etc. etc., most of which have no connection to any legal regime. People kill because of psychological disorders (the Son of Sam killer, for instance) or because of sexual pleasure (BTK and Jeffrey Dahmer are examples). And still others kill for no other reason than to kill—to satisfy a curiosity (the Browns Chicken Massacre killers would fall into this category).
Make no mistake—no matter what society one lives in, there will be killers. There will be a derranged lunatic, or a scorned lover, or a troubled teen curious about death—and that individual will murder, regardless of laws or taboos or religion. And it takes a coercive authority exercising force–the police or the prosecutor, for example–to protect society from these individuals. And while law enforcement can never completely protect society—they can certainly save future victims from their would-be killers.
Leave your silly examples of the Paris Commune for the ivory tower of academia–in the real world, people kill other people for no good reason every single day.
September 17th, 2006 at 4:00:29 pm
“Do these agressors represent all Muslims?”
Good question, 4-7. Does the majority of Muslims who haven’t participated in these firebombings represent Islam? How about the apparently Muslim firefighters who put out the fires in the churches? You tell me.
September 17th, 2006 at 4:02:13 pm
Don’t call us violent or we’ll kill you!
September 17th, 2006 at 5:27:19 pm
sure, MME, the oddity of instant Muslim rage at cartoons in a newspaper thousands of miles away and an academic musing by the pope should be ignored because the fire was put out by Muslims.
September 17th, 2006 at 6:47:23 pm
How is the Commune of Paris not a real world example?
Your examples of BTK and Son of Sam, etc, happened within a legal framework. Laws didn’t prevent them. Belief that murder is wrong is a far better motivation against killing. Yes, people kill… but the idea that if we didn’t have laws, everybody who wasn’t a killer would suddenly go a-killing… just ludicrous.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:24:44 pm
But alas, you’d rather spout inane craptastic slogans like “fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.�
Well, the problem with that analogy is the verb is wrong. Fighting for peace is more like masturbating for virginity; if you get yourself off before you’re in a situation to be tempted to have sex, you’re in a better position to say “No thanks”. And if you take out your enemies before they have a chance to cause trouble, you guarantee that domestic chaos and existential war will be avoided.
Sean, your citation of Native American tribalism as a good example of anarchism is laughable. Do you think tribalism is truly anarchic/libertarian, or that there weren’t frequent wars and raids between competing tribes? Get real. Tribalism is hierarchical and authoritarian, and to the extent that it isn’t governed by a set of written laws and codes, it is governed by a strict culture of conformity. Perhaps these latter non-legal “rules” that govern behavior are why George Washington cited the religious nature of the American people as the key to the United States’ young democracy?
I also find it amusing that you cite the peace and stability of a group of Spanish anarchists during a civil war. Oh the irony!
Sean, communes are not societies.
Mike, it’s fair to bring the biblical texts into debate for comparison purposes, but for the most part, the passages you cite are descriptive, not prescriptive, whereas the Quran passages cited are prescriptive. I mean, come on, think about it: Do you see an Israelite temple anywhere, with blood sacrifices and ritual purification for the priests? No. Jews regard the Torah as a holy text, but they do not read it as a manual or divine order to conquer and convert anyone outside their unique group of believers.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:37:41 pm
4-7
I was responding to your rhetorical question about whether or not a few hundred Muslims fire-bombing a church represent all Muslims. I gave you examples of Muslims - the vast majority of Muslims - who either weren’t fire-bombing the churches or a few who were actually trying to stop the fires.
I personally don’t understand how a blog that supposedly is visited by such wise individuals is constantly filled with gross generalizations of entire ethnic or religious groups based on the acts of a few. Sounds like those advanced degrees failed to cut through an inherent ignorance.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:39:04 pm
“No. Jews regard the Torah as a holy text, but they do not read it as a manual or divine order to conquer and convert anyone outside their unique group of believers.”
Moses didn’t convert anyone by the sword. He just killed them for not being Jewish.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:37:24 pm
I have declared the following fatwas:
4-7: Fatwa on you.
Alasdair: Double fatwa.
Mad Max: Fatwa + jihad.
Sean: Double jihad + rainbow sprinkles.
Mike: 1/2 fatwa so far. But you’re on thin ice.
Andrew: Stoning fatwah + superjihad + double backflip suplex maneuver (all in the Quran).
Becky: Football fatwa — you will never again see a winning game! (Note: May reverse curses already in effect)
Brendan: Titanic megafatwa + instajihad.
That is all. If I have forgotten anyone, consider yourselves fatwa’ed as well.
September 17th, 2006 at 9:27:44 pm
It’s as insane as thinking an unprovoked war in a region where our policies are despised will lead to peace and democracy.
Is that better, Becky?
LOL
September 17th, 2006 at 9:37:29 pm
Thanks, Mullah Casey. I WAS feeling rather Snubbed for a minute there. :> (After all, I AM the very Incarnation of the dreaded BIGfat Wah-wah-wah. :)
Courtesy of the Vatican website, here is the full text of the Holy Father’s ignorant, despicable & inflammatory Rant to the Crusaders at Regensburg University. ;>
Concerning which, here from that infallible Pontificate Across The Pond, The New York Times, is a pertinent reportorial excerpt ~
And from the Holy See of Her Majesty’s United Kingdom, the BBC, the relevant portion of today’s papal Statement ~
In light of the utterly absurd Muslim reaction, I’m fighting the Temptation to conclude that what’s Sad about all this is that Benedict disagrees with Paleologos. :|
September 17th, 2006 at 10:07:48 pm
Mad Max, you express a putrid ignorance of the difference between the orthodox conception of Judaism and the biblical historiography of the Israelites. The Middle East was a kill-or-be-killed world (kinda still is, actually), and the Israelites — having been taken captive by the Egyptians — went to Canaan to attempt to settle a land. Despite the wonderful manna from heaven, Sanai really was not a livable environment in which to remain. The concept of an entire people or tribe asking for permission to settle somewhere is completely foreign to human history, so your perception of Israelite history is a tad unrealistic and skewed by modern sensibilities.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:18:10 pm
A Nun Mouse, I would accept your statement on its face if you could show me an unprovoked war in the Middle East. The war in Iraq, while undeniable mismanaged and questionable in validity, was not unprovoked. I’m reminded of a mom and a little kid. Mom says don’t put peas in your nose (or conform to UN resolutions as the case may be). The kid puts peas in his nose and then, BAM, consequences and a time out. A child with no attention span won’t understand why they got put in time out. But I assume, A Nun Mouse, that you are not a child and therefore, you can recall that while there were stockpiles of WMDs found in Iraq, that does not, in fact, eliminate the reality that the goverment was failing to comply with UN resolutions and therefore, did provoke consequential actions. A lam justification? Perhaps. But still justification enough to make your previous statement inapplicable.
Sean, sometimes it frightens me that you’re a teacher because you say some seriously stupid shit sometimes. (Don’t worry. You don’t have a monopoly on that.) I have this mental image of reading your claim that the Iroquois were an anarchistic society to a group of Native American historians and watching them all weep with mirth at the ridiculousness of it. It reminds me of Carlos Mencia’s skits on Dee Dee Dees.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:04:34 pm
I wish someone would instajihad me. :( all I got was a fatwa.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:23:05 pm
I believe Becky meant to say that WMDs were not found in Iraq.
I just want to avoid another 100-comment thread on whether or not there were WMDs, “Bush lied and people died!”, and all that nonsense.
September 18th, 2006 at 3:47:33 am
Upadte: Pope expresses personal regret: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/world/europe/18pope.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
September 18th, 2006 at 5:44:35 am
Everytime I hear about how peaceful and loving this religion is I think of Austin Powers and say “riiiiiiiight” to myself. I mean, you kill a nun and her bodyguard, fire bomb and and shoot up half a dozen churches and burn the pope in effigy and your upset because no one out side of your religion sees the peace and love you claim to be all about.
September 18th, 2006 at 9:32:40 am
My Arabic is a poor, so far I think “Jihad” means I am fixing to kill a bunch of fellow Muslims or some Jews and Christians are fixing to kick my ass…again.
Don’t worry Casey, I know you are busy declaring jihad and fatwas, so I have declared a fatwa myself.
September 18th, 2006 at 3:16:35 pm
Actually, there ain’t too much difference between jihad and crusade … if you ignore that the old Crusades were waged to liberate Christendom from invading military Islamist forces by killing said military Islamist forces - and the current jihads by the Islamist terrorists are waged to liberate lands (occupied by Islamists for 1400 years or less) from pretty much anyone the terrorists don’t like by killing mostly civilians in civilian settings …
When the Crusades were being launched, just yesterday in the minds of some folk, they were a reasonably (at the time) measured response to the then-jihads which had spread Islam by force out from Mecca and Medina … in effect, they were an ineffectual set of Wars of Liberation, doing their then-best to rescue their co-religionists from the invaders that were Islam.
The jihads being proposed today are supposedly to rescue the Islamic co-religionists from the invading infidel.
And that’s why *I* propose we consider going back just one ‘day’ further, past the “yesterday” of the Crusades, to the ‘day before’ - which puts us before the start of Islam …
Voilà ! No more Islam, no more Islamic fascism …
September 20th, 2006 at 3:23:35 pm
I wish someone was listening to you Alasdair…