One of the ways that people control a narrative is by defining the terms. The more the terms are favorable to their narrative, the more they get others to “dance to their tune”. Both Daesh and “conservatives” have been controlling the narrative to their respective audiences.
What’s this Daesh? It is the Arabic term for the group that calls itself the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIL), or just the Islamic State (IS). Keith Ellison, a member of Congress from Minnesota and a Muslim, refuses to use these “Islamic” descriptions and uses Daesh instead. One, Daesh does not represent the Islam that Ellison and many others follow. Two, Daesh does not like this name which is somewhat of a pejorative in Arabic.
Look at this another way. Daesh represents Islam no more than the Coo Coo Clucks Clan represents Christianity. By the way, many letter writers say that all Muslims should speak out against Daesh; they forget that many Christians did not openly criticize the Coo Coo Clucks Clan.
Many Muslims are speaking out against Daesh. See the article about Rep. Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, the other Representative who is a Muslim speaking out against Daesh (see CQ Roll Call, 2015-11-17, also published in the Duluth News Tribune the next day). The article stated that Ellison and Carson shared the same religion as the terrorists; this is way off the mark. It is like saying those who call for punishment of gays share Christianity with those who believe “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.”
Also, by the time you read this, my friend M. Imran Hayee should have his own take on Daesh published in the Duluth News Tribune.
Why are “conservatives” the lackeys of Daesh? Because Daesh wants a war with “Christianity” and anybody else who doesn’t share their corrupted view of Islam. The “conservatives” think that the U.S. is the Calvary of the movies and will save the wagon train from the bandits or the Indians. As “Leader of the Free World” with the mightiest army in the world, the U.S. will crush anybody who is not for “freedom”.
But what is the reality of the effectiveness of the U.S. military against a “moral” force such as Daesh?
In 1775, a ragtag army took on a heavily trained army of a distant empire. It took some years, but with the help of another empire they forced that army to surrender. Then a much better trained U.S. Army took on lightly-armed groups of a widely-dispersed populace. In the next century, the U.S. military joined several other countries in defeating an opposing army in a long-drawn out struggle. That led to the same defeated army being reconstituted under a dictator far worse than the Kaiser of two decades earlier. Again the U.S. joined several other militaries to defeat this dictator and his army. Half-way around the world the U.S. military joined several other militaries to defeat an Imperial military.
Then with the confidence from that war the U.S. fought an army that tried to unite a country under its dictator rather than the dictator of the other half of the country. That other half did move to a democracy that is prospering compared to the invading half which has been living under a brutal line of paranoid dynastic dictators.
These military successes led to a confidence that has not been fulfilled since.
First, the U.S. thought it could fight a guerrilla army that knew the language and had willing and unwilling support from a large portion of the country. The U.S. could never be sure who was friend and who was foe. The U.S. had to leave for a variety of reasons. Ironically, that same country is now a trading partner. Even though the government is still run by “godless” Communists, it seems to have taken to heart the Christian dictum “forgive those who trespass against you.”
The U.S. did have success in defeating a “ferocious” army that was more bluster than power. It did leave the dictator in power, but the U.S. did accomplish the goal of getting the dictator’s army out of the country he invaded.
Next, the U.S. took on fighters in a strongly religious country that had a very corrupt government. The U.S. could never tell for sure who was friend or foe. That fight still goes on.
Then the U.S. took on the dictator with the “ferocious” army again and sent him into hiding. However, for a variety of reasons, the country became splintered into several factions and no local politician has made any serious attempt to unify the country. The U.S. tried supporting the government against its antagonists, but like the army of 1776, the antagonists are scattered throughout the populace.
Out of this chaos has come Daesh. Who does the U.S. have as allies in the region? A military dictatorship and the country that promotes Wahhabism, the unforgiving variety of Islam that created Daesh, an Islam that ignores “As Allah forgives you, forgive others.”
Now we have “conservatives” who are “liberal” with dropping bombs in the Middle East. Are they just playing into the hands of Daesh? These “Christians” want to keep out Muslims who are fleeing Daesh. They are afraid that terrorists might come in with the refugees. But by dropping more bombs and by refusing refugees, might we just reinforce Daesh’s claim that there is a Christian war against Islam?
Also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth on 2015-11-25 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/11/24/6304_are_conservatives_the_lackeys_of_daesh
Showing posts with label Allah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Allah. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Do we reap what we sow?
History is filled with “what ifs?” What if the Normans hadn’t invaded England? What if Columbus hadn’t sailed across the Atlantic? What if England had included the colonies in Parliament?
We really don’t know how much different actions would have gotten quite different results. Several authors have written speculative fiction describing outcomes quite different from actual history. One example is an author who wrote several books on what if the South had won the Civil War.
I don’t really know how things would have turned out if only…, but bear with me as I join the speculators.
Lincoln went to war against the Confederacy because he felt that an un-United States would have left the States open to foreign intervention. It wasn’t so much that he wanted to free the slaves, but the South did fear the North taking away its slaves. Lincoln did take away the slaves, but that left so much resentment that “blacks” still are treated as second class citizens in much of the South, to say nothing of the murders committed against blacks in the South (and in the North too).
If the South had successfully seceded, with or without a war, would the slaves eventually be freed? Probably not. For example, textile mills in New England would be eager to buy slave-picked cotton from the South. And manufacturers in the North would be eager to sell all kinds of labor-saving machinery to the South. Would that machinery be more efficient than slaves? Thereby reducing the market in slaves? We really don’t know.
In Europe empires grew to embrace many people of quite different languages and interests. The empires in turn were distrustful of each other and made treaties with “friendly” empires to protect themselves against “unfriendly” empires. They thought a balance of power would create a balance of peace. Then “one leg of the chair” collapsed. With a single assassination, one group of empires felt the need to attack another group of empires.
If there had been an alliance of all the nations of Europe to settle disputes in a more peaceful manner, would there have been “The War to End All Wars”? We do know that most of those countries are now at peace with one another.
But at the end of World War I, some victors wanted to punish the losers. This punishment had two different serious consequences.
In Europe, the injustices perceived by the Germans led to the rise of Adolph Hitler. Millions died because they were “other” and millions died because of the wars Hitler started. Consider that not all these deaths were caused by Hitler and his Japanese allies. The number of innocent people killed in the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are far greater than the number of people killed in a decade of “Islamic” terrorism.
In the Middle East the Ottoman Empire was broken up willy-nilly without any consideration for the people of the various countries created. Then oil was discovered and buying countries wanted to make sure they had stable supplies. It didn’t matter what the form of government was or the what the wishes of the people were. The buyers supported non-democratic leaders with nary a blink of an eye. In fact, if a democratic leader tried to change oil contracts to be more beneficial to his country, the buyers sought to overthrow him and replace him with an autocrat. Remember Mosaddegh and Reza Pahlavi? Is it any wonder that the ayatollahs took over and had so much animosity to the U.S.?
Then George W. Bush and company decided that they had to do something about Saddam Hussein because of 9/11. How many Iraqis died because of this war? It was far more than had died in any number of terrorist attacks before. And the easy victory that the Bush administration predicted resulted in chaos that still hasn’t settled down either with a stable democracy or a firm dictator.
Into the vacuum came equally hard-nosed militants who believed Allah was on their side. I find it strange that Allah isn’t booming down from heaven the same message to the rest of us. And strange that God isn’t booming the same message that George W. Bush received.
All of this religiosity seems to ignore the more gentle wisdom that is in both the Bible and the Koran: do unto others as you would have them to do you, blessed are the peacemakers, the sins of the fathers are passed on to the sons, yea unto the seventh generation, and many more.
“Yet it is in fact militarization that is the cause of the problem in the first place.” - Ben Norton
If you have an hour to spare, read Ben Norton’s “Our Terrorism Double Standard: After Paris Let’s Stop Blaming Muslims and Take a Hard Look at Ourselves”, Salon, 2015-11-14 at
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/14/our_terrorism_double_standard_after_paris_lets_stop_blaming_muslims_and_take_a_hard_look_at_ourselves/ The article doesn’t take an hour to read, but you will want to read many of the related articles in the sidebar.
After the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush is infamously quoted as advising Americans to “Go shopping.” I think it was a misguided attempt to ask people to act normally. My advice to Americans after any of these catastrophes is “Go vote”. Too often the militant vote and the peacemakers stay home.
Also published in the Reader Weekly, 2015-11-19 at
http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/11/18/6257_do_we_reap_what_we_sow
We really don’t know how much different actions would have gotten quite different results. Several authors have written speculative fiction describing outcomes quite different from actual history. One example is an author who wrote several books on what if the South had won the Civil War.
I don’t really know how things would have turned out if only…, but bear with me as I join the speculators.
Lincoln went to war against the Confederacy because he felt that an un-United States would have left the States open to foreign intervention. It wasn’t so much that he wanted to free the slaves, but the South did fear the North taking away its slaves. Lincoln did take away the slaves, but that left so much resentment that “blacks” still are treated as second class citizens in much of the South, to say nothing of the murders committed against blacks in the South (and in the North too).
If the South had successfully seceded, with or without a war, would the slaves eventually be freed? Probably not. For example, textile mills in New England would be eager to buy slave-picked cotton from the South. And manufacturers in the North would be eager to sell all kinds of labor-saving machinery to the South. Would that machinery be more efficient than slaves? Thereby reducing the market in slaves? We really don’t know.
In Europe empires grew to embrace many people of quite different languages and interests. The empires in turn were distrustful of each other and made treaties with “friendly” empires to protect themselves against “unfriendly” empires. They thought a balance of power would create a balance of peace. Then “one leg of the chair” collapsed. With a single assassination, one group of empires felt the need to attack another group of empires.
If there had been an alliance of all the nations of Europe to settle disputes in a more peaceful manner, would there have been “The War to End All Wars”? We do know that most of those countries are now at peace with one another.
But at the end of World War I, some victors wanted to punish the losers. This punishment had two different serious consequences.
In Europe, the injustices perceived by the Germans led to the rise of Adolph Hitler. Millions died because they were “other” and millions died because of the wars Hitler started. Consider that not all these deaths were caused by Hitler and his Japanese allies. The number of innocent people killed in the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are far greater than the number of people killed in a decade of “Islamic” terrorism.
In the Middle East the Ottoman Empire was broken up willy-nilly without any consideration for the people of the various countries created. Then oil was discovered and buying countries wanted to make sure they had stable supplies. It didn’t matter what the form of government was or the what the wishes of the people were. The buyers supported non-democratic leaders with nary a blink of an eye. In fact, if a democratic leader tried to change oil contracts to be more beneficial to his country, the buyers sought to overthrow him and replace him with an autocrat. Remember Mosaddegh and Reza Pahlavi? Is it any wonder that the ayatollahs took over and had so much animosity to the U.S.?
Then George W. Bush and company decided that they had to do something about Saddam Hussein because of 9/11. How many Iraqis died because of this war? It was far more than had died in any number of terrorist attacks before. And the easy victory that the Bush administration predicted resulted in chaos that still hasn’t settled down either with a stable democracy or a firm dictator.
Into the vacuum came equally hard-nosed militants who believed Allah was on their side. I find it strange that Allah isn’t booming down from heaven the same message to the rest of us. And strange that God isn’t booming the same message that George W. Bush received.
All of this religiosity seems to ignore the more gentle wisdom that is in both the Bible and the Koran: do unto others as you would have them to do you, blessed are the peacemakers, the sins of the fathers are passed on to the sons, yea unto the seventh generation, and many more.
“Yet it is in fact militarization that is the cause of the problem in the first place.” - Ben Norton
If you have an hour to spare, read Ben Norton’s “Our Terrorism Double Standard: After Paris Let’s Stop Blaming Muslims and Take a Hard Look at Ourselves”, Salon, 2015-11-14 at
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/14/our_terrorism_double_standard_after_paris_lets_stop_blaming_muslims_and_take_a_hard_look_at_ourselves/ The article doesn’t take an hour to read, but you will want to read many of the related articles in the sidebar.
After the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush is infamously quoted as advising Americans to “Go shopping.” I think it was a misguided attempt to ask people to act normally. My advice to Americans after any of these catastrophes is “Go vote”. Too often the militant vote and the peacemakers stay home.
Also published in the Reader Weekly, 2015-11-19 at
http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/11/18/6257_do_we_reap_what_we_sow
Monday, April 13, 2015
The perfect test for “blasphemy”
A Saudi blogger has already suffered fifty lashes for "blasphemy" by asking for more discussion of religion in Saudi Arabia. But can his accusers really know that he has committed "blasphemy" against Allah or that he is only disturbing their world view?
I propose the following test of blasphemy.
If a person is accused of blasphemy, he or she should be staked out just after sundown on a clear night in a field that is at least one hundred feet from any structure. If the person has actually insulted Allah, then Allah will send a lightning bolt to kill or injure the "blasphemer". After all, did not God send down fire to light Elijah's water-soaked offering?
If the accused is not harmed by a lightning bolt from Allah, then the accuser should undergo the following. The accuser should be tied to a ten-meter metal pole on the night of prolonged thunderstorms. If the accuser is killed during the night, then we can assume that it is Allah's will. If the accuser survives the night, then the accused and the accuser should ask forgiveness of each other.
And forgiveness is the basic tenet of all religions, irregardless of how the "believers" ignore this bedrock principle.
I propose the following test of blasphemy.
If a person is accused of blasphemy, he or she should be staked out just after sundown on a clear night in a field that is at least one hundred feet from any structure. If the person has actually insulted Allah, then Allah will send a lightning bolt to kill or injure the "blasphemer". After all, did not God send down fire to light Elijah's water-soaked offering?
If the accused is not harmed by a lightning bolt from Allah, then the accuser should undergo the following. The accuser should be tied to a ten-meter metal pole on the night of prolonged thunderstorms. If the accuser is killed during the night, then we can assume that it is Allah's will. If the accuser survives the night, then the accused and the accuser should ask forgiveness of each other.
And forgiveness is the basic tenet of all religions, irregardless of how the "believers" ignore this bedrock principle.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names cannot hurt me
"A faith that cannot withstand ridicule is no faith at all. And a faith that cannot laugh at itself is a faith that defies human nature."
- “Your Free Speech, and Mine”, Timothy Egan, New York Times, 2015-01-16
There are too many people and too many governments that take offense too easily at any criticism of their religion or their government. They are so insecure in their beliefs or of their power that they are willing to kill those who criticize them.
The current political insecurity is shown by the North Korean government. They can’t take the spoof of their leader in an American film. One, should they worry about a rebellion in North Korea because of this film? It will definitely not be shown publicly. Two, have they considered the spoofs of American politicians that are made daily in all kinds of media all across Europe and the Americas? Does President Obama really have such big ears as drawn by many cartoonists?
The current religious insecurity is shown by those who take offense at caricatures of Mohammed. This is also a political insecurity by certain governments who use religion to control their people. Have they considered all the spoofs of religion and religious figures that have been made for centuries in Europe and the Americas? Does the Pope really wear such a high mitre that his aides have to check the height of a bridge before the Pope can ride under it?
Wiley’s “Non Sequitur” frequently draws the foibles of people entering heaven. I bet most of us have seen over a dozen cartoons in the last year from a variety of cartoonists picturing God.
Many of you probably know several jokes about religion. Here are a few that I’ve known for decades. I’ve shortened them a bit to save space.
A priest and a rabbi golfed together every Sunday afternoon for many years. One day the priest asked the rabbi if he ever ate ham. Hem, haw! “Well, yes, I have.” “Tasted pretty good, huh?” A couple holes later the rabbi asked the priest if he ever slept with a woman. Hem, haw! “Well, yes, I have.” “Better than ham, huh?”
Two priests and a Protestant minister went fishing together. After a bit, one priest said he forgot something on shore and walked across the water to shore and came back. A bit later the other priest did the same. The Protestant minister had to show that he could walk on water also. He stepped out of the boat and sank up to his neck. One priest asked the other, “Do you think we should have told him where the rocks are?”
Jews tell this about themselves: If two Jews are in a room there will be three opinions. You can substitute Unitarians for Jews and probably several other religious groups.
Garrison Keillor claims the original settlers of Lake Wobegon were Unitarian missionaries, one of whom wanted to convert the Ojibwe with interpretative dance.
For a lot more jokes about Unitarians, see http://www.imladris.com/Sandbox/index.shtml?UuJokes.html. The lead paragraph is “Many of these jokes are collected in the fine volume "The Church Where People Laugh" by Gwen Foss. They're full of unwarranted stereotypes suggesting that all UUs are flaky, coffee-swilling environmentally fanatical atheists ... as a UU, I find them hilarious.“
Monty Python produced two popular movies heavy on spoofs of religion: “Life of Brian” and “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”.
Ah, “The Holy Grail”! There is a violent religion for you. All the Christians that pillaged their way across Europe and the Near East to drive Muslims out of the Holy Land. And many of them made alliances with the Muslim rulers.
Even religious groups that many consider strait-laced can laugh at themselves.
“A teacher asked her students to bring an item to class that represented their religious beliefs. A Catholic student brought a crucifix. A Jewish student brought a Menora. A Southern Baptist student brought a CorningWare.”
For many more like this, see http://www.christianpost.com/buzzvine/7-southern-baptist-ecumenical-jokes-that-will-have-you-rofl-107419/.
I was given a book by a French friend, “Dieu rit en Alsace” (“God laughs in Alsace”). It has many anecdotes about clergy and lay people. One of my favorites is about a young Protestant pastor asked to perform a wedding in another town. He directed the couple to exchange knees and bend their rings. I wish I still had the book to see the original German and all my other favorites in French. I hope the person I lent it to can find it.
I wonder if God is so great, then can't he take care of blasphemers like he did with the Great Flood or with Sodom and Gomorrah?
I think those who criticize “blasphemy” are insecure in their own beliefs. Like the North Korean leaders they see everything that contradicts their world view as a physical threat to themselves. Many believe that the best counter to “blasphemy” or any insult is to dismiss these with “consider the source”.
Take a look at the “Charlie Hebdo” cover. It was republished last week in both the Reader Weekly and the Duluth News Tribune. Isn’t Mohammed shedding a tear about the violence done is his name? At least twice this past week I’ve seen Muslims retell the story of Mohammed’s forgiveness of a women who threw garbage at him as he passed her house.
“...and you should forgive And overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you? And Allah is The Merciful Forgiving.” – Qur’an
“Life ain't no how serious. We have met the enemy and he is us.” – Pogo
“Can't we all just get along?” – Rodney King
Je suis Charlie! Je suis Ahmed!
- “Your Free Speech, and Mine”, Timothy Egan, New York Times, 2015-01-16
There are too many people and too many governments that take offense too easily at any criticism of their religion or their government. They are so insecure in their beliefs or of their power that they are willing to kill those who criticize them.
The current political insecurity is shown by the North Korean government. They can’t take the spoof of their leader in an American film. One, should they worry about a rebellion in North Korea because of this film? It will definitely not be shown publicly. Two, have they considered the spoofs of American politicians that are made daily in all kinds of media all across Europe and the Americas? Does President Obama really have such big ears as drawn by many cartoonists?
The current religious insecurity is shown by those who take offense at caricatures of Mohammed. This is also a political insecurity by certain governments who use religion to control their people. Have they considered all the spoofs of religion and religious figures that have been made for centuries in Europe and the Americas? Does the Pope really wear such a high mitre that his aides have to check the height of a bridge before the Pope can ride under it?
Wiley’s “Non Sequitur” frequently draws the foibles of people entering heaven. I bet most of us have seen over a dozen cartoons in the last year from a variety of cartoonists picturing God.
Many of you probably know several jokes about religion. Here are a few that I’ve known for decades. I’ve shortened them a bit to save space.
A priest and a rabbi golfed together every Sunday afternoon for many years. One day the priest asked the rabbi if he ever ate ham. Hem, haw! “Well, yes, I have.” “Tasted pretty good, huh?” A couple holes later the rabbi asked the priest if he ever slept with a woman. Hem, haw! “Well, yes, I have.” “Better than ham, huh?”
Two priests and a Protestant minister went fishing together. After a bit, one priest said he forgot something on shore and walked across the water to shore and came back. A bit later the other priest did the same. The Protestant minister had to show that he could walk on water also. He stepped out of the boat and sank up to his neck. One priest asked the other, “Do you think we should have told him where the rocks are?”
Jews tell this about themselves: If two Jews are in a room there will be three opinions. You can substitute Unitarians for Jews and probably several other religious groups.
Garrison Keillor claims the original settlers of Lake Wobegon were Unitarian missionaries, one of whom wanted to convert the Ojibwe with interpretative dance.
For a lot more jokes about Unitarians, see http://www.imladris.com/Sandbox/index.shtml?UuJokes.html. The lead paragraph is “Many of these jokes are collected in the fine volume "The Church Where People Laugh" by Gwen Foss. They're full of unwarranted stereotypes suggesting that all UUs are flaky, coffee-swilling environmentally fanatical atheists ... as a UU, I find them hilarious.“
Monty Python produced two popular movies heavy on spoofs of religion: “Life of Brian” and “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”.
Ah, “The Holy Grail”! There is a violent religion for you. All the Christians that pillaged their way across Europe and the Near East to drive Muslims out of the Holy Land. And many of them made alliances with the Muslim rulers.
Even religious groups that many consider strait-laced can laugh at themselves.
“A teacher asked her students to bring an item to class that represented their religious beliefs. A Catholic student brought a crucifix. A Jewish student brought a Menora. A Southern Baptist student brought a CorningWare.”
For many more like this, see http://www.christianpost.com/buzzvine/7-southern-baptist-ecumenical-jokes-that-will-have-you-rofl-107419/.
I was given a book by a French friend, “Dieu rit en Alsace” (“God laughs in Alsace”). It has many anecdotes about clergy and lay people. One of my favorites is about a young Protestant pastor asked to perform a wedding in another town. He directed the couple to exchange knees and bend their rings. I wish I still had the book to see the original German and all my other favorites in French. I hope the person I lent it to can find it.
I wonder if God is so great, then can't he take care of blasphemers like he did with the Great Flood or with Sodom and Gomorrah?
I think those who criticize “blasphemy” are insecure in their own beliefs. Like the North Korean leaders they see everything that contradicts their world view as a physical threat to themselves. Many believe that the best counter to “blasphemy” or any insult is to dismiss these with “consider the source”.
Take a look at the “Charlie Hebdo” cover. It was republished last week in both the Reader Weekly and the Duluth News Tribune. Isn’t Mohammed shedding a tear about the violence done is his name? At least twice this past week I’ve seen Muslims retell the story of Mohammed’s forgiveness of a women who threw garbage at him as he passed her house.
“...and you should forgive And overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you? And Allah is The Merciful Forgiving.” – Qur’an
“Life ain't no how serious. We have met the enemy and he is us.” – Pogo
“Can't we all just get along?” – Rodney King
Je suis Charlie! Je suis Ahmed!
Thursday, December 04, 2014
Playing God
ISIS is playing God. It is deciding who should live or die based on a narrow religious belief.
If Allahu akbar (God is great) means anything, then shouldn't Allah be the One deciding who should live or die? If God is so dissatisfied with those who don't believe as ISIS does, then shouldn't God be the one sending a Great Flood to punish all the sinners? If God destroyed the sinful cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, shouldn't God be the one destroying the cities of the Yazidis for their "blasphemy" rather than ISIS?
Speaking of blasphemy, aren't those who charge blasphemy against others being blasphemous themselves. Is the supposed blasphemy against God or against their interpretation of God and God's laws?
These truly blasphemous acts have been going on for millennia by people with all kinds of religious beliefs.
Jewish law called for stoning those who blasphemed against Yahweh. But didn't Yahweh give a commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." Yahweh had no qualifiers on that commandment. Yet within a few years Joshua destroyed dozens of cities, supposedly on the command of the Lord God. Was Joshua playing God to assume that he could freely kill the residents of these cities? He “destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded”. The Book of Joshua is one big compendium of violence and giving the spoils to the victors.
Irenaeus was a bishop in the early Christian Church. He railed against those who didn't believe as he did. He was so successful in banning alternative beliefs that books expounding other beliefs never made it into the Canon, and those who had these books buried them in the desert. An example is the Book of Judas.
Tomás de Torquemada was appointed as Grand Inquisitor in Spain. He had many Jews and Muslims tortured and killed because he deemed that they didn’t fully and sincerely convert to Christianity. His name has become synonymous with overbearing interrogation. Ironically, he himself was a descendant of Jews.
Of course, Protestants weren't innocent either. Jean Calvin, originally a Catholic, was an active opponent of Michael Servetus’ anti-trinitarianism. Calvin was instrumental in having Servetus burned at the stake on order of the Geneva city council.
The Church of England, albeit not strictly Protestant, fined people in the 1500’s for not attending church. The 1559 Act of Uniformity penalized those who conducted unofficial services. Some who did conduct unofficial services were executed for sedition.
The Pilgrims escaped England because they did not like the trappings of the Anglican Church and the imposition of religious conformity. One group fled to North America and landed in Massachusetts. They in turn demanded conformity. The Quakers upset this conformity, often with disruptive acts. The Pilgrims tried throwing them out and they would return. They hung some and bored holes in the tongues of others. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses should be glad they live in our times. They only get doors slammed in their faces.
Is it any wonder that the writers of the Constitution included ““no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”? It is also a wonder that many “strict constructionists” want to have prayer breakfasts, have candidates meet with religious leaders, and call into question the Christianity of the President.
Jack Whitley was asked to resign as chairman of the Big Stone County Republican Party because of his facebook comments that Muslims are “parasites” and “terrorists”. What if he had an “Office or public Trust under the United States”? Would his vile remarks be considered failing a “religious” test?
Unfortunately, these hateful attitudes are not just held by those who call themselves Christian or Muslim. From “Gandhi” with Ben Kingsley, I remember the hateful remark of a distraught Hindu father, “Muslims killed my baby! I want to kill Muslims!” Muslims in Burma have been persecuted by Buddhists many times for over 600 years; it continues even to today. This doesn’t resonate with one of the Eight Truths of Buddhism: Right Action: Acting in a non-harmful way.
I am always suspicious of anyone who claims to speak for God, whether they go up a mountain or read from some book that is full of contradictory advice. Especially when they call for the expulsion or murder of people that don’t hold exactly the same views as they do. These hateful people forget one of the most important words in their holy books: forgiveness.
In addition to the Buddhist Right Action, there are:
“thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”: Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39 (and elsewhere)
“...and you should forgive and overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you?” Qu’ran: Surah 24, v. 22.
My favorite though is:
“What is hateful to yourself, do not to do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary. Go and study it.” - Rabbi Hillel (a contemporary of Jesus), Talmud Shabbat 31a.
This article was also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2014-12-04 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/12/04/4460_playing_god
If Allahu akbar (God is great) means anything, then shouldn't Allah be the One deciding who should live or die? If God is so dissatisfied with those who don't believe as ISIS does, then shouldn't God be the one sending a Great Flood to punish all the sinners? If God destroyed the sinful cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, shouldn't God be the one destroying the cities of the Yazidis for their "blasphemy" rather than ISIS?
Speaking of blasphemy, aren't those who charge blasphemy against others being blasphemous themselves. Is the supposed blasphemy against God or against their interpretation of God and God's laws?
These truly blasphemous acts have been going on for millennia by people with all kinds of religious beliefs.
Jewish law called for stoning those who blasphemed against Yahweh. But didn't Yahweh give a commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." Yahweh had no qualifiers on that commandment. Yet within a few years Joshua destroyed dozens of cities, supposedly on the command of the Lord God. Was Joshua playing God to assume that he could freely kill the residents of these cities? He “destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded”. The Book of Joshua is one big compendium of violence and giving the spoils to the victors.
Irenaeus was a bishop in the early Christian Church. He railed against those who didn't believe as he did. He was so successful in banning alternative beliefs that books expounding other beliefs never made it into the Canon, and those who had these books buried them in the desert. An example is the Book of Judas.
Tomás de Torquemada was appointed as Grand Inquisitor in Spain. He had many Jews and Muslims tortured and killed because he deemed that they didn’t fully and sincerely convert to Christianity. His name has become synonymous with overbearing interrogation. Ironically, he himself was a descendant of Jews.
Of course, Protestants weren't innocent either. Jean Calvin, originally a Catholic, was an active opponent of Michael Servetus’ anti-trinitarianism. Calvin was instrumental in having Servetus burned at the stake on order of the Geneva city council.
The Church of England, albeit not strictly Protestant, fined people in the 1500’s for not attending church. The 1559 Act of Uniformity penalized those who conducted unofficial services. Some who did conduct unofficial services were executed for sedition.
The Pilgrims escaped England because they did not like the trappings of the Anglican Church and the imposition of religious conformity. One group fled to North America and landed in Massachusetts. They in turn demanded conformity. The Quakers upset this conformity, often with disruptive acts. The Pilgrims tried throwing them out and they would return. They hung some and bored holes in the tongues of others. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses should be glad they live in our times. They only get doors slammed in their faces.
Is it any wonder that the writers of the Constitution included ““no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”? It is also a wonder that many “strict constructionists” want to have prayer breakfasts, have candidates meet with religious leaders, and call into question the Christianity of the President.
Jack Whitley was asked to resign as chairman of the Big Stone County Republican Party because of his facebook comments that Muslims are “parasites” and “terrorists”. What if he had an “Office or public Trust under the United States”? Would his vile remarks be considered failing a “religious” test?
Unfortunately, these hateful attitudes are not just held by those who call themselves Christian or Muslim. From “Gandhi” with Ben Kingsley, I remember the hateful remark of a distraught Hindu father, “Muslims killed my baby! I want to kill Muslims!” Muslims in Burma have been persecuted by Buddhists many times for over 600 years; it continues even to today. This doesn’t resonate with one of the Eight Truths of Buddhism: Right Action: Acting in a non-harmful way.
I am always suspicious of anyone who claims to speak for God, whether they go up a mountain or read from some book that is full of contradictory advice. Especially when they call for the expulsion or murder of people that don’t hold exactly the same views as they do. These hateful people forget one of the most important words in their holy books: forgiveness.
In addition to the Buddhist Right Action, there are:
“thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”: Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39 (and elsewhere)
“...and you should forgive and overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you?” Qu’ran: Surah 24, v. 22.
My favorite though is:
“What is hateful to yourself, do not to do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary. Go and study it.” - Rabbi Hillel (a contemporary of Jesus), Talmud Shabbat 31a.
This article was also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2014-12-04 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/12/04/4460_playing_god
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Criminals hiding behind religion
An obscure gang of hoodlums has made world headlines by kidnapping over 300 girls, often by raiding schools. Boko Haram claims to be following Islam, but are they really? Most Muslims condemn these actions as against their understanding of Islam as a religion of peace. The violence perpetrated by Boko Haram is so perverse that even Al Quaeda has distanced itself from them.
“Boko Haram” loosely means “western education is sinful”. Boko Haram, like many other groups with a rigid agenda, is full of contradictions. First, if western education is sinful, why are they using weapons, trucks, cars, motorcycles, and now video cameras? These are all products of western education. Second, they use obscure passages of sacred texts and completely miss the larger message, that of all major religions, be kind to others. Kidnapping and massacres are not being kind to others.
Boko Haram doesn’t want girls to be educated, but it conveniently ignores all the Muslim countries with a large percentage of educated women, even countries with a conservative Islam.
Benazir Bhutto was twice elected Prime Minister of Pakistan.
Afghanistan, where the Taliban keeps trying to overthrow the government because it is not “Islamic” enough, reserves 20 percent of the seats in Parliament for women.
Iran, with its hodgepodge of secular and religious rule, a few years ago had more women in its universities than men. It also had a hodgepodge of rules varying from university to university including gender-specific restrictions. Women can’t take computer science and men can’t take Persian/Arabic language!
Unfortunately, hate of others is not limited to Islam.
"Muslims killed my baby! I want to kill Muslims!” This was said by a character in the film “Ghandi” with Ben Kingsley. How could each and every Muslim be responsible for these stupid killings?
Muslims were killed in Guwahati, Assam, India, in sectarian violence. Sunnis kill Shia, Shia kill Sunnis. Boko Haram blows up mosques because their leaders don’t follow its dictates.
Ahab and his Canaanite wife, Jezebel, killed the priests of Jehovah. Then Elijah killed the priests of Ba’al.
Crusade after Crusade marched, with the blessings or incitements by Popes, to the Holy Land to rescue it from Muslims.
Torquemada, Grand Inquisitor of Spain, had many tortured to get them to recant heresy. He was a “moderate”; he “moderated” the use of torture of previous inquisitions.
Jean Calvin brought charges of heresy against Michael Servetus; he suggested Servetus be beheaded. The government of Geneva decided he should be burnt at the stake.
The Ku Klux Klan, with crosses on their robes, killed blacks for the slightest suspicion of unapproved conduct, and it killed whites who opposed their actions.
In Northern Ireland Catholics killed Protestants and Protestants killed Catholics. And sometimes they killed their “own” because the latter wanted reconciliation and peace.
Qasim Rashid wrote “What Prophet Muhammad would say to Boko Haram”, Fox News, May 8, 2014. It is a good exposition of the importance of learning in Islam. He quotes Muhammad, “Seek knowledge even if you must travel to China” and “The search of knowledge is an obligation laid upon every Muslim.” Rashid writes, “Fatimah was a Muslim, an African, a female, and literally changed world history through education. Her revolutionary University of al-Qarawiyyin [founded 859] is now the world’s oldest university.”
The comments were a predictable mix of bad taste and prejudice. A reader “muhammad” summed it up with “I don’t see any difference between Boko Haram and many commenters in this forum.” The response to his post proved his point.
The leader of Boko Haram, Abubakar Shekau, claims he communicates with God. How many times have we heard a similar claim by those who hate others?
If God is so powerful, why does He use so many different intermediaries to make His will known? Few of these intermediaries even agree on what God revealed to them. Too many of these “intermediaries” have their own agendas. If I were to believe all that God said directly to these “intermediaries”, I could only conclude that God was schizophrenic. I doubt that, whatever God is.
I think it is more that certain people are telling God what He should believe and then forcing other people to believe as they do.
Elijah was in a power struggle with Ahab and Jezebel. Supposedly he challenged the priest of Ba’al to a sacrifice contest. Would Ba’al ignite the offering of his priests or would Jehovah ignite the offering of Elijah? Poof! Jehovah ignited Elijah’s water-soaked offering. Then Elijah had the people chase down and kill the priests of Ba’al. Why did Elijah do that? Did Jehovah use up his bolts of lightning? Wouldn’t He have an infinite supply of lightning to zap each and every one of these non-believers?
Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church claimed that “God hates fags”. Hm! If God hates fags so much, shouldn’t He just boom it out for all to hear?
We can say one thing with certainty about those who claim to speak for God. They are all fallible beings and probably misunderstood what God told them.
“Boko Haram” loosely means “western education is sinful”. Boko Haram, like many other groups with a rigid agenda, is full of contradictions. First, if western education is sinful, why are they using weapons, trucks, cars, motorcycles, and now video cameras? These are all products of western education. Second, they use obscure passages of sacred texts and completely miss the larger message, that of all major religions, be kind to others. Kidnapping and massacres are not being kind to others.
Boko Haram doesn’t want girls to be educated, but it conveniently ignores all the Muslim countries with a large percentage of educated women, even countries with a conservative Islam.
Benazir Bhutto was twice elected Prime Minister of Pakistan.
Afghanistan, where the Taliban keeps trying to overthrow the government because it is not “Islamic” enough, reserves 20 percent of the seats in Parliament for women.
Iran, with its hodgepodge of secular and religious rule, a few years ago had more women in its universities than men. It also had a hodgepodge of rules varying from university to university including gender-specific restrictions. Women can’t take computer science and men can’t take Persian/Arabic language!
Unfortunately, hate of others is not limited to Islam.
"Muslims killed my baby! I want to kill Muslims!” This was said by a character in the film “Ghandi” with Ben Kingsley. How could each and every Muslim be responsible for these stupid killings?
Muslims were killed in Guwahati, Assam, India, in sectarian violence. Sunnis kill Shia, Shia kill Sunnis. Boko Haram blows up mosques because their leaders don’t follow its dictates.
Ahab and his Canaanite wife, Jezebel, killed the priests of Jehovah. Then Elijah killed the priests of Ba’al.
Crusade after Crusade marched, with the blessings or incitements by Popes, to the Holy Land to rescue it from Muslims.
Torquemada, Grand Inquisitor of Spain, had many tortured to get them to recant heresy. He was a “moderate”; he “moderated” the use of torture of previous inquisitions.
Jean Calvin brought charges of heresy against Michael Servetus; he suggested Servetus be beheaded. The government of Geneva decided he should be burnt at the stake.
The Ku Klux Klan, with crosses on their robes, killed blacks for the slightest suspicion of unapproved conduct, and it killed whites who opposed their actions.
In Northern Ireland Catholics killed Protestants and Protestants killed Catholics. And sometimes they killed their “own” because the latter wanted reconciliation and peace.
Qasim Rashid wrote “What Prophet Muhammad would say to Boko Haram”, Fox News, May 8, 2014. It is a good exposition of the importance of learning in Islam. He quotes Muhammad, “Seek knowledge even if you must travel to China” and “The search of knowledge is an obligation laid upon every Muslim.” Rashid writes, “Fatimah was a Muslim, an African, a female, and literally changed world history through education. Her revolutionary University of al-Qarawiyyin [founded 859] is now the world’s oldest university.”
The comments were a predictable mix of bad taste and prejudice. A reader “muhammad” summed it up with “I don’t see any difference between Boko Haram and many commenters in this forum.” The response to his post proved his point.
The leader of Boko Haram, Abubakar Shekau, claims he communicates with God. How many times have we heard a similar claim by those who hate others?
If God is so powerful, why does He use so many different intermediaries to make His will known? Few of these intermediaries even agree on what God revealed to them. Too many of these “intermediaries” have their own agendas. If I were to believe all that God said directly to these “intermediaries”, I could only conclude that God was schizophrenic. I doubt that, whatever God is.
I think it is more that certain people are telling God what He should believe and then forcing other people to believe as they do.
Elijah was in a power struggle with Ahab and Jezebel. Supposedly he challenged the priest of Ba’al to a sacrifice contest. Would Ba’al ignite the offering of his priests or would Jehovah ignite the offering of Elijah? Poof! Jehovah ignited Elijah’s water-soaked offering. Then Elijah had the people chase down and kill the priests of Ba’al. Why did Elijah do that? Did Jehovah use up his bolts of lightning? Wouldn’t He have an infinite supply of lightning to zap each and every one of these non-believers?
Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church claimed that “God hates fags”. Hm! If God hates fags so much, shouldn’t He just boom it out for all to hear?
We can say one thing with certainty about those who claim to speak for God. They are all fallible beings and probably misunderstood what God told them.
Thursday, January 03, 2013
God, civility, and the Golden Rule
Some letter writers to the Duluth News Tribune have recently been calling for God in our lives to solve many of our problems. Torquemada, the Spanish Inquisitor, believed in God, and he had thousands murdered because they didn’t believe as he did. The Puritans believed in God, and they had dozens murdered because the innocent victims would not admit to being witches. Plantation owners believed in God, and they kept slaves who they would whip for whatever cause.
The problem with a belief in God is that too many “believers” are very selective in what they believe. Too many ignore a central tenet of monotheistic and other religions.
“Do not unto your neighbor what you would not have him do unto you; this is the whole Law; the rest is commentary.” – Hillel, a Jewish teacher in the first century, B.C.E.
“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” – Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 7:12
“...and you should forgive and overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you? And Allah is The Merciful Forgiving.” _ Qur’an (Surah 24, “The Light”, v. 22)
"What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others." – Confucius
“One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him." – Plato’s Socrates (Crito, 49c)
You can find many more variations and sources of the “Golden Rule” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule.
What these religious and ethical variations call for is for us to be part of communities. These communities are at neighborhood, city, national, and world levels. They are as informal as holding a door for a stranger at a public building or as formal as churches and civic associations.
Unfortunately, many of us don’t act as if we are in some of these communities. We walk out of our houses to our car on the street or in the garage and drive somewhere else without even seeing a neighbor. We don’t bother to shovel our sidewalks because we don’t use them, completely ignoring all the footprints in the snow. As we drive we are focused on thoughts elsewhere, whether in our heads, on our radios, or even on our cell phones. We drive over crosswalks without even looking for pedestrians. We drive through red lights ignoring any traffic or pedestrians waiting at the cross streets. We race through parking garages without headlights and without watching for vehicles backing out.
Our first try at building communities should be to consider doing unto others what we appreciate others doing unto us. Do we want to walk on clear sidewalks? Do we want other drivers to be attentive to vehicles around them? Do we want drivers to be attentive to us as we cross a street? Do we want other drivers to wait for us to back out of a blind spot?
If we start with these small changes, maybe we can look at how we treat others in a larger context. Do we talk about public employees as “they” or do we consider them our neighbors. Did “they” make a patch on our street, or did a city crew make the patch? Did “they” plow our street, or did an overworked city plow driver make our street more drivable?
Remember that the Good Samaritan of the Book of Luke was an “other”. To build communities, we need to be open to including the “other” as our neighbors.
The problem with a belief in God is that too many “believers” are very selective in what they believe. Too many ignore a central tenet of monotheistic and other religions.
“Do not unto your neighbor what you would not have him do unto you; this is the whole Law; the rest is commentary.” – Hillel, a Jewish teacher in the first century, B.C.E.
“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” – Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 7:12
“...and you should forgive and overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you? And Allah is The Merciful Forgiving.” _ Qur’an (Surah 24, “The Light”, v. 22)
"What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others." – Confucius
“One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him." – Plato’s Socrates (Crito, 49c)
You can find many more variations and sources of the “Golden Rule” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule.
What these religious and ethical variations call for is for us to be part of communities. These communities are at neighborhood, city, national, and world levels. They are as informal as holding a door for a stranger at a public building or as formal as churches and civic associations.
Unfortunately, many of us don’t act as if we are in some of these communities. We walk out of our houses to our car on the street or in the garage and drive somewhere else without even seeing a neighbor. We don’t bother to shovel our sidewalks because we don’t use them, completely ignoring all the footprints in the snow. As we drive we are focused on thoughts elsewhere, whether in our heads, on our radios, or even on our cell phones. We drive over crosswalks without even looking for pedestrians. We drive through red lights ignoring any traffic or pedestrians waiting at the cross streets. We race through parking garages without headlights and without watching for vehicles backing out.
Our first try at building communities should be to consider doing unto others what we appreciate others doing unto us. Do we want to walk on clear sidewalks? Do we want other drivers to be attentive to vehicles around them? Do we want drivers to be attentive to us as we cross a street? Do we want other drivers to wait for us to back out of a blind spot?
If we start with these small changes, maybe we can look at how we treat others in a larger context. Do we talk about public employees as “they” or do we consider them our neighbors. Did “they” make a patch on our street, or did a city crew make the patch? Did “they” plow our street, or did an overworked city plow driver make our street more drivable?
Remember that the Good Samaritan of the Book of Luke was an “other”. To build communities, we need to be open to including the “other” as our neighbors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)