Is this really what Jesus would do? If your answer is yes, may I suggest the following:
CHRISTIANITY: UR DOIN IT WRONG
P.S. Dear Rick Lazio, as my mother used to say: God don’t like ugly.
Dear Pastor Jones and other so-called Christians intending to burn the Qur’an -- Originally posted at The Angry Black Woman
What’s instructive in this context is to look at how Jesus dealt with people of other faiths during His lifetime. In general, his method was to engage them in discussion about their lives, their wants and needs, their sins (and how they affected them), etc. He saved kicking asses and taking names for his own people (and only in certain contexts), not those of other faiths.
Pastor Jones of course has a perfect right to do what he intends to do. I think any intervention by the political authorities is wrong. I think he is greatly ill-advised to do so, however, and I don’t see that it will accomplish any useful aim. All he’s really going to do is antagonize people and lead to further polarization of the debate space. Kind of like how I’m viewing the building of the Cordoba House right now.
Well, sure that’s analogous as long as you don’t take the opinions and desires of the communities in which they’re located into account. That’s analogous if you claim that displaying one’s Islamic faith is the same as burning another faith’s holy book. That’s analogous if you claim that all Christians are like Pastor Jones and hate all Muslims.
Then, yeah, sure. It’s just the same.
Wait…so if Pastor Jones went back in time and got Jesus’s okay, you would be fine with him burning the Koran? Instead of stacking the parts of the Bible you like against the parts that he likes, which I suspect is about as irrelevant to Muslims as it is to atheist me, why not call him on acting unethically in a way that everyone, of any religion/lack-thereof, can understand?
I don’t mean to be rude, but the whole “fake Christian” thing goes both ways, and I think the likelihood that either side will ever win that argument is going down the further we get from the time that Jesus probably lived (unless we do invent time travel, which we probably won’t).
Pastor Jones is a bigot whose stunt is (was? hopefully.) going to cause an enormous amount of pain to Muslims, not make any kind of useful point, and probably hurt the relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in the long term, leading to more deaths on both sides. Whether or not Jesus would be cool with that, it’s just plain horrible.
Because building an Islamic community center with an interfaith bent in a commercial district two blocks away from Ground Zero is exactly like burning holy texts as a “fuck you” to the people who revere that text?
@Nadia
My post wasn’t about Jones being a fake Christian, but about him being a bad Christian. In this particular post I’m choosing to address him and others like him on the level of “You claim to be X but do things against the teachings of the being X worships, so… WTF?” What he intends to do is wrong on every level, no matter what his religion, but I always feel it is illuminating to point out when people are acting against their own stated beliefs when doing something supposedly in the name of those same beliefs.
To answer your facetious question: Even if he did go back in time and get Jesus’ permission to act in this way, I would still be against it.
In the context of this post, it doesn’t matter which parts of the Bible are relevant to you or to Muslims. (Also, don’t assume there are parts of the Bible I “like”.) What matters is which parts of the Bible he finds relevant. I’m going to hazard a guess none of them advocate acting in this manner, which is my point.
All he’s really going to do is antagonize people and lead to further polarization of the debate space.
This is true of same-sex couples seeking legal recognition and anti-gay religious authorities comparing same-sex romance to bestiality. This isn’t a fair equation, given the huge difference between social attitudes towards Christianity and social attitudes towards Islam. There’s nothing offensive about an Islamic center near the site of a national tragedy–and nobody would find it offensive if a Christian group decided to build another church there.
This type of attack always confuses me. Obviously, Pastor Jones feels that his actions (or his once-intended actions) were consistent with his own religious beliefs. There is no difference between what you perceive to be your religious beliefs and what your “true” religion is, because there is no true religion.
He went from a congregation of about 30 members, to sustained international coverage, even if he does look like a fool and a bigot.
@Phil you’re missing the point. It’s not about “true” versus false religion. And just because someone does actions from a literal bully pulpit it doesn’t mean they’ve actually considered whether it’s in line with their beliefs. And whatever your feelings on religion, there are right ways to walk the path and wrong ways to do so. The right way differs between denominations (or non-denominations, as the case is likely to be here), but there is a “right”.
Kind of like how I’m viewing the building of the Cordoba House right now.
The building of Cordoba House is a long term project that has been going on for many years now. It only came to the attention of the general public because of the election and Fox News’ desire to exploit anti-Islamic prejudice. After the election it will go back to being just another bland, uninteresting NYC real estate deal because those with the money will have no more need to fan the flames. Now, which is more devisive: the building or the manufacturoversy?
@the angry black woman Sorry I didn’t reply earlier. Phil is right–Jones was making a huge deal about doing this because he’s a Christian, which implies that he thinks it’s consistent with his Christian beliefs. He probably would justify it using different parts/interpretations of the Bible than you would use to argue against it, but both of you would still be arguing from a Christian perspective–the reason I find that annoying is that it excludes the rest of us (non-Christians) from an important debate. Islamophobia is becoming a huge problem, and we all need to be a part of the solution. If your argument against it is that it’s unChristian, then where does that leave me and your other non-Christian readers? If we make the argument that Islamophobia is just plain unethical, then you can still use your Christianity to fight against it without implying that I might as well go burn a Koran myself.
Also, what do you mean by “right” and “wrong” ways to “walk the path?” I’d agree that there’s an ethical way and an unethical way to be a Christian, but not that there’s a correct and incorrect way–there are so many different branches of Christianity, and you can probably find at least two that contradict each other on just about any point you’re interested in. How do you prove, if Pastor Jones’ Christianity contradicts yours, that you’re right? (Again, he almost certainly believes that what he’s doing is supported by his Christianity.) And if you agree that he’s being unethical regardless of who’s right, then why does that even matter?
If you mean that I was/am missing the point because the intent of the post was mostly humorous, then your point is taken. I get that making a sort of LOLCatz caption about doing Christianity wrong isn’t necessarily a logical argument.
But if, in addition to being humorous, you really meant what you said, then how can it be about anything other than true versus false religion? “You’re getting it wrong” means that there is a “right” way to get it, and the person you’re talking to is not right. There really isn’t a reasonable interpretation of that stance besides: you believe your interpretation of Christianity is true, and the interpretation under which Pastor Jones appears to be acting is false.
Terry Jones is guilty of lumping all Muslims together (among other things), saying, “Here is what Muslims believe, and I think that is wrong, and to make my point I’m going to burn copies of an important Muslim symbol.” If lumping all Muslims together is part of where Jones is wrong–and I believe that it is–then I don’t see how lumping all Christians together is an appropriate response to that. I’m not saying the acts are exactly equal, because Muslims are an oppressed minority in the time and place where this is occurring while Christians, generally, are not.
So what does religious tolerance mean under that interpretation? Individuals have a right to select the denomination they follow, but after that, they don’t have the right to interpret their religion as they see fit?
Because building an Islamic community center with an interfaith bent in a commercial district two blocks away from Ground Zero is exactly like burning holy texts as a “fuck you” to the people who revere that text?
From what I see in the media a good many people would answer “yes” to that question.
You, I would think, disagree. I’m really not all that perturbed by the building of the Cordoba House myself. But it seems to me that if he’s really trying to build outreach to people who are currently ill-disposed to Islam, he’s headed towards a rather spectacular failure. So far it seems to have just the opposite effect. To the point that it tends to call into question either a) his ability to understand what’s going on, or b) whether his announced intent matches his true intent. I’ve long been a proponent of not attributing to malice what can be explained by stupidity – or perhaps in this case insensitivity – so I’ll right now go with the former over the latter.
Jake:
Well, sure that’s analogous as long as you don’t take the opinions and desires of the communities in which they’re located into account
Hm. Well, in the case of the burning of the Quran it would appear that the community in question is all of Islam, even that part of it which is located 10,000 miles away from the site of the burning. So what encompasses the makeup of the community whose opinion and desire regarding the building of the Cordoba House it is proper to consider?
1. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf can’t be concerned only with how he appears to “people who are currently ill-disposed to Islam”; he also has to be concerned with how he appears to moderates within the Muslim world. In particular, he can’t maintain credibility if, every time anti-muslim bigots on Foxnews say “Jump!,” he responds “How high?” No one wants to be represented by a complete tool.
He should, and he does, treat Christians with respect. But respect doesn’t mean obeying every command, however irrational and stupid those commands are. Nor, really, does anyone gain respect in the long term by surrendering to bullies.
2. Most of the people who are seriously angry at the prospect of Cordoba House fit into three categories. 1) Bigots. 2) Political opportunists, and 3) Ignorant people. There is no chance of converting folks in category 1, so it’s silly for the Cordoba House committee to try and pander to them. Folks in category 2 are unlikely to be converted, because they gain power by pandering to the folks in category 1; and they will be significantly empowered if they’re handed a victory in this controversy, so it’s doubly silly to cancel the building on their account.
That leaves the folks in category 3, who might someday be educated. But the prospect of someday educating those folks doesn’t go away if Cordoba House is built as planned.
RonF,
The Cordoba House will serve as outreach to non-Muslims in Manhattan who will use its swimming pool and its meeting rooms for decades, long after you and every Fox fed fool has forgotten it ever existed. That is the way that Cordoba House will serve as outreach to non-Muslims. The current fracas isn’t an attempt at outreach, it is Fox and bunch of right wingers trying to stir up anti-Muslim hatred in the US in the lead-up to the mid-term elections.
So you are right that the Qur’an burning and the idea of the Cordoba House in your head are pretty much the same sort of thing, but the idea of Cordoba House in your head bears only a tangential relationship to the actuality of Cordoba House.
It isn’t the organization that is trying to build the Cordoba House that is creating a kerfuffle intended to give offense to many Americans, it is Fox and the Tea Partiers who are doing that.
RonF:
You might take a look at the articles I linked to in this post about the way(s) in which the controversy over Park51–which is the name of the building where the planned community center will be housed–was manufactured by people on the right, most specifically, but not initially, Fox News.
I would also point you to this post on The American Conservative blog, which Amp linked to somewhere in an open thread. I will not say, because I do not know, that Imam Rauf could not have done some things differently in reaching out to the community in Manhattan–though as far as I know, the people who want to build Park51 did a pretty good job–but it is both unfair and irresponsible to see the controversy and the Islamophobic responses to Park51, including the questions about his motives, Park51’s funding, as originating in something he did, duplicitous or otherwise.
@Nadia “…you would still be arguing from a Christian perspective–the reason I find that annoying is that it excludes the rest of us (non-Christians) from an important debate.” No, it doesn’t. You don’t have to argue from a Christian perspective in order to be a part as your participation here clearly shows. Just because some people choose to come at this conversation or any conversation from perspectives different than yours, be they Christian or spiritual or whatever, does not cut you out of the conversation.
I don’t have to shift to your piece of land in order to make a point. Being inclusive doesn’t mean leaving behind my point of view, or Pastor Jones’ point of view. And having my point of view, which is informed by my knowledge of Christianity, does not stop anyone — including atheists — from being part of the solution to Islamophobia. Also, when did I ever, EVER imply that “[you] might as well go burn a Koran [yourself]”?
Of course there are right and wrong ways to walk the path in any faith, even one with so many branches and offshoots as Christianity. Because the bulk of them are based on the same book, that has the same words in it. There’s plenty to debate and interpret in the book, but the range of interpretations for this verse:
“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you”
Are pretty narrow. If someone looks at that verse and finds some way to twist it around so that you do the exact opposite, they’re not walking the path the right way. It’s real simple. I don’t know, but I would hazard a guess, that you don’t really understand how the whole Christian denomination stuff works, because if you did you’d realize that the things they disagree on are not usually a huge pile of interpretations but a small one. (It’s one of the reasons why I find denomination struggles so interesting, yet also maddening, and glad I never had to deal with them.)
Plus, you continue to assume that Jones has faith that what he’s doing is right with the Lord. Your assumption makes him out to be more of a simpleton than he might actually be. People of all faiths often act or speak in ways that go against their stated beliefs or the tenants of their spiritual structure. (As do atheists. It’s a human thing.) Sometimes they do so without thinking deeply on it, sometimes they do so because they don’t care, sometimes because they don’t think it will matter in the long run.
Just because Jones is putting this in the context of his role as pastor does not in any way guarantee that he actually believes this is something Jesus wants him to do. I would like to hope that he just hasn’t had a real good pray on his real reasons for starting all this and, if he did, he’d get some clarity and apologize. But the more likely explanation is that he saw an opportunity to get some publicity for himself and his tiny church, which probably doesn’t bring in a lot of money.
You might say that, if this is so, why bother speaking to him from a Christian perspective? Because, in the end, he is coming from a Christian perspective himself , and if he actually does believe in Jesus and read his Bible, pointing out why he’s wrong on that level is just as likely to make him realize the consequences of his crazypants as anything else. Maybe moreso. This goes for anyone else who wants to burn a holy book in the name of their holy deity.
Also, Jones’ Christianity doesn’t contradict mine because I don’t have a Christianity. I am not Christian. “And if you agree that he’s being unethical regardless of who’s right, then why does that even matter?” Why does it bother you so much that I’m using a Christian perspective argument? Just because you’re an atheist? This weird idea you have that it cuts you out of the conversation is, frankly, ridiculous. There is room in this debate for arguments against that come from secular wells and spiritual wells. Both. Just because you can’t argue from a Christian perspective because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean no one else can or should.
@Phil, it’s very simple. If you’re a Christian, then you believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he died for your sins. Across all of Christianity, that is true. For every flavor of Christianity I know about, adherents take the Bible as the word of God. In the Bible, Jesus says to love your enemies, even if they hate you. In every flavor of Christianity that I am aware of, the goal is for humans to be more Jesus-like, and to do the things he said people should do.
If you are burning the Qur’an — which is disrespectful, hurtful, damaging, and very clearly NOT loving those you consider your enemies, but instead being really spiteful in their general direction — how is that in any way “right” according to what Jesus said to do?
As I said to Nadia, though there are many denominations, they don’t differ so much that the purported actual words of Jesus mean nothing. There may be a ton of arguments over what he meant in a lot of places, but it’s not likely there’s much argument over what he meant in that verse. It’s more likely that it’s just being ignored. But that doesn’t mean a Christian doing so is considered doing the right thing, even within their own denomination.
That’s what I mean by right and wrong. It’s not about a wide swath of things or this odd notion you have that I’m (falsely) trying to lump all Christians together. I am only doing that insomuchas they do it themselves.
Yes, but what massive disparity has to exist before building a temple to your own religion is equivalent to burning someone else’s holy text? He is not holding a Bible bonfire; Pastor Jones is not being excoriated for building a church. That’s not a fair standard, and it’s not one that Muslims should be expected to obey in order to avoid public wrath.
I’m not asking what “a good many people” would answer. I’m asking you, RonF – who stated that you view Cordoba House as analogous to Quran-burning. Is it that hard to answer a simple question without waffling?
Mythago,
Yeah, I noticed that little shift too.
Then let me make it clear. I don’t think the acts themselves (or the announced intent for doing them) are analogous. But I think their effects will/would be.
Of course, the communities involved express themselves somewhat differently. The people who object to the Cordoba House’s construction site have so far engaged in at times vehement and emotional but essentially peaceful protest. The people who object to Pastor Jones’ proposal – which has not been carried out, mind you – have so far engaged in vehement and emotional protests – and also in death threats not just against Pastor Jones himself but against President Obama and Christians in general, and in violent protests and mob actions that have resulted in deaths. Even Imam Rauf himself has been quoted as saying that the site should not be changed because of the likelihood of violent reaction from the Islamic world if that should happen.
So, Amp, I agree with you; you don’t gain respect by surrendering to bullies. But which of those two groups would you classify as bullies?
piny:
Yes, but what massive disparity has to exist before building a temple to your own religion is equivalent to burning someone else’s holy text?
If you view the building of the Cordoba House as a community service center that includes worship space in order to serve the community, then it’s a pretty broad disparity. If you view the Cordoba House as building a victory monument to Islam as close as possible to the site of the 9/11 atrocity (I think atrocity is a fair descriptor), then the disparity actually goes the other way. Now, Imam Rauf says it’s the former and not the latter. I’m sure that’s the way he sees it and I have no reason to doubt his intent. But a lot of people – both Islamic and non-Islamic – perceive it as the latter. Perceptions rather than facts is what this has become all about, unfortunately.
Imam Rauf can build the thing right where he wants to for all I care. But I’m not surprised at the reaction. I can at least give Imam Rauf credit for sincerely intending to serve his community and perhaps the greater good. Pastor Jones seems to be acting far more ignorantly, though. I wonder what his spiritual advisor tells him. I wonder if he has one.
“Essentially peaceful protest.” Right. (link goes to YouTube). Video description, from the YouTube poster: A man walks through the crowd at the Ground Zero protest and is mistaken as a Muslim. The crowd turns on him and confronts him. The man in the blue hard hat calls him a coward and tries to fight him. The tall man who I think was one of the organizers tried to get between the two men. Later I caught up with the man who’s name is Kenny. He is a Union carpenter who works at Ground Zero. We discussed what a scary moment that was for him. I told him that I hoped it did not ruin his day. Looks like they may have thought his knit sports cap was a kufi.
Vandalism and arson at a mosque.
Turban-wearing store clerk punched, accused of being Al Quaeda.
New York cab driver stabbed for being Muslim.
Drunk stumbles into a hookah bar looking to beat up Muslims.
If you view the building of the Cordoba House as a community service center that includes worship space in order to serve the community, then it�s a pretty broad disparity. If you view the Cordoba House as building a victory monument to Islam as close as possible to the site of the 9/11 atrocity (I think atrocity is a fair descriptor), then the disparity actually goes the other way.
And if you imagine the Cordoba house slathered in red sauce, mozzarella cheese, and black olives, it’s a pizza!
Oh yes, those violent protests against the Dove Church. Why, I hear that some Gainesville interfaith groups were planning on holding public readings of the Koran and other holy texts!
Ron says, “Then let me make it clear. I don’t think the acts themselves (or the announced intent for doing them) are analogous. But I think their effects will/would be.”
Let’s put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the folks who, against all reason insist on seeing the community center as something other than a community center. If there are ill effects, it’s only because their racism has gotten the better of them, and that’s not the fault of anyone involved in building the center.
Ron, lots of Americans–an increasing number of Americans–see Islam itself as inherently violent, intolerant, threatening, and anti-American. If it weren’t a mosque in Manhattan, it’d be a mosque in the midwest; if it weren’t a community center, it’d be a single Muslim family in a generally Christian county. There is ample evidence that this controversy–the acting-out of violent racism–would use any visible Muslim community as its target, simply because Islam itself is the problem.
Why should Muslims give credibility to these views by conceding the point, when they have already demonstrated their good faith and honesty?
lots of Americans–an increasing number of Americans–see Islam itself as inherently violent, intolerant, threatening, and anti-American.
On 9/11/10, someone put up signs which were basically two sheets of paper with “The ‘WTC mosque’ should not be built because…” and “The ‘WTC mosque’ should be built because…” and asking people to fill in the blanks. “Islam is evil” in so many words and in several different handwriting styles, was a common answer on the “should not” side.
Well, I am not an American, and I do see Islam as inherently violent, intolerant and threatening. Not much more inherently so that Christianity and Judaism, but some… if only because it is mostly practiced by people whose religious practices have yet to (d)evolve to the level of a social club. I fail to see how it makes me a racist, especially given that the only people of Muslim heritage with whom I interact are white or black. Muslim heritage, not Muslims – I have never met a practicing Muslim with whom I’ve had any desire to interact outside of work. This may make me bigoted, but calling me a racist is just rhetoric.
On the other hand, I do not see building the Mosque as a problem at all, because it is legal, inextricably tied to what I most admire about the States, and because it is what religious people do. It does not bother me any more than having to walk past five churches on my way to Trader Joe’s, and a lot less than the assholes threatening me with eternal damnation while I’m eating my lunch (one should be allowed to violently react to the latter, if you ask me)
Anyway. What I do not understand why people like many of the posters above think that it is inherently wrong to hate Islam and those working to spread it. I believe, based on the Koran, which I have read twice from beginning to end, and from my discussions with Muslims, that it is the duty of every Muslim to work toward the unification of the human race under the rule of Islam. Sure, many of them profess to reject the more violent means of bringing this about.
But Imam Abdul Rauf, whom many here seem to admire, has at multiple times stressed the importance of Sharia and Vilayet-i-Faqih. Search for yourself, you can still find cached versions of the Cordoba website that used to track how compliant different countries are with Sharia. I find his goals abhorrent. I view his organization as a threat, and do not see why this makes me an eeeevil person. I do not want to live is a Communist or Fascist country, and I think it is OK to speak against those who extol the virtues of either ideology. I do not want to live in a Christian or Muslim theocracy, and I think it is OK to speak against those who are working towards bringing one about.
Do I think that all Muslims are as bad as Hitler? Of course not. Do I fear those who are honest in their belief that Sharia should be imposed to everyone living amongst a Muslim majority and who are working toward spreading Islam? Well, yes, I do fear them, and more so that any unashamedly moronic neo Nazi. What is so illogical about this?
It doesn’t make you racist necessarily because “Muslim” is not a race, it’s a religion.
It makes you an Islamophobe. Which, yes, is a kind of bigot.
(Racism is a factor in Islamophobia in many cases because “Muslim” and “Arab/Middle Eastern person/olive-skinned person with headwear” are assumed to all be the same thing, and people are targeted because of their perceived race/ethnicity under the assumption that this is sufficient evidence of their religion. Hence the violent attacks on Sikhs, who are neither Arab nor Muslim, the total lack of acknowledgment of Arab Christians/Jews/atheists/etc., and so on.)
Indeed. The specific subtype of bigotry is only of academic interest.
@the angry black woman Sorry I assumed you were Christian. (And sorry I’m being a slow responder–the internet connection’s out at home. Argh!) I hear people calling each other fake (bad, so-called, etc.) [member of ideology]s a lot, and I usually find that the speaker writer is themself a [member of same ideology] of a different branch.
I do understand how denominations work–they work by reinterpreting, adding, subtracting, and rearranging the priorities of the tenets of their beliefs. So if a Christian is acting against the “love your neighbor” tenet, I’d tend to assume one of two things–either they interpret that tenet in such a way that it doesn’t apply to whoever they’re not loving (in the Pastor Jones example, it doesn’t apply to Muslims for some reason), or they prioritize it lower than another tenet (getting attention for his church is more important than being nice to Muslims, because he believes getting attention for his church is a holy endeavor (perhaps assuming that attention=recruits?)). Yes, people do act against their stated beliefs, but I don’t understand why that would be your first assumption.
I shouldn’t have mentioned my atheism–I just wanted to get my cards on the table. My point is this: telling Pastor Jones that he’s a bad Christian won’t convince him of anything, because he probably has a very different definition of a good Christian than you (acknowledging here that you aren’t a Christian–I really am sorry for assuming). Meanwhile, many of the non-Christians who read this blog (which I’d guess greatly outnumber the readers who are/agree with Pastor Jones) are (or so I thought) alienated from the discussion. Historically, saying “good Christians don’t do [x]” implied “evil non-Christians do [x].” Obviously, that’s not what you meant, but when I thought you were a Christian I read your original post as suggesting that only Christians can be part of the solution. This is getting way too long, but I hope I’m making myself clearer or something. :)
@Nadia “Yes, people do act against their stated beliefs, but I don’t understand why that would be your first assumption.” Because I know full well that people of Jones’ stripe often don’t get into being a pastor because of their devotion to the faith (or only because of that), but because of the power it gives them. In his case, it may be a minor sort of power. But having been witness to many an internal church power struggle over stuff you wouldn’t think would matter to anyone, let alone a minister, I don’t doubt that the petty tyrantism one can find in any kind of community exists in Christian ones as well.
In the end it comes down to this: Though I wrapped my post in Christian perspective, I don’t believe for a second that, in his heart, Jones thinks what he’s doing is Christ-like. The more I explore Christianity, the more I realize that much of what people do in the name of Christianity isn’t inspired by deep faith and a conviction that God wants them to hate/destroy/etc. The people who lead such causes are doing it for personal satisfaction. The people who follow often aren’t thinking properly for themselves. I’m sure there are examples where this is not true. But I truly think that the majority of the time it’s all down to assholes and the people who blindly follow them.
In that sense, it’s not Christianity itself that’s the problem. And based on the tenor of what you’ve said in comments, I feel like that’s where you’re coming from. As if Jones is a good example of what’s wrong with Christianity/religion. And while I will not disagree that there is plenty wrong with Christianity, I wouldn’t so closely connect that with Jones’ actions. The reason he’s doing this is because he’s an ass, and he’d find a way to be an ass whether he carried a Bible or a copy of The Fountainhead.
@the angry black woman The Fountainhead? Ick, that’d be WORSE.
Either you’re really cynical about human nature or I’m really naive. Maybe both.
Sebastian: Search for yourself, you can still find cached versions of the Cordoba website that used to track how compliant different countries are with Sharia
You do understand, don’t you, that one of Rauf’s stated goals in tracking “Sharia compliance” is to point out that many Western countries with secular legal systems are more supportive of Sharia, because they recognize the rights of all citizens, than many countries claiming to be influenced by Sharia that don’t do so? Yeah, I figured you didn’t.
Here’s a twist to the issue of Quran burning that might even deserve it’s own thread.
[Supreme Court Justice] Stephen Breyer Questions Right to Burn Quran
CBS presents this as that Justice Breyer apparently thinks there’s a question as to whether the protections of the First Amendment would be applicable to the act of burning a Quran. I think his comparison to yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater misses the point. For one thing, it’s perfectly legal to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater if there actually is a fire. For another thing, people reacting to an apparent threat to life is entirely different from people committing a crime while reacting to being offended. Interestingly enough, IIRC the Justices rejected this very line of thought with regards to laws banning the burning of American flags in Texas vs. Johnson. It was advanced by the proponents of such laws that people would be driven to violence upon witnessing such and that therefore banning such was in the public interest. The Justices (correctly) rejected that viewpoint then.
Later on, during an interview with Larry King on CNN, he didn’t answer the question quite directly. But he drew the analogy to burning an American flag and said he was in favor of protecting speech that people found offensive. That still leaves open whether he thinks that such an act is analogous to yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater and whether it could be banned on such a basis. He’s sending a confused message here.
Looking at Wiki I found something I find somewhat disturbing. The test noted in Texas vs. Johnson with regards to violence is whether or not a given act always leads to lawless action. If it does, apparently it becomes an exception to the First Amendment (Brandenburg vs. Ohio was cited). So it seems to me that if a sufficiently determined group of members of one religion took sufficient action, you could end up in a situation where it might be legal to burn a copy of the Hindu holy texts – because there aren’t enough Hindus in the U.S. to always rise up and exact vengance on the offender – but it would not be legal to burn a Quran, should it develop that there would always be acts of violence when that occurred. That would seem to conflict with the principle derived from the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that says that the law cannot favor one religion over another.
Holmes himself made a similar mistake — his argument that there’s no right to falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater, was used to justify the US throwing dissidents in jail because they were handing out anti-war pamphlets. In both cases, the analogy is false.
I know that he claimed it was his intention.
First of all, I do not see a reason to believe all of his stated goals, especially those that don’t quite agree with basic tenets of Islam that he has at multiple times supported in speech and writing.
Second, if it had really been the main goal of the tracking, why would the page have been taken down, even temporarily?
Third, you can call a small subset of Sharia anything you want, and claim that a country supporting it supports Sharia. Well, I support “the creation of a healthy middle class and its preservation, economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, appreciation for workers’ importance to the state, and protection from capitalist exploitation” but that does not mean that I support any party that incorporates the above 6 points in its 25 point program.
Fourth, even his stated goal shows support for Sharia, which by itself is enough for me to oppose him. Hell, he expressed approval before the introduction of Sharia law in Kaduna. Yes, he has supported imposing Islamic law on minorities in Islamic countries, and has expressed his hopes that a particular country will in the future be nothing but yet another Islamic country with a sizable Jewish population. And why should he not? A world united by Islam in which minorities are subject to Sharia is the Utopia that he is working toward. After all, his organization did name itself after the ‘Cordoba’ caliphate, a shining example of tolerance for its time.
Sure it was. The Islamic rulers couldn’t manage their spoils without the assistance of the infidels, so they had to let them serve in places where they would usually not be tolerated. Come on, guys. Would you look favorably on a party that named itself after Новая экономическая политика, a shining example of tolerance for its system of government in its time? Well, I guess some would.
And let me state for the record:
1. I do not believe that being born into Islam, or accepting it makes one magically evil. I just hope that they don’t take it their faith any more seriously than most Westerners take Jesus’s teachings.
2. I would like to oppose people that work to spread Islam and believe that Sharia should be applied to everyone. Of course, I’m too lazy and comfortable to do more than talk and write.
3. I do believe that the people from #2 are the only Muslims that truly follow the Koran, the hadith and the sunnah. Of course, that’s only my belief, given that Muslim scholars can’t quite agree among themselves. Also of course, I tend to sneer at interpretations that are so far from the letter of the text as to be unrecognizable.
You might want to review the thread on Alas that discussed this. The preponderance of evidence presented there indicates that your interpretation is incorrect.
Sebastian,
Speaking as a Moderator:
This blog is not a welcoming home for anti-Islamic bigotry. Please refrain from any further discussion of Islam on this blog until further notice.
Not speaking as a moderator,
I think that this view:
shows a profound failure of understanding of the nature of religion. I’m not sure whether you are influenced by a fundamentalist Christian upbringing (I don’t know your background, but this view of the importance of textual literalism seems to be common among ex-Fundie atheists), an inability to understand that not every one interprets religion as serving an identical role to that of science in a rationalist materialist world view, or what, but the idea that a religion must be based in subservience to a text is a strangely hobbled view of religion. How do you feel about religions that don’t have a scripture?
Sorry, third generation atheist. I did not meet a truly religious person until I was 13. And you are off in pretty much everything else.
I do not think that religion serves the same role as science in a rationalist materialist world view. I see the scientific method as a tool, and science as its product. I would not insult religious people by suggesting that religion is a tool to them, and anyway, I know plenty of people who are both religious and who understand and apply science. If anything, the two are orthogonal: the scientific method can hardly be applied to anything that has to do with a omniscient, omnipotent entity – how on Earth (or in Heaven) can you design an experiment that will disprove a theory that is “not even wrong”? (that’s a technical term, not a slight on religion)
The idea that a religion must be based in subservience to a text is a view of religion that I never expressed. The idea that some religions are firmly based on a text, and the majority of its practitioners believe this to be the case is a view that is at least defensible. But I can’t defend it, can I?
As for religions that don’t have a scripture? My best friend is trying to live as a Tengrist. Funnily enough, that does not scare me at all.
Third generation atheist here as well (with agnostic leanings)!
My random guesses were wrong, but your response fails to explain your sneering at all. I remain curious as to why you sneer at religions that you believe deviate excessively from their religious texts (I’m curious as to what sects you feel deviate too far from their texts, but I won’t bother with any guesses).
The building of the Cordoba House has been mentioned here. Imam Rauf and others have said that cancelling or moving it would cause great unrest in the Islamic world, would cause American deaths, etc. I’ve even bought into this.
Well, maybe not. Here’s an article in the Wall Street Journal
If you look at the images and videos we see in the MSM you might get the idea that Muslims all hate the U.S. and take the actions (or at least the words) of Pastor Jones and those who object to the building of the Cordoba House as evidence that the U.S. is racist and hates Islam. It would seem that there are other perspectives.
Doubtless we could find any number of opinions expressed among the world’s roughly 400 million Arabs. And I’m encouraged to see evidence that most Arabs continue to believe the US acts with good faith and pluralism.
But, to be blunt, who cares what the AVERAGE person thinks? I care about what the MARGINAL person thinks – the person who is deciding between taking up arms or not, for example. And I have to suspect that, on the margin, any policy that would interfere with an imam’s choice to build a cultural center simply because the center is associated with Islam will tend to undermine people’s faith in the US’s good faith and pluralism.
Of course, I’m probably projecting here – because any policy that would interfere with an imam’s choice to build a cultural center simply because the center is associated with Islam will tend to undermine MY faith in the US’s good faith and pluralism.
You are right that this kind of thing might tip that group of people who are a) inclined to take some terroristic action but b) have not yet done so. As opposed to those people who would never do such and those people who already have, or would do so regardless of what’s going on with these issues.
But that distinction is rarely made clear in the MSM. My point is that if you follow the MSM you generally only hear about and from the marginal people. We decry the impression of America that that foreigners get by watching American television and listening to American news. We need to remember that foreign media and the MSM’s presentation of foreign countries is probably very similar. This highlights that. Publicizing this might help affect the general American’s opinion of Arabs and Islam favorably. The phrases “Arab street” or “Islamic street” is often used to name what we might call the “average Arab” or “average Muslim”. There has been a lot of speculation of what the reaction would be if Pastor Jones moved forward or if the Cordoba House was moved or cancelled. That speculation centers on the likelihood of extreme reactions without accounting for how widespread either them or the support for them would be. Here is an actual scientific description of the Arab street. One wonders why this kind of thing does not get more prominent publicity.