|
Post by bamfiles on Nov 4, 2009 15:08:56 GMT -5
To:dharmabum As I said in my post, "I don't know". I have no definitive proof that there is a God, but I have no definitive proof that there isn't either. I suspect that I'll never actually "Wake up dead" and find out. I suspect that if there is a God, or possibly Gods, he/she/they have lots of things to do other than wait for me to ask for help. Perhaps they have a sense of humor and sit around all day, however long that may be, thinking up shit to throw at us to see what we'll do and then pulling us out if we ask nicely. I think it no less likely than some of the stuff I've seen happen. Anyway, the agnostic point of view, mine anyway, is "I don't know" but I'll let anyone believe what he wishes as long as he doesn't force his beliefs on me. I think "Freedom of religion" is fine. I don't go for "Freedom from religion" since, IMHO, that's an imposition of belief.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Nov 4, 2009 15:15:34 GMT -5
Yup. If you really want your religion to be respected, just kill people that don't respect it. Works even better if your God smites . . . Ever notice how certain words go together? I didn't even know that I knew the word "smite". But if killing needs to be done and God's the one who's going to do the killing, "smite" seems like the most obvious choice. . . . the disrespectful. It's gotta be out on highway 61
|
|
|
Post by TDR on Nov 4, 2009 15:25:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 4, 2009 15:28:50 GMT -5
The notion that "freedom from religion" is some sort of attack on religion-in-general is a religionist whine that comes up every time somebody's attempt to get their icons, prayers, practices, prohibitions, shibboleths, and general view of reality endorsed or supported in the public space. It's right up there with the canard that Christianity is everywhere under attack by the Forces of Unbelief. In the historical context that produced the First Amendment, "freedom of religion" included the notion that one was free from the bullying that comes with an established religion--the hegemonic tendencies that any majoritarian faith will exhibit. The Brits eventually deigned to tolerate Catholicism within the framework of their established Church, but the American model takes it a step farther--there is no privileged theological position from which to tolerate deviant beliefs. Instead, the state takes no sides, and religious belief and practice remain in the private sphere. So those of us who choose not to join anyone are indeed guaranteed freedom from religion.
Try that anywhere in the conservative Islamic world.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Nov 4, 2009 15:32:32 GMT -5
Disclaimer: I have not read the Quran. I have read Karen Armstrong's history of Mohammed. A large part of her description of Mohammed's writing transcription of what God/Allah told him is that it's rooted in an ancient violent desert culture.
(Aside: God is not God's name. Allah is the Arabic word for God, just as Dieu is the French word for God, and the German word is Gott. Arabic-speaking Christians pray to Allah.)
Modern Islam, as taught most places in the world, is a religion of peace and submission to God. The crazies who blow things up in the name of Islam are as bad as the crazies who blow up women's clinics in the name of Christianity. But it's not hard to find the justification if you tend that way.
We're going to an Islamic wedding at a mosque in a few weeks. All I know for sure is we'll have to take off our shoes (reminder: wash feet, no socks with holes - not necessarily a bad thing) and there won't be alcohol. (Jewish weddings are best. Redneck weddings might be a close second. Protestants have no idea.)
I highly recommend Karen Armstrong's History of God and Battle for God, if you like wading through pages of mind-numbing historical and religious detail. The scary thing is, I read that stuff for fun.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 4, 2009 15:36:47 GMT -5
Jewish weddings are best. Redneck weddings might be a close second. Protestants have no idea. True enough, but don't count the Italians out. Or the Poles. My sample of Lithuanian weddings is too small to generalize about, though I liked mine well enough.
|
|
|
Post by TDR on Nov 4, 2009 15:42:50 GMT -5
The notion that "freedom from religion" is some sort of attack on religion-in-general is a religionist whine that comes up every time somebody's attempt to get their icons, prayers, practices, prohibitions, shibboleths, and general view of reality endorsed or supported in the public space. It's right up there with the canard that Christianity is everywhere under attack by the Forces of Unbelief. In the historical context that produced the First Amendment, "freedom of religion" included the notion that one was free from the bullying that comes with an established religion--the hegemonic tendencies that any majoritarian faith will exhibit. The Brits eventually deigned to tolerate Catholicism within the framework of their established Church, but the American model takes it a step farther--there is no privileged theological position from which to tolerate deviant beliefs. Instead, the state takes no sides, and religious belief and practice remain in the private sphere. So those of us who choose not to join anyone are indeed guaranteed freedom from religion. Try that anywhere in the conservative Islamic world. Sure. I mean yeah, but. The money says "In God We Trust" right on it. The dead presidents being demigods and currency in general being tokens of faith notwithstanding... and our dedication to money bordering on a religion of its own also notwithstanding... how would you square that with a notion that "there is no privileged theological position"? Not to mention also the kids in our state run schools daily standing with hands on hearts and reciting a pledge of allegiance invoking God. Presumably the same one on the money and presumably the vanilla christian God. The same one invoked at Whitehouse prayer breakfasts. The same one endorsed by every American politician who wants to curry favor with the voters by advertising his piety. I like the notion you express. I'm just not convinced its how we live.
|
|
|
Post by bamfiles on Nov 4, 2009 15:47:18 GMT -5
I don't agree in total. I think the constitution meant to prevent the creation of "The Church of The United States of America". I don't think it meant to disallow a cross put up in the dessert as a monument or a manger scene at Christmas or a minora at Chanuka. I may be wrong on what holiday the minora goes with and I may be wrong on the spelling too. Non-believers are just meant to walk on by and ignore it in deference to someone else's religion the practice of which is protected by the constitution. Acceptance of that stuff is just part of being an American. Now, prayer in public school? No, that's not right. That, to me is an imposition and opt out doesn't cover it. It's just out of place. "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance , IMHO, marginal, can mean no entity less than God without specifying a specific God. I'd pass on suing about it. It's just not my biggest problem on any given day.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 4, 2009 15:52:30 GMT -5
Now, prayer in public school? No, that's not right. That, to me is an imposition and opt out doesn't cover it. It's just out of place. There's some subtrefuge in the works. They're bringing it back. They're going to call it "Yoga" *wink* *wink*
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Nov 4, 2009 15:59:37 GMT -5
Now, prayer in public school? No, that's not right. That, to me is an imposition and opt out doesn't cover it. It's just out of place. There's some subtrefuge in the works. They're bringing it back. They're going to call it "Yoga" *wink* *wink*
|
|
|
Post by dickt on Nov 4, 2009 16:04:45 GMT -5
Jewish weddings are best. Redneck weddings might be a close second. Protestants have no idea. True enough, but don't count the Italians out. Or the Poles. My sample of Lithuanian weddings is too small to generalize about, though I liked mine well enough. I've got a statistically valid sample of Ukrainian weddings that makes the case with a degree of certainty plus or minus 5 percent. My wedding included, of course. Although the newer generation tends not to have Ukey dance bands which puts a damper on things. Just watch the opening scenes of The Deer Hunter and you'll get the idea. But then I've never been to an Irish wedding, although I hosted my son's rehearsal dinner on St Paddy's day and he and his wife both sport Celtic tattoos and Celtic design wedding rings. And if you want to experience an Italian Wedding there's a show called "Tony & Tina's Wedding" complete with audience participation.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Nov 4, 2009 16:19:55 GMT -5
I've been to Tony & Tina's Wedding. As an ex-stage manager I spent a good part of the show wondering, "How the hell would you manage this?" The Ritz/Cheez-Whiz appetizers are not to be missed. They paid extra for those.
So statistically, everybody has good weddings but the Lutherans? Just my frickin' luck...
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 4, 2009 17:29:22 GMT -5
Yeah, but you still have red sneakers.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Nov 4, 2009 18:46:12 GMT -5
There's a terrific book called the Ornament of the World about Spain when it was under Muslim rule. The Muslims were mostly very tolerant of Jews and Christians. When the Spanish Christians took the country back, they kicked out the Jews and Muslims who wouldn't convert, and even a lot who had. As others have noted, "Islamic terrorism" has little to do with religion, any more than Catholic-Protestant differences in Ireland are primarily about religion. Word. "Ornament of the World" is an outstanding book. And pretty much refutes almost all of the general anti-Islam nonsense in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Nov 4, 2009 19:15:05 GMT -5
No, Rick, I am familiar with Islam. And I have read enough of the Quran to know it is a primitive, superstitious, tribal collection of largely war-ridden nonsense. As is the Old Testament. Aside from the interminable and incomprehensible lists of "begats." There are modern historians who interpret the Old Testament to be mostly a racial superiority mythology written by and for Jews. I have lost patience with the plucking of three or four poetic verses out of a book that is filled with a thousand pages of tribal-centric drivel and calling it a book of peace and beauty. It is a book of peace and beauty only if you ignore 90% of what is in it. Again, so is the Old Testament. Nor am I particularly impressed with comparisons of the Koran to the Old Testament as a defense of the Koran as I have a dim view of the Old Testament as well. 10% beauty, 90% superstitious, tribal nonsense. See? The trouble with the Koran is that most Muslims take the entire book literally, and it is a book filled with hate, fear, and general crap. I'd like to see some documentation for that. According to a recent survey, about 1/4 of the world's population is Muslim. I seriously doubt that even a majority of them take the entire Koran literally. Every so often, a westernized Muslim is put in front of a microphone or camera to offer up a nice, sweet, tolerant view, but they are oddities. And if they went the homeland and spouted such heresy, they would be stoned. Absolutely wrong. Islamic thought is extremely varied all across the world. As Rick pointed out, Sufism is an openly gentle non-violent sect of Islam. Islam is filled with ugliness. Pointing out the ugliness of other religions doesn't change the nature of Islam an inch or an ounce. It is tribal. It is narrow minded. There is no tolerance for any other faith. It is misogynistic. It suppresses knowledge. The Koran is a perfect reflection of the backwards, insular, mean-sprited, fear-ridden Bedouin culture that produced it. If only the damn religion would go away. It is doing the world or its followers no favors. Bullshit. Everything you say is refuted by the book Cornflake and I recommended above. Everyone in this thread would do well to read it. Islamic Spain was the most intellectually cultured area of the western world in about 800 - 1100. (It's competition was the Islamic caliphate in the middle east.) Europeans were little more than scattered tribes living in stick and mud huts. The great Jewish scholar Maimonides lived and worked in Spain. In fact, Moorish Spain was a sanctuary for Jews and heretic Christian sects. Islam gave us Arabic numerals (although muslims call them "hindu numerals"). They also discovered distillation and founded chemistry (al-kimia). The great Islamic fortress, the Alhambra, was a sanctuary for Jews and intellectuals as they fled the Christians taking over Muslim cities.
|
|
|
Post by TDR on Nov 4, 2009 19:48:14 GMT -5
... I don't think it meant to disallow a cross put up in the dessert.... Alright. Bill didn't catch this one so somebody has to do it. WHAT IS NOT DISALLOWED
|
|
|
Post by bamfiles on Nov 4, 2009 20:48:55 GMT -5
Yeah, well, spellcheck doesn't correct wrong words spelled correctly. That's why computers will never take over the world. Relying on technology is dangerous, and many times funny.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 4, 2009 22:04:17 GMT -5
Any religion can be fine and dandy if it is regarded metaphorically. If the meaning is read between the lines and the text is approached with an understanding of the limits of culture and the openness of symbol, then I would give Islam 4 stars, the same 4 star rating I give any religion (if understood with the same qualifications).
But there is little evidence of symbol or metaphor tempering the understanding of the Koran in the place the invented Islam, Saudi Arabia. Nor anywhere else in the Middle East, for that matter. Nor in Pakistan or Somalia. I don’t understand how anyone who observes how Islam functions in the Arab world, who observes how Sharia law rules and limits, whips and cloaks, would quibble with the description of literal Islam, the most common kind by far, as hateful and ugly.
As Islam actually exists and functions in the Arab world, it is an anchor, not a beacon. Take your own view, argue the exceptions, but in my opinion you have to be blind not to see the cruelty and stupidity that religion and its top dog leaders is exacting on the people of that sad land.
As for the beauty of Sufism, yes, there is beauty there, and all ten Arabs that follow it are blessed. If they don’t get caught believing in any of it, that is. Sufism is a heresy to the mainstream leaders of Arabic Islam.
All religions develop a mystic branch. And it is typically a small one that has little to do with the rest of the tree. Mysticism is much more popular in books than in general practice. I wish mysticism were more popular. But it isn’t. I view mysticism as its own religion, for no matter which religion the mystic variant sprouts from, it has more in common with the mystic shoots of other religions than it does with the stock from which it sprang.
And as for the golden age of Islam and the wonders of math, science and literature it brought to Toledo, the wonders were Greek, Persian, and Chinese in origin. When the hordes of the desert overran the Persian Empire, those wonders of math, science, and literature were part of the booty.
(Alexander brought the wonders of Greece to Persia, including the mathematics which had accurately determined the distance between the moon and earth. And traders from the far east brought goodies of information as well. Persia had become quite the repository.)
What the Arab invaders did with this wonderful Persian booty was a mixed story. The Islamic Clerics censored whatever they thought conflicted with Islam. And much was destroyed and lost. But a few local, knowledge friendly, Caliphates circumvented, or overruled, the Clerics, and much was saved as well. And when the Muslims (Moors) invaded Spain, they brought some of what was Greece, and bits of Persia and China, with them.
And yes, it was a golden moment. Students and seekers from across Europe journeyed to Toledo and other cities in southern Spain to learn of the wonders. But if history is carefully read, it is far more accurate to describe this golden moment of information and learning as having survived the Clerics of Islam than to say Islam encouraged the flame.
And, finally, yes, both Christianity and Islam were brutal in the Middle Ages, especially to Jews. But much of Christianity has left the Middle Ages. Much of Islam hasn’t. Yes, there are some Christian nuts that torch abortion clinics, hamstring their women and pray for homosexuals to suffer eternal fire, but in the greater part of the Arab world, such acts and views aren’t limited to a few nuts, they are the official creed of the sole religion.
I’m sick of the sugar coating. I’m sick of the insistence on absolute relativism in each and every instance. I’m sick of Christina Tippet digging up some young, westernized Islamists of no number or consequence to talk of how sweet and wonderful Islam really is while the one, true, official church of Saudi Arabia is stoning women in the public square and burning young girls alive in their segregated school. It is time, far past time, for the Arab world to start stringing those Islam leaders of theirs up by their dirty beards. They need a whole new batch of preachers.
I believe faith and spirituality is wonderful, beyond wonderful. But I am so damn sick of these religions that would rule man. And of them all, I am most sick of Islam.
|
|
|
Post by TDR on Nov 4, 2009 23:12:32 GMT -5
Geez Paul. Hanners is gonna issue a fatwah on you.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 4, 2009 23:26:31 GMT -5
Hanners is a Sufi-type. I'm safe.
I've been reading a lot about the Middle East lately. I just finished a GREAT book, Prisoners -A story of Friendship and Terror by Jeffrey Goldberg, an Atlantic corespondent I know and like.
And it is impossible to read about the Middle East without becoming absolutely disgusted with religion. A pox on them all. Right now, I am most fed up with Islam, but if they all would just disappear, I would get down on my knees and thank God from the depths of my soul.
|
|