Re: Cartoon network - Diana West


"The Chozen Few" <thechosenfew@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:j6tPf.823$422.593@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Bob Cooper" <rcooper1@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:cAEOf.80418$bF.55756@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<snip>

But I'll grant that even if the Muslim theocrats and wannabes are in the
minority, they're making noise nowadays out of all proportion to their
numbers.

I think you're right, and I think the reason for that is because their
views are virtually impossible for "moderate" Muslims to refute, because
they are firmly in accord with the basic teachings of Islam.


I'm not sure that "abrogation" of passages like Sura 2:256 is one of the
"basic teachings of Islam," and apparently there's at least one Muslim who
thinks it's entirely possible to refute that particular view:

http://www.submission.org/abrogation.html

When I said, "basic teachings," I wasn't referring to abrogation at all. I was
referring to stuff like "kill them where you find them," don't make friends with
infidels, beat your wife, stone adulterers, push walls over on homosexuals
and kill apostates. You know, your basic madrassah "leave no child behind"
curriculum. :>)

<snip>

He doesn't take a position. He lists 9 historical interpretations, of
which he considers abrogation to be -- interestingly -- the "least liberal"
(is> > that the same as "least moderate"?). Then, he says, "Muslims have
a nearly clean slate to resolve what 'no compulsion' means in the 21st
century," which, to me, is akin to saying, "it can mean anything they want it
to mean." I suppose each of us will have to decide for ourselves whether
that represents "scholarship" or pure balderdash. I know which way I'm
leaning :>)


Careful you don't fall over. ;o)

More seriously, as I see it, the role of scholarship in this context is (1)
to determine the extent to which alternative views of "no compulsion" have
historically existed, and (2) to determine the extent to which the basic
text itself (the Quran) itself supports those respective views. The first
is well within Pipes' area of competence, and presumably you don't dispute
his conclusions. The second less so, and I'm not sure myself whether he's
as right about the openness of that question. Furthermore, beyond both
questions, there're political and peer-group factors related to the extent
to which Muslims in various parts of the world are currently free to express
various views and will be so in the future, and I don't think those
(especially WRT the future) are within *anyone's* area of competence to any
signficant degree.


<snip>

Some? Here's an easy two-part question. 1) How many of the world's
billion-plus Muslims demonstrated in the streets against Osama Bin
Laden on 9/11; how many against Mohammed Bouyeri's brutal murder of
Van Gogh; and, how many against the slaughter of Russian children at
Beslan? 2) How many demonstrated in the streets and rioted when a few
Danish cartoonists drew some silly, relatively innocuous cartoons of
Mohammed?


Here's an even easier one-part question. Agreement = demonstrating in the
streets, true or false?

Sometimes true, sometimes false. Sometimes Agreement = not demonstrating
in the streets.


<snip>

Very interesting speculation.


Glad you think so. I could also have mentioned the very interesting
coincidences that "Bar Abbas" meant "God's Son" in Aramaic, and that in some
of the early NT manuscripts, the first name of Barabbas was *also* Jesus!

That's quite interesting, too. You seem to be extremely well-versed on
this subject.


Anyway, Christians have other ideas about the not-peace-but-a-sword
passage, of course, ranging from the currently common "it was just a
metaphor" explanation to some of the historically common ideas at the
link below:

http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/ChristianMilitant.htm

"Wondering why niggers riot." Hmmm......Okay :>)


Yeah, that part makes about as much (or as little) sense in terms of what
the Bible teaches as do the contemporary allegations by some Muslims that
Jews are cannibals in terms of what the Quran teaches. But the writer's
racism aside, most of his views would've been well within the Christian
mainstream a few centuries ago.

TCF, the guy is a nut:

http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/ChristianMilitant.htm

<snip>

Those words are not a direct quote from God, as every word in the Quran
is.

From what I've gathered, yes, most Muslims do still believe that to be
so, and I acknowledge the possibility that *may* never change.

I think the belief is so fundamental that it *cannot* change and still be
Islam.

And again, I think that remains to be seen.

<snip>

OK, 480 years ago, Luther used the Bible to justify the suppression of a
peasant revolt, and the peasants used the Bible to justify it.


I think it would be more correct to say that the peasants *tried* to use
*Luther* to justify their revolt, obviously with considerably less success
than Luther had in using the Bible to justify the suppression of it.

Maybe.


Against that, I offer the fact that all of the world's liberal (in the classical
sense of the word) democracies -- without exception -- have evolved in
predominantly Christian countries. Honestly, which fact carries more
weight? :>)


Probably the one you mention, but I'm not sure about the extent to which it
should be weighed against the other, since it may be that the repressive
aspects of traditional Christianity had at least as much to do with the
formation of liberal democracies (by increasing the perceived need for them)
as the liberating aspects of that religion did (by increasing the
opportunities for meeting that perceived need).

Sure, we can debate the reasons. But my statement is not speculation,
it is fact. All of the world's liberal (in the classical sense of the word) democracies
-- without exception -- *have* evolved in predominantly Christian countries."


But, in any event, it's not an endorsement of any particular form of
government, is it?

No comment? I think the point is important.


I took the question as rhetorical, and in any case hadn't been disputing
that point. My point was that Romans 13 *indiscriminately* endorses govt
(including tyrannies).

Exactly. And, democracies, too. And, mine was that the Quran endorse only
*one* form of government: Islamic theocracy.

<snip>

Maybe, but even Mohammed didn't put most of the blame for the Fall on
Eve,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that Islam rejects the Fall,
and the idea of Original Sin, and, therefore there is no blame to assign.


You're right about that, as far as I know, and maybe *if* Mohammed had
believed in the Fall and Original Sin, he would've joined Paul in putting
most of the blame on Eve for it. But as it was, for whatever reason, M
spared womankind at least that much and P didn't.

Simple question: If you were a woman, would you rather be a Christian or a
Muslim? Ask your wife :>)


<snip>

Based on some Christian women I have known, you may be presuming too
much :>)


As you said, "Christians occasionally act in un-Christian ways." ;o)

On reflection, perhaps I misspoke. Perhaps the word I should have used is
"often" :>)

<snip>

Sure, but in the context you said it, seems to me you were suggesting
that Christians who behave badly are acting against the "true meaning" of
their foundational literature, and that Muslims who behave badly are acting
in accordance with the "true meaning" of theirs.

Yes, in essence that is generally what I believe. I say "generally"
because I am not suggesting there are no verses in the Bible that can be
reasonably be interpreted as prescribing "bad" behavior, or that there are no
verses in the Quran that can reasonably be interpretedas prescribing "good"
behavior. Nor am I suggesting that Christians have historically always behaved
better than Muslims, or that they always do today. Clearly, that is not the
case.


I agree that it's clearly not, for whatever reason.


What I do suggest is that, especially with regard to the New Testament,
the overwhelming preponderance of the message in the Bible -- a few odd
"sword" verses notwithstanding -- is one of peace, tolerance and love. On
the other hand, the overwhelming preponderance of the message in the
Quran -- a few odd "no compulsion" verses notwithstanding -- is one of
violence, intolerance, and subjugation of non-believers.

I think this is what Auster refers to as an "essentialist" view.
Christianity is *essentially* a religion of universal peace for all. Islam is
*essentially* a religion of violence and intolerance towards non-believers.

That's the way I see it.


I might see it that way as well, if not for the way that traditional
Christian submission to govt has too often "essentially" meant obeying the
commands of mass murderers.

Christians *often* act in un-Christian ways.

And, as I have pointed out, let's not forget the other side of the picture. Those
mass murderers have usually been stopped by other Christians. Mr. Milosevic
was one of them. He died today in jail, where he hd been languishing for some
time. He was put there by the United States Air Force.

If that is what you were suggesting, also seems to me that a closer and
more specific examination of *both* bodies of literature, along with their
respective histories of interpretation and prioritization, is entirely in order.

Such analyses abound. Some, e.g. Auster's, seem to agree with mine;
others, perhaps including yours and Mr. Pipes', disagree. I have made
mine based on my admittedly imperfect knowledge of both scriptures, and
on my reading of the opinions of others far more knowledgable. I may be
dead wrong, but that is the conclusion I have reached.


Seems to me that Auster has reached more conclusions about the future than
Pipes has, upon the basis of less knowledge about the past.

?? Ok. I'm not sure how to respond to that :>)

<snip>

I don't know. How long will it be before a new generation discovers the
old meaning of "Behold a white horse, and he that sat upon him was called
Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war"
(Revelation 19:11)?

You find that analogous to, "kill them where you find them?"

Not analogous in form, but all too often, the ways those respective passages
have historically been taken have been similar enough to cast considerable
doubt on any claims that Muslims kill *because of* what the Quran says,
while Christians kill *despite* what the Bible says.


That's the best you could come up with? :>)


Best meaning worst, I presume. No, I personally think a worse (even if not
*the* worst) passage in the Bible is this one:

"The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not
subject to any man's judgment: 'For who has known the mind of the Lord that
he may instruct him?' But we have the mind of Christ." (1 Corinthians
2:15-17)

Taking that one "at face value" (to use your phrase), I'd say it's an
"abrogation" of the warnings in the Gospels against judging others.

Obviously, you find a more sinister meaning in it than I do :>)

<snip>


.