Pope Backing Down
Darn. Now the Pope is backing down and saying that his earlier, rather pertinent and to the point quote about Islam does not reflect his views in any way.
Rubbish.
Go read the damn Kuran and the Hadiths. They're brutally to the point, as in the point of a sword. Convert the heathen by violence if necessary. Make all others pay subjugation tax (dhimmitude). All the world must be converted to worship of Allah.
Islam is a culture of violence and degradation. It isn't just a religion; it cannot be dichotomized from culture or politics. It IS politics, culture and religion all wrapped up into one.
May porridge be upon Muhammed's wicked head (or PBUHH, as the Islamists always seem to be writing).
Rubbish.
Go read the damn Kuran and the Hadiths. They're brutally to the point, as in the point of a sword. Convert the heathen by violence if necessary. Make all others pay subjugation tax (dhimmitude). All the world must be converted to worship of Allah.
Islam is a culture of violence and degradation. It isn't just a religion; it cannot be dichotomized from culture or politics. It IS politics, culture and religion all wrapped up into one.
May porridge be upon Muhammed's wicked head (or PBUHH, as the Islamists always seem to be writing).
posted by ToadRocket at 7:08 PM
10 Comments:
Sigh. Just after I link you, you go and write a post like this. What am I going to do with you?
And gun-running isn't all it's cracked up to be. I should know.
Gotta be true to yourself... There are certain ideologies that are inherently evil. That's just the way life goes...
Glad to hear you're doing better.
I've been thinking about this post for a few days and have some questions....
When you say you don't like a culture, who or what exactly are you not liking? Every muslim person out there? Islam as a religion? Or just the framework, traditions, etc that make up a culture, but you're fine with the people themselves?
So we disagree with Islam's tenants and dislike many of it's outcomes on society. Then what? Do you think that public figures talking about how they hate Islam is going to help make for a peaceful world or bring about change in Muslim society?
Hmm... When I say I don't like a culture I'm definitely not talking about the individuals. I think an individual, regardless of being committed to a culture and steeped in it, is much more than the culture itself. I'm referring to the social ethics and politics that have been generated by the Kuran and the Hadiths, as well as the religion itself (and a lot of people would argue that it's impossible to delineate between thsoe ethics/politics and the religion itself, as Islam is so all-encompassing in its effects - ie., the mosques don't just teach religion, they always teach politics hand-in-glove).
The question of public figures speaking critically is a tough one, and - heck - I'm no genius, so don't place too much credence on my words. On the one hand you have the problem of immediate, negative results from a speech (ie., riots, churches get burnt, nuns get murdered, etc.), so you'd figure a president/pope might want to temper his words in light of the moment. However, if cultures are going to get along in the long run, they need to be inherently flexible enough to receive criticism, internally and externally. Otherwise, we end up in a situation like 30s Europe, where no one in the West was willing to call Hitler on the carpet for his behavior until it was too late.
Isn't it sort of like disciplining children? It's much better to set up patterns of early critique and rebuke, as opposed to letting them indulge in repeat behavior that has bad long term consequences.
I think one of the bottom lines is that we are always going to have conflict with the Islamic world unless they become willing to critique themselves and their philosophy. Until they come to that point, someone else has to do it to keep them in check.
My 3 cents...
I find it hard to delineate between a culture & the people. Does culture make the people or do people make the culture? And lumping a huge diverse group of people together under the banner of their worst representatives (terrorists) seems unfair.
I do agree that Islam is historically a conquering religion & interpreting as pacifist is a stretch. And I agree, Islam's ideal is to be the government. It rarely achieves the unity with government it desires though. Maybe in Saudi Arabia or Kohmeni's Iran? I don't think anyone in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt or Palestine would claim that their governments are being run according to Sharia law.
We do all need to get along, and being disrespectful and alienating doesn't seem to help. (as far as all being Danes goes) I've heard more about the pope thing though and it does seem ridiculous - a reasonable statement by him, poor response by fundamentalists/whipped up populace.
But I honestly think the real bad guys in the middle east are the leaders themselves who do not promote democracy, create beauracracies that limit capitalism/economic growth and who stifle their own people through violence. The governments we support because they are harsh enough to creat an illusion of stability which keeps oil prices low. ah jeez, who writes this kind of stuff at 11pm. I am so done.
: )
ps. Despite being reminiscent of colonialistic ideals, your statement about the "parent child" discipline made sense. But (ideally) parents show unconditional love for their children before they rebuke them. Have you loved an Islamist lately?
Ouch. My brain is starting to hurt. Hmm. Well, as a christian, I think my theology forces me to differentiate between a culture and an individual, if merely for the idea that an individual's soul can be redeemed, but a culture doesn't exactly qualify for that (though, there are earthly qualities of redemption that can occur in a culture).
I'm not really sure what "disrespecting" really means these days. All I know is that critique (internal and external) must be allowed in a person's life, a culture's identity, in a business setting, a government, etc., otherwise all kinds of problems set in. I can't really see any way around that idea. The worst disasters in history seem to occur when critique weakens and/or disappears (ie., the captain of the Titanic refusing to listen to warnings of icebergs in the area, Chamberlain refusing to listen to warnings about National Socialism, zero critique in Stalinist Russia and, subsequently, millions slaughtered in the Ukraine, no substantial critique of the levy system in New Orleans, whatever, etc.).
As far as the terrorists being an extreme minority and thus smearing the name of Islam, there is some truth in that. However, the mainline Islamists are not speaking out against them; they are maintaining silence, and this is a strange and horrible sort of non-critique. It's also alarming to look at the typical maddrassahs (schools) operating in such countries as Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, etc. There's been a fair amount of information and study coming out about them recently, and they all tend toward teaching about America and Israel being the Great Satans, etc. These aren't terrorist camps, per se; they're just where the young boys are going to school...
Ouch. I don't know any Islamists around here, though, I've known a few in the past.
Hey, sorry if I was too crazy there, it just really got me thinking about things. I think you have some good points and I like hearing what you have to say, it helps sort things out in my own mind.
I totally agree on your thoughts about critique being important. And I was totally joking about loving an Islamist! Well I meant it, but was trying to be funny, not harsh. Maybe I should have said "Have you hugged an Islamist lately?"
I think the governments of the countries you mentioned like to let (and perhaps encourage) their populace get riled up against america because it distracts them from getting riled up against their own government. Blame america for your problems instead of your own politicians. That's what makes me angry. I feel like the majority of muslims are victims of the inadequacies of their own governments & it makes them bratty stinkers.
Anyways, thanks for the chat, sorry for hurting your brain. I really enjoy reading your blog.
: )
I think I'm with Kari's question, even though she said she was kidding a bit, but I think Biblically we can have no critique without a heart of love behind it.
There obviously (to me at least) must and should be room for critique but like Franklin Graham's polarizing statement vs. his dad's statements in a recent Newsweek, I believe critique has limited impact when seeped in judgement (however true and insightful) vs compassion.
In many ways perhaps we even nullify our opportunities for impact and challenge of worldviews when we haven't allowed our hearts to be broken with love first.
That's what makes biblical christians different, right? And that's what brings about true opportunities for influence in my opinion (and limited experience.)
Whatcha think?
(PS Kari is a good friend of ours so don't worry about offending her... in fact it's more fun when you do b/c she's redhead like me. heh heh.)
I agree with you on the loving heart bit. I suppose that's an ideal that must always be aimed at but never completely reached in this life. However, you can still have a loving heart and say, "pardon me - you're completely wrong and need a spanking." Case in point - parenting.
I would argue that the Bible is very clear on the need to call a spade a spade. There are varying degrees of tact to be contemplated, of course, but if one is facing an ideology run amuck akin to Islam, surely surely surely one has to make a stand. Otherwise, you end up with a situation like Europe found itself in during 1939. No?
Post a Comment
<< Home