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.
Showing posts with label blasphemy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label blasphemy. Show all posts
Monday, April 13, 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.
Monday, February 16, 2015
“Blasphemy” cuts two ways
Many Muslims complain about the “blasphemy” of cartoonists’ and others’ depictions of Mohammad. More extreme Muslims consider any non-belief in Islam as “blasphemy”.
What if non-Muslims considered any slanderous statements about their beliefs as “blasphemy”? What would Muslims think of non-Muslims shooting or blowing up Muslims who made these slanderous statements. Unfortunately, too many non-Muslims commit these heinous deeds against Muslims, and generally these Muslim victims never made any such statements.
One of the phrases many Americans consider annoying is one made by the Iranian revolutions is “Marg bar Amrika!” “Death to America!”
Fortunately, there are Iranian politicians who would like to see this phrase fall out of use. They figure it is counter-productive to reaching an agreement with the West about Iran’s nuclear capabilities. See
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10390938/Iran-attempts-to-silence-its-Death-to-America-chants.html
What all those hardliners who profess Christian or Islamic values is a key value of both religions is forgiveness.
What if non-Muslims considered any slanderous statements about their beliefs as “blasphemy”? What would Muslims think of non-Muslims shooting or blowing up Muslims who made these slanderous statements. Unfortunately, too many non-Muslims commit these heinous deeds against Muslims, and generally these Muslim victims never made any such statements.
One of the phrases many Americans consider annoying is one made by the Iranian revolutions is “Marg bar Amrika!” “Death to America!”
Fortunately, there are Iranian politicians who would like to see this phrase fall out of use. They figure it is counter-productive to reaching an agreement with the West about Iran’s nuclear capabilities. See
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10390938/Iran-attempts-to-silence-its-Death-to-America-chants.html
What all those hardliners who profess Christian or Islamic values is a key value of both religions is forgiveness.
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
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
The most egregious political correctness
Many of us laugh at the attempts at political or patriotic correctness. One must not disparage any ethnic group, religious group, women, people with illnesses, and on and on through a laundry list of "marginalized" groups. One must not insult the flag or question a war and must show certain outward signs of "patriotism".
These misdirected efforts pale in comparison with the demands of certain governments and segments of several religions. Government after government shuts a newspaper down for insulting the nation of the government, often because they dared to print the truth. Many individuals want papers shut down or reporters and editors killed because the paper has "insulted" their religion with blasphemy. In both cases, such calls demonstrate weakness rather than strength.
In the case of "blasphemy", cannot an omniscient, omnipotent God protect himself? He sort of did in 1 Kings 18. After nothing happened to the sacrifice to Baal by the priests of Baal, God sent fire onto Elijah's water-soaked sacrifice and it was consumed. Interestingly, God did not send fire onto the priests of Baal; Elijah cut their throats.
In the case of "insults" of government, U.S. history is filled with some really mean-spirited campaign blasts. In 1796, John Adams "called his opponent Thomas Jefferson cowardly, weak and a person who did not share Americans' values." ("Character Attacks Heat Up Presidential Campaign", America.gov, 2007-12-04.
In 1828, Andrew Jackson's supporters called John Quincy Adams a "pimp". Adams' supporters retorted that Jackson's wife was a "prostitute". They also called Jackson a "jackass" and used a picture of a donkey. That last backfired because Jackson liked it and adopted the donkey as his party's "mascot". (ibid.)
And so it continues today, "fathering a black baby", "taking bribes", "not being heroic enough", and on and on. Somehow, although we wonder that our democracy will survive, it still does.
See also "Pledge of Allegiance or Sledge of Allegiance".
These misdirected efforts pale in comparison with the demands of certain governments and segments of several religions. Government after government shuts a newspaper down for insulting the nation of the government, often because they dared to print the truth. Many individuals want papers shut down or reporters and editors killed because the paper has "insulted" their religion with blasphemy. In both cases, such calls demonstrate weakness rather than strength.
In the case of "blasphemy", cannot an omniscient, omnipotent God protect himself? He sort of did in 1 Kings 18. After nothing happened to the sacrifice to Baal by the priests of Baal, God sent fire onto Elijah's water-soaked sacrifice and it was consumed. Interestingly, God did not send fire onto the priests of Baal; Elijah cut their throats.
In the case of "insults" of government, U.S. history is filled with some really mean-spirited campaign blasts. In 1796, John Adams "called his opponent Thomas Jefferson cowardly, weak and a person who did not share Americans' values." ("Character Attacks Heat Up Presidential Campaign", America.gov, 2007-12-04.
In 1828, Andrew Jackson's supporters called John Quincy Adams a "pimp". Adams' supporters retorted that Jackson's wife was a "prostitute". They also called Jackson a "jackass" and used a picture of a donkey. That last backfired because Jackson liked it and adopted the donkey as his party's "mascot". (ibid.)
And so it continues today, "fathering a black baby", "taking bribes", "not being heroic enough", and on and on. Somehow, although we wonder that our democracy will survive, it still does.
See also "Pledge of Allegiance or Sledge of Allegiance".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)