What? You think there are dozens of major religions and thousands of sects within them. That may be true when you consider that many people believe in a long list of do’s and don’ts that are peculiar to their particular “religion”. But if you look beyond the creeds and admonitions, you will find that are only two basic belief systems: generosity to others and narrow systems of “we are right and you are wrong”. And all the major religions have many generous believers and far too many hateful believers.
In the third and fourth centuries there were major fights over what the exact natures were of God and Christ. Often these fights were more political than religious, often depending on the belief of the current Roman Emperor. Those who didn’t hold the right belief could be exiled and have their writings burned.
These persecutions of others in the name of Christianity continued through the centuries and into this century.
We have Torquemada, Grand Inquisitor of Spain, who set out to rid Spain of “heretics”, generally meaning Jews and Muslims. He was more merciful than some of his predecessors; he didn’t torture suspects without the testimony of at least two witnesses of “good nature”. John Calvin was instrumental in the burning of Michael Servetus at the stake along with his books. His crime: denying the Holy Trinity. The Ku Klux Klan upheld “Christian morality” by bombing black churches, killing innocent children.
On the other hand, we have many examples of Christian generosity. The Quakers were very active in the anti-slavery movement. Florence Nightingale tended to the wounded and dying in the Crimean War. Mother Theresa cared for the dying in India. Martin Luther King, Jr. called for non-violent resistance to segregation and other maltreatment of blacks and others.
Islam has been called a religion of peace, but human arrogance has subverted it, just as it subverted Christianity. Muhammad had not been dead long before his followers started bickering over who was his rightly heir. If I’m reading the Wikipedia entry on Sunni-Shia correctly, Sunnis believe the leader of Islam is selected by consensus and Shias believe the leadership is inherited by descendants of Muhammad. There are many more differences, many similar to the Protestant-Catholic split in Christianity.
Just like with Christianity, many wars have been fought between these two groups over the centuries. Meddling from “Christian” powers has exacerbated these differences in the last hundred years, opening the old sores of the Crusades. We have Muslim-Muslim violence and Muslim-Christian violence. Shias blow up Sunni mosques and Sunnis blow up Shiite mosques. Sunni Saudi Arabia doesn’t want Shiite Iran to gain to much influence and Iran doesn’t want Saudi Arabia to gain much influence. Into this antagonism is thrown the wild card of Daesh (aka Islamic state). Daesh shows about as much mercy as did the “Christians” mentioned above.
An interesting aspect of the Koran are the injunctions to have proof for your knowledge. This may be why in the Dark Ages of Christianity, Arab mathematics and science were making great strides.
I didn’t have time to check it out thoroughly, but some say that Islam means peace. Google Translate didn’t give me this, but a Wikipedia entry on Islam did say that Islam comes from the trilateral root s-l-m. One of these words is “salaam” for peace. Hm, close to the Hebrew “shalom”.
Charity, especially to the poor, is one of the five pillars of Islam. The word for charity is zakat, which also means purification.
One Islamic charity is the Red Crescent, the equivalent of the Red Cross. I haven’t read much about it recently, but it has been active in disasters.
Two well-known Muslims who come to mind with a more peaceful outlook are Malala Yousafzai and Muhammad Yunis, both Nobel Peace Prize laureates.
Malala is the young Pakistani girl who was shot by terrorists who didn’t think girls should be in school. Fortunately for her and many others, she survived the attack.
Muhammad Yunis is the founder of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. The Grameen Bank provides low-interest, small loans to the poor. These loans have allowed many people to start small businesses to support themselves.
We often think of Buddhists as being pacifists. “One’s mind should be free from hurting or harming others” and several other sayings. Unfortunately, down through the centuries, Buddhists have been involved in wars and killing. Think of the “King of Siam”. The news has recently had many stories of Buddhist rioting against Muslims. Of course, the Taliban didn’t help by destroying Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, this is not a new phenomenon. The first Muslims killed by Burmese were in the 11th Century. In the 17th Century Muslims who fled India after losing a war of succession were killed after a dispute with a Burmese pirate king. Some modern Muslims have fled Burma to Thailand where they have been put in several refugee camps. There are also reports that the Thai military towed boatloads of Muslims out to sea and left them there.
Fortunately, we have Buddhists like the Dalai Lama. A refugee from his own country, he still manages to be cheerful and work to promote peace. He too won a Nobel Peace Prize.
If I put a damper on your Christmas cheer, I’m sorry. But remember that Christmas is a celebration of the birth of the “Prince of Peace”. I hope that the examples I gave of people of different faiths working for peace will give you hope for a brighter future. With our help, the religion of generosity will prevail.
Also in the Reader Weekly, 2015-12-24 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/12/24/6439_there_really_are_only_two_religions
Showing posts with label Protestant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Protestant. Show all posts
Thursday, December 24, 2015
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Muslims do speak out. Are you listening?
A few weeks ago a letter writer to the Reader stated that “ALL Muslims” must speak out. He stated this over and over again.
Should others claim that “ALL Christians” must speak out about slavery, lynchings, or discrimination? In an ideal world maybe “ALL” whoever would speak about crimes committed by some of their “co-religionists”, but we live in a complex world where people’s abilities and wishes vary.
Many Christians didn’t speak out about slavery or lynchings out of fear for themselves and their families. Many Christians didn’t speak out because they were far removed from where these crimes were being committed. Many Christians didn’t speak out because they had other concerns that were more immediate to them.
Are not many Muslims in similar situations? Are those in areas controlled by the Islamic State or by dictators going to speak out against injustice and be killed, imprisoned, or tortured for their opposition? Are those far from these awful situations going to spend all their time speaking out against injustice instead of going to work or caring for their families?
Well, if you have several news sources you will find that many Muslims are speaking out. The Duluth News Tribune of Sunday, February 22 had a story headlined “Norway’s Muslims form protective human ring around synagogue”. This was in reaction to a Danish Muslim killing two people at a synagogue in Copenhagen; the synagogue was holding an event to promote free speech. The Star Tribune has published several stories about the concern of Muslim parents that their children are being seduced to join ISIS.
Remember that one of the first people killed in the Charlie Hebdo attack was a Muslim police officer. Remember that in the attack on the Kosher grocery one of the people who led some people out was a Muslim employee.
Remember that Salman Rushdie, author of “The Satanic Verses”, condemned to death by Ayatollah Khomeini for blasphemy, is still speaking out against injustice.
Remember that Egypt struck back against ISIS in Libya because of brutal beheading of Coptic Christians, Christians who were Egyptian citizens.
Note that Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish journalist and Muslim, has been writing about the need for toleration by Muslims for the New York Times. You can find two of his latest columns at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/opinion/mustafa-akyol-a-letter-concerning-muslim-toleration.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/opinion/islams-problem-with-blasphemy.html. See also his TED talk at http://video.ted.com/talk/podcast/2011X/None/MustafaAkyol_2011X-480p.mp4.
He also wrote Islam without Extremism, A Muslim Case for Liberty. Here are two notable quotes from his book.
“In all these cases, the Muslims who reacted with anger and violence probably were sincere in their zeal to defend their faith. Yet, alas, the practical result of their actions was to vindicate the very accusation brought against them—that Islam is an intolerant and aggressive religion. So, if they really want to change that negative perception about their religion, they must begin by changing their course of action.” p. 252
“Beyond the Hadith literature, a response to blasphemy that is more compatible with the liberal standards of the modern world actually comes from the Qur’an. The Muslim scripture not only lacks any suggestion of earthly punishment for blasphemy, it also advises a nonviolent response: ‘When you hear God’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them.’” p. 254
My notes for this column include many more quotes about the tension among various Islamic schools of thought. I’ll try to summarize some of the highlights.
After the death of Muhammad, politicians dictated Islamic thought. They interpreted it to increase their power rather than to increase the welfare of the people. Sounds like something that has happened and is happening in Christendom.
A tool to increase political power were the Hadiths, “a collection of literature that claims to communicate the Sunna (tradition) of the Prophet Muhammad.” Many of them are contradictory to the Qur’an and to each other. Unfortunately, a number of historic events squelched the more liberal schools of Islamic jurisprudence and strengthened the more illiberal school.
“In 1258, the Mongols sacked Baghdad–then the most vibrant and polished city of Islamdom, if not the world.” The Mongols were so destructive that “that the river turned black for the ink for days on end”, ink from all the documents the Mongols destroyed.
Other invasions followed that weakened liberal Islamic thought and strengthened conservative thought.
Turkey allied itself with Germany in the early 20th century as a counter to its old rival, Russia. Poor choice! The defeat of Germany led to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The Allies slowly broke the Empire into pieces and installed leaders they chose. This continues today with the West trying to decide who should be rulers of these pieces. These actions certainly aren’t Christian: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
A second invasion was of oil men. Keep the flow of oil in our control and keep local leaders who support us in control. This strengthened those who supported Wahhabism, a very strict form of Islam that Akyol calls more of the desert than of Muhammad.
But beware, it can happen here in the hands of those who call themselves Christians. Jacques Berlinerblau warns in How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom that the “Revivalists” who claim that the United States is and has been a Christian nation really don’t want a pluralistic Christianity, but a Christianity as they interpret it. They ignore that the Founders were concerned with any given Protestant sect taking control and limiting the freedom of other sects.
Should others claim that “ALL Christians” must speak out about slavery, lynchings, or discrimination? In an ideal world maybe “ALL” whoever would speak about crimes committed by some of their “co-religionists”, but we live in a complex world where people’s abilities and wishes vary.
Many Christians didn’t speak out about slavery or lynchings out of fear for themselves and their families. Many Christians didn’t speak out because they were far removed from where these crimes were being committed. Many Christians didn’t speak out because they had other concerns that were more immediate to them.
Are not many Muslims in similar situations? Are those in areas controlled by the Islamic State or by dictators going to speak out against injustice and be killed, imprisoned, or tortured for their opposition? Are those far from these awful situations going to spend all their time speaking out against injustice instead of going to work or caring for their families?
Well, if you have several news sources you will find that many Muslims are speaking out. The Duluth News Tribune of Sunday, February 22 had a story headlined “Norway’s Muslims form protective human ring around synagogue”. This was in reaction to a Danish Muslim killing two people at a synagogue in Copenhagen; the synagogue was holding an event to promote free speech. The Star Tribune has published several stories about the concern of Muslim parents that their children are being seduced to join ISIS.
Remember that one of the first people killed in the Charlie Hebdo attack was a Muslim police officer. Remember that in the attack on the Kosher grocery one of the people who led some people out was a Muslim employee.
Remember that Salman Rushdie, author of “The Satanic Verses”, condemned to death by Ayatollah Khomeini for blasphemy, is still speaking out against injustice.
Remember that Egypt struck back against ISIS in Libya because of brutal beheading of Coptic Christians, Christians who were Egyptian citizens.
Note that Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish journalist and Muslim, has been writing about the need for toleration by Muslims for the New York Times. You can find two of his latest columns at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/opinion/mustafa-akyol-a-letter-concerning-muslim-toleration.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/opinion/islams-problem-with-blasphemy.html. See also his TED talk at http://video.ted.com/talk/podcast/2011X/None/MustafaAkyol_2011X-480p.mp4.
He also wrote Islam without Extremism, A Muslim Case for Liberty. Here are two notable quotes from his book.
“In all these cases, the Muslims who reacted with anger and violence probably were sincere in their zeal to defend their faith. Yet, alas, the practical result of their actions was to vindicate the very accusation brought against them—that Islam is an intolerant and aggressive religion. So, if they really want to change that negative perception about their religion, they must begin by changing their course of action.” p. 252
“Beyond the Hadith literature, a response to blasphemy that is more compatible with the liberal standards of the modern world actually comes from the Qur’an. The Muslim scripture not only lacks any suggestion of earthly punishment for blasphemy, it also advises a nonviolent response: ‘When you hear God’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them.’” p. 254
My notes for this column include many more quotes about the tension among various Islamic schools of thought. I’ll try to summarize some of the highlights.
After the death of Muhammad, politicians dictated Islamic thought. They interpreted it to increase their power rather than to increase the welfare of the people. Sounds like something that has happened and is happening in Christendom.
A tool to increase political power were the Hadiths, “a collection of literature that claims to communicate the Sunna (tradition) of the Prophet Muhammad.” Many of them are contradictory to the Qur’an and to each other. Unfortunately, a number of historic events squelched the more liberal schools of Islamic jurisprudence and strengthened the more illiberal school.
“In 1258, the Mongols sacked Baghdad–then the most vibrant and polished city of Islamdom, if not the world.” The Mongols were so destructive that “that the river turned black for the ink for days on end”, ink from all the documents the Mongols destroyed.
Other invasions followed that weakened liberal Islamic thought and strengthened conservative thought.
Turkey allied itself with Germany in the early 20th century as a counter to its old rival, Russia. Poor choice! The defeat of Germany led to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The Allies slowly broke the Empire into pieces and installed leaders they chose. This continues today with the West trying to decide who should be rulers of these pieces. These actions certainly aren’t Christian: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
A second invasion was of oil men. Keep the flow of oil in our control and keep local leaders who support us in control. This strengthened those who supported Wahhabism, a very strict form of Islam that Akyol calls more of the desert than of Muhammad.
But beware, it can happen here in the hands of those who call themselves Christians. Jacques Berlinerblau warns in How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom that the “Revivalists” who claim that the United States is and has been a Christian nation really don’t want a pluralistic Christianity, but a Christianity as they interpret it. They ignore that the Founders were concerned with any given Protestant sect taking control and limiting the freedom of other sects.
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!
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Insecure believers and non-believers
"Insecure believers sometimes cling to a rigid and simplistic faith."
- David Brooks, "The Subtle Sensations of Faith", New York Times, 2014-12-23
The insecure believers make the headlines or the history books. Think of all the "Islamists" who want to kill anyone who does not believe as they do. Think of the Ku Klux Klan, the Protestants and Catholic gunmen of Northern Ireland, the Communists of North Korea, and many more "true believers".
We also have so-called non-believers who have to attack those who claim to believe.
Maybe I'm being a hypocrite here because I have questioned the texts that many base their beliefs on. However, it is only the texts I question, not the belief in something greater than oneself. But I have no problem with people who believe in something I don't believe in. My problem is with those who want to "prove" that they are right because of something somebody long ago wrote as "fact".
For example, did Adam and Eve really exist? Or are they metaphor for our hubris that we "know better than God"?
What we really should consider is "moral truth" over "mythical truth". For example, was God really tempted by Satan to severely test Job, or is the Book of Job an exploration of why bad things happen to good people?
- David Brooks, "The Subtle Sensations of Faith", New York Times, 2014-12-23
The insecure believers make the headlines or the history books. Think of all the "Islamists" who want to kill anyone who does not believe as they do. Think of the Ku Klux Klan, the Protestants and Catholic gunmen of Northern Ireland, the Communists of North Korea, and many more "true believers".
We also have so-called non-believers who have to attack those who claim to believe.
Maybe I'm being a hypocrite here because I have questioned the texts that many base their beliefs on. However, it is only the texts I question, not the belief in something greater than oneself. But I have no problem with people who believe in something I don't believe in. My problem is with those who want to "prove" that they are right because of something somebody long ago wrote as "fact".
For example, did Adam and Eve really exist? Or are they metaphor for our hubris that we "know better than God"?
What we really should consider is "moral truth" over "mythical truth". For example, was God really tempted by Satan to severely test Job, or is the Book of Job an exploration of why bad things happen to good people?
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.
Wednesday, October 09, 2013
Distortions in family history
If you are working on your family history, be careful of what you are told. What you are told could be made up or it could be misinterpreted. Document everything and then crosscheck it with other documents.
The most blatant tale that I can think of is what my mother told me around a St. Patrick's Day. She said, "We are Orange Irish." One, her ancestors were from England and Germany, not Ireland. Two, she didn't know any of her in-laws besides her U.S. born father-in-law and German-born mother-in-law.
So far, I have found only one Magree ancestor going back four generations that was not born in the United States. My great grandfather, John James Richard Magree, was born in Liverpool, England of an American father and an English mother. Given that her maiden name was Pope, she may or may not have had Irish ancestors. Many Irish immigrated to Liverpool. However, all of the other records that I have for him say he was born in the U.S. and more specifically in Brooklyn.
I do know that the name Magree is centered in Kilkenny, Ireland and some of those Magrees are buried in a Catholic Church cemetery. If my Magree ancestors were from there, they most likely would have been Catholic.
I was told that my grandfather was born in Poughkeepsie, New York. But his death certificate gives Brooklyn, his parents were in a Brooklyn city directory at the time of his birth, and one of his sister's birth certificates gives that same address. But somebody else on ancestry.com has that sister born in Poughkeepsie!
I read the death certificate of my paternal grandmother's father as his birthplace being "Schlossing"; the information was provided by one of his sons. Knowing my grandmother was born in Germany I kept looking for a town with that name. Then it dawned on me that it should be "Schlesien", German for Silesia. Silesia is now mostly in Poland. Somebody else on ancestry.com had his birth as "Schlassing". As part of checking if my grandmother may have been Catholic, I looked up Silesia. I learned that there is a Silesian German and the speakers call themselves Schlässinger. I have since found out that my grandmother's town of leaving was called Osseg; it is now Osiek in Polish.
I have learned so much family history in the last thirty years, but I will need another thirty years to even fill in details about the people whose names I know.
But, regardless of where my ancestors came from, I do not consider myself Orange Irish or Green Irish or German or Polish or even Brooklynite:) My nationality is American!
See also What nationality are you? An irrelevant question!
The most blatant tale that I can think of is what my mother told me around a St. Patrick's Day. She said, "We are Orange Irish." One, her ancestors were from England and Germany, not Ireland. Two, she didn't know any of her in-laws besides her U.S. born father-in-law and German-born mother-in-law.
So far, I have found only one Magree ancestor going back four generations that was not born in the United States. My great grandfather, John James Richard Magree, was born in Liverpool, England of an American father and an English mother. Given that her maiden name was Pope, she may or may not have had Irish ancestors. Many Irish immigrated to Liverpool. However, all of the other records that I have for him say he was born in the U.S. and more specifically in Brooklyn.
I do know that the name Magree is centered in Kilkenny, Ireland and some of those Magrees are buried in a Catholic Church cemetery. If my Magree ancestors were from there, they most likely would have been Catholic.
I was told that my grandfather was born in Poughkeepsie, New York. But his death certificate gives Brooklyn, his parents were in a Brooklyn city directory at the time of his birth, and one of his sister's birth certificates gives that same address. But somebody else on ancestry.com has that sister born in Poughkeepsie!
I read the death certificate of my paternal grandmother's father as his birthplace being "Schlossing"; the information was provided by one of his sons. Knowing my grandmother was born in Germany I kept looking for a town with that name. Then it dawned on me that it should be "Schlesien", German for Silesia. Silesia is now mostly in Poland. Somebody else on ancestry.com had his birth as "Schlassing". As part of checking if my grandmother may have been Catholic, I looked up Silesia. I learned that there is a Silesian German and the speakers call themselves Schlässinger. I have since found out that my grandmother's town of leaving was called Osseg; it is now Osiek in Polish.
I have learned so much family history in the last thirty years, but I will need another thirty years to even fill in details about the people whose names I know.
But, regardless of where my ancestors came from, I do not consider myself Orange Irish or Green Irish or German or Polish or even Brooklynite:) My nationality is American!
See also What nationality are you? An irrelevant question!
Monday, September 30, 2013
Appropriate punishment for Islamic and other terrorists
Many terrorists of any ilk act in the name of an ideology, whether it be religious or political. They think they are doing their cause a favor by killing as many people as possible who don't believe in their cause or just happen to be in the way as they kill their targets.
Many think these terrorists should be executed if caught, with or without a trial, fair or otherwise. But this is just what some of them want – to be martyrs to their cause. An example is former Major Nidal Hassan who has been sentenced to death for shooting and killing thirteen people at Fort Hood. This probably won't happen and really shouldn't happen.
He probably won't be executed because the military hasn't executed any active military personnel for some time and the appeal process can take decades. He shouldn't be executed because this is just what he claimed to want – to be a martyr to his cause.
I don't think terrorists should be subjected to forced watching of similar crimes like that in Stanley Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange". I do think they should be subjected to repeated recitations of the non-violent portions of their beliefs. For example,
“O People of the Book! [Jews, Christians, Muslims] Come to what is common between us and you: That we worship none but God, that we associate no partners with Him, that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords other than Allah. If then they turn back, say: 'Bear witness that we are bowing to Allah’s will.'" From "The Qur'an and Tolerance of Christianity and Judaism", Islam Online.
The same kind of tolerance can be found in the Talmud and the Bible.
Narrow interpretations or even misinterpretations are found over and over again down through the centuries. Catholics killed Protestants and Jews. Protestants killed Catholics and Jews. Jews killed the worshippers of Ba'al. Christians killed Christians and Muslims in the Crusades. Muslims killed Christians and Muslims in the Crusades. Muslims seem to be killing more Muslims in these times than they are killing Christians. All this despite the fact that the text they hold in common states unequivocally "Thou shalt not kill"! It does not state "That shalt not kill any who believe as you do but thou mayest kill those who believe even slightly differently."
So, if terrorists are jailed and subjected to similar recitations, videos of their listening to these should be made widely available. If the terrorists wish to make any statements recanting their previous beliefs, then these statements should be widely circulated.
I know this is wishful thinking and probably won't happen. But those of us who believe that these three faiths (and others) have many tenets of generosity can avoid general statements of hate and counter those who do spew hate.
Many think these terrorists should be executed if caught, with or without a trial, fair or otherwise. But this is just what some of them want – to be martyrs to their cause. An example is former Major Nidal Hassan who has been sentenced to death for shooting and killing thirteen people at Fort Hood. This probably won't happen and really shouldn't happen.
He probably won't be executed because the military hasn't executed any active military personnel for some time and the appeal process can take decades. He shouldn't be executed because this is just what he claimed to want – to be a martyr to his cause.
I don't think terrorists should be subjected to forced watching of similar crimes like that in Stanley Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange". I do think they should be subjected to repeated recitations of the non-violent portions of their beliefs. For example,
“O People of the Book! [Jews, Christians, Muslims] Come to what is common between us and you: That we worship none but God, that we associate no partners with Him, that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords other than Allah. If then they turn back, say: 'Bear witness that we are bowing to Allah’s will.'" From "The Qur'an and Tolerance of Christianity and Judaism", Islam Online.
The same kind of tolerance can be found in the Talmud and the Bible.
Narrow interpretations or even misinterpretations are found over and over again down through the centuries. Catholics killed Protestants and Jews. Protestants killed Catholics and Jews. Jews killed the worshippers of Ba'al. Christians killed Christians and Muslims in the Crusades. Muslims killed Christians and Muslims in the Crusades. Muslims seem to be killing more Muslims in these times than they are killing Christians. All this despite the fact that the text they hold in common states unequivocally "Thou shalt not kill"! It does not state "That shalt not kill any who believe as you do but thou mayest kill those who believe even slightly differently."
So, if terrorists are jailed and subjected to similar recitations, videos of their listening to these should be made widely available. If the terrorists wish to make any statements recanting their previous beliefs, then these statements should be widely circulated.
I know this is wishful thinking and probably won't happen. But those of us who believe that these three faiths (and others) have many tenets of generosity can avoid general statements of hate and counter those who do spew hate.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and violence
"But we must ask a question only Muslims can answer: What is going on in your community that a critical number of your youth believes that every American military action in the Middle East is intolerable and justifies a violent response, and everything Muslim extremists do to other Muslims is ignorable and calls for mostly silence?"
- Thomas Friedman, "Judgment not included", New York Times, 2013-04-27
But violence against others is not a Muslim "franchise". People of all kinds of religious persuasions have turned to violence to promote certain distorted ends.
Christians practiced violence. The Roman Catholic Church burned people at the stake for supposedly not conforming to the prescribed beliefs. Torquemada of Spain had many torture devices to get people to admit to being Jewish. Hitler was never ex-communicated from the Catholic Church. Catholic Irish who planted bombs were considered heroes by many. Michael Servetus was "burnt at the stake as a heretic by order of the Protestant Geneva governing council."
Jews have been killing more Arabs than Arabs have been killing Jews: since 2000, 6617 Palestinians vs 1,097 Israelis (including 1,447 vs 129 children). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict#Cost_of_conflict
Buddhists, supposedly a peaceful group, are attacking Muslims in Burma (Myanmar). The recent riots of Buddhists against Muslims is only a part of centuries-long list of anti-Muslim events.
And all these perpetrators of violence seem to forget that a tenet of their religions is "to do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
- Thomas Friedman, "Judgment not included", New York Times, 2013-04-27
But violence against others is not a Muslim "franchise". People of all kinds of religious persuasions have turned to violence to promote certain distorted ends.
Christians practiced violence. The Roman Catholic Church burned people at the stake for supposedly not conforming to the prescribed beliefs. Torquemada of Spain had many torture devices to get people to admit to being Jewish. Hitler was never ex-communicated from the Catholic Church. Catholic Irish who planted bombs were considered heroes by many. Michael Servetus was "burnt at the stake as a heretic by order of the Protestant Geneva governing council."
Jews have been killing more Arabs than Arabs have been killing Jews: since 2000, 6617 Palestinians vs 1,097 Israelis (including 1,447 vs 129 children). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict#Cost_of_conflict
Buddhists, supposedly a peaceful group, are attacking Muslims in Burma (Myanmar). The recent riots of Buddhists against Muslims is only a part of centuries-long list of anti-Muslim events.
And all these perpetrators of violence seem to forget that a tenet of their religions is "to do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)