I wonder how Jon Stewart, himself a Jew, felt on “The Daily Show” when they were running that clip from a meeting of various Muslim reps worldwide, where a speaker was talking about how Jews were secretly running the world and were manipulating others into doing their fighting for them. A speech that, according to Stewart, received a standing ovation (“Indicating,” he noted, “that the other speeches must have really suuuuuucked.”) I mean, you joke about it, but geez. It just underscores once again the fundamental problem Israel faces in trying to negotiate with people whose long-term goal is its eradication, and America’s problem in the eyes of the Muslim world since we’re allies of Israel.
PAD
• 
If you can’t claim that your beliefs are superior to another’s, and believe that claim, regardless of your own respective knowledge or ignorance, than what good are your beliefs? How valuable are your beliefs?
What good is it to believe that something is absolute if you believe it only applies to yourself; if you don’t believe it applies to other; if you believe that it shouldn’t be applied to others?
If you can’t claim that your beliefs are superior to another’s, and believe that claim, regardless of your own respective knowledge or ignorance, than what good are your beliefs?
(I’m going to substitute the word ‘religion’ for ‘belief,’ otherwise this will turn into an issue of reality, and I’m saving all my ‘what is reality, really?’ crap for the last ‘Matrix’ movie.) My religion may be superior for me, but not necessarily for you. As a system it usually works, unless one of our religions commands us to “KILL THE OTHER GUY!” Consider this… a person’s given religion is usually (A) a choice they made for themselves, or (B) a choice that was made for them by their environment/upbringing. How many people actually sit down, review all the religions out there, and decide which one most accurately represents their own spiritual beliefs? Therefore, how can anyone state with absolute conviction that they’re in the religion that is ‘superior’ for them?
What good is it to believe that something is absolute if you believe it only applies to yourself; if you don’t believe it applies to other; if you believe that it shouldn’t be applied to others?
If something is absolute, then by definition it cannot apply only to yourself… If it’s ABSOUTE, it applies across the board, period. I don’t think there’s many sane people that would advocate cold-blooded murder. That’s about as close to a moral absolute as you’re going to get. Religion is far from absolute, in that most acknowledge and sometimes even validate the existance of other religions. In fact, most are supposed to teach tolerance, if not of other religions and cultures, than at least of other individuals. Most men of faith– be they preists, rabbis, or whatever– tend to advocate peace and tolerance, as demonstrated by their religious figure of choice. Isn’t it interesting, then, how some military leaders want to use religion as an excuse to blow up the other guy?
tOjb
General Boykin: “My God’s bigger than your God/My God’s smarter than yours. My God’s better ’cause he gets sacrifices/ My God’s better than yours.”
*chuckle* Talk about a dámņ fool.
Anti-Semitism, specifically the Great Zionist Conspiracy, is nothing new. Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion has been around a long time, after all. This, of course, means that the people who are now spouting the same argument are nothing more than lemmings–can’t even come up with their own anti-Semitic propaganda.
This doesn’t have anything to do with General Boykin (his comments in question are here: http://zhengyi.org/archives/000036.php) and his brand of stupidity; I disagree with everything he said. I do support his right to speak freely, but frankly, I feel ashamed that this bigoted, uninformed, idiotic, superior dreck is what he chooses to speak.
The truth is, terrorism and the resultant war on terror have, at the core, very little to do with religion. The only people who claim they do are the fanatics, who are already perverting religion enough for one world, thank you very much. Let’s not have our government doing the same.
You see that? Mr. Frawley, if you’re reading this, your argument is well-meaning, but as someone who knows and has studied these things, I’d appreciate it if you were to bear in mind that anti-Zionist, anti-Israeli, and anti-semitic sentiments are exactly the same thing, as even the legendary Martin Luther King pointed out in his time. Bless that wonderful man indeed. 🙂
I have to disagree with this. Anti-Semitism is an irrational and often pathological hatred of Jewish people. Anti-Israeli is the opposition to Israeli policies. Anti-Zionism is the belief that Jews do not have the right to uproot people who have been living on the land for generations. The last two do not necessarily have the component of anti-semitism — irrational hatred.
Unfortunately, actual anti-semites often use the guise of the latter two to express their bigotry. And sadly, they often sound respectable saying things that, if they weren’t draped in legitimate sounding political ideas, would be easily recognized as blatently rascist.
Yes, the general has the right to speak his piece, but as John D. Rockefeller once said, ‘Every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty.’
Wonder how come nobody mentioned this about the Dixie Chicks?
Probably because the Dixie Chicks were talking about a man, and not a God.
So there’s freedom of speech except when it comes to religion? That’s stupid.
To be a little less glib about it, there’s a BIG difference in stating your opinions about a mere mortal’s on-the-job performance, and saying “my God’s bigger than your God.”
No there isn’t.
And correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t most of the Dixie Chicks’ detractors the ones making the very same claim that ‘people in their position shouldn’t be making comments like that?’ Again, there’s a big difference between an entertainer stating an opinion and a civic leader stating an opinion. That’s two totally different standards, and attempting to compare one to the other is mixing apples and oranges.
The Dixie Chicks’ detractors were saying that trashing your president in front of a foreign crowd was stupid when your fan base is mostly country. Their supporters claimed that free speech meant no one should suffer any consequenses for anything they say. This was dubbed “Amendment X” Of course, they still wanted Rush Limbaugh fired. It looks like the “different standards” are whether you agree with them or not.
Personalities can say whatever they want; that’s why they’re personalities. Leaders must be held– and hold themselves to– a much higher standard.
Is that the official wording of Amendment X? look at the quote above. It says nothing about different standards for celebrities.
Interesting tidbit: Many of the senior analysts at the CIA were caught totally unawares by the fall of the Soviet Union, because their fundamentalist Christian beliefs kept them from thinking it could ever happen. Obviously, Russia was the evil empire, and it was meant to fight the battle of Armageddon against the US.
That’s nonsense. The senior analysts were career officials, not fundamentalists.
I think it’s very scary when one person claims their religion is superior to another.
Unless they’re Muslims, apparently, since that’s the official doctrine of most Arab states. I’m getting tired of hearing how we have to avoid hurting Muslim’s widdle feelings when they spew out Wahabbbist crap about how all other religions are the enemy and make tv shows based on the protocols of the Elders of Zion.
I worry that a man with such obviously anti-Arab beliefs is in a position to influence policy in the Middle East. In the best case, America is supposed to be promoting peace in the Middle East. In the worst, we’re supposed to be keeping the peace by force of arms. At least, that’s what we’re attempting to do in Iraq right now. Is it wise for our leaders to talk about how our God is bigger than theirs, especially when religious beliefs make up a huge part of the Iraqi national identity?
Since when? Iraqis aren’t all Muslims and they’re secularized.
This doesn’t have anything to do with General Boykin (his comments in question are here: http://zhengyi.org/archives/000036.php) and his brand of stupidity; I disagree with everything he said. I do support his right to speak freely, but frankly, I feel ashamed that this bigoted, uninformed, idiotic, superior dreck is what he chooses to speak.
Did you actually read them? I don’t see what’s wrong with saying that bin Laden and Hussein are evil. Nowhere does Boykin say that his God is bigger than Allah. He responded to a Somali warlord who said his God was bigger. Boykin has said that he considered the warlord’s god to be money. looks like you’re the one conflating Islam with terrorism.
Somebody thinks that the CIA analysts made mistakes because they were “fundamentalist Christians.” In fact, the insiders who founded the CIA, like Allen Dulles, were not fundamentalists. I believe that Dulles was a Presbyterian if that is important. Then, Kim Roosevelt and Archibald Roosevelt were not fundamentalists. Further, many of the top planners and strategists of the CIA and State Dept were Quakers, Christians yes, but hardly fundamentalists [apologies to the memory of Josiah DuBois, and other admirable, decent Quakers; see Dubois’ book, The Devil’s Chemists]. What General Boykin did not say was how US covert foreign policy favored the emergence of the Islamic fanatics. Now, jihad has been part of Islam from the beginning, and only the ignorant –who may consider themselves clever and well-informed– would deny that. The CIA did not create the Muslim Brotherhood or the Wahhabi movement or jihad. But our British friends helped the Wahhabis [led by the Saudi dynasty] take over the Hijaz [western Arabia where Mecca & Medina are] from the Hashemites, who were ironically also British proteges. Check the role of H. St John Philby. To compensate the Hashemites, the British created modern Iraq out of three ethnically-religiously distinct provinces of the Ottoman empire, mainly Kurdish Mosul province, mainly Sunni Baghdad province, and mainly Shiite Basra province. To this day there is no single “Iraqi people.” The Sunni Arabs dominated the state since the British put Hashemite Faisal on the new throne. Now they are angry that their dominance may be ending, so most of the anti-US terrorism there is from the Sunni Arabs, who have always been a minority in Iraq. The British also created a princedom for Faisal’s brother Abdullah in Transjordan, thereby violating their international obligation, the Mandate, to foster the development of the Jewish National Home on both sides of the Jordan river, the ancient homeland of the Jews, what the Romans called Judea [IUDAEA]. The CIA took up the British role of encouraging Arab nationalism, and militant Islam. In 1951, the Saudis asked for more $$ for their oil, so the CIA, State and Treasury got together and worked out a deal to pay them more without the $$ coming from the oil cos.’ pockets. The foreign tax credit law [official since about 1920] allows US firms to deduct the full amount of taxes that they pay to foreign govts. from their US corporate income tax. The Saudis were instructed to add a per barrel “oil income tax” to the royalties they were collecting from ARAMCO. Hence, ARAMCO could pay the Saudis more and then turn around and deduct the $$ from their corporate income tax [see L. Moseley, Powerplay, and John Blair, Control of Oil, inter alia]. This was in fact a very clever indirect subsidy by the US Treasury of Saudi Arabia [Britain and France enacted similar rules for their oil cos. operating abroad]. Hence, Saudi Arabia has long been the largest single recipient of US foreign aid bar none. Don’t let anybody give you the lie about Israel being the largest. Now, everybody knows nowadays what the Saudis have done with their immense wealth. Need we say Wahhabi, Hamas, mass murder of civilians in Israel and elsewhere, 9/11? Further, the CIA and British intelligence helped Nasser’s gang overthrow the parliamentary monarchy in Egypt in 1952. Nasser was Israel’s bitter enemy until his fortunate death in 1970. The book Game of Nations by Miles Copeland, reveals much of this info, as well as the CIA’s experimenting with a Muslim “holy man” back in the 1950s. US diplomacy also helped Khomeini take over Iran in 1979. Check it out. Now behold the awful results. Elie Kedourie, the greatest historian of the modern Middle East, described the CIA’s Middle Eastern operatives as “apprentice sorcerers.” And how!!
As to Sasha’s claim about Zionism and anti-Zionism, it was the Arabs who displaced Jews in the land of Israel. Nor was there ever any “Palestinian people.” That’s another psy-war invention. Jews have always lived in Israel, even at times in small numbers, although by 1800 the total population was very small, about 250,000 with Jews about 3%, oppressed, exploited and humiliated by the Arabs. Jews were returning to Israel throughout the 19th century and were already a majority in Jerusalem about 150 years ago. After the British took over in 1917, they incited Arab violence to drive Jews out of their homes, especially in the traditional Jewish holy cities of Jerusalem and Hebron. Jews were massacred in 1920, 1929, 1936-39. After the UN partition recommendation of 11/29/1947, the British encouraged Arabs to make war on the Jews in the country and drive Jews out of Jerusalem neighborhoods. They succeeded in driving out Jews from the Shimon haTsadiq neighborhood by the end of December 1947. Now, the Arabs, with help from the BBC and other British press organs, claim it was the Jews who drove Arabs out, overlooking the joint Arab-British role in such expulsions!
Change my words…. to an argument that you feel you can tangle with.
How juvenile.
CJA
It’s pretty much a guarantee that a person is full of sh*t when they speak in absolutes.
Oh, absolutely.
BlueSpider: Change my words…. to an argument that you feel you can tangle with.
How juvenile.
Your use of the word belief could’ve gone one of two ways: ‘belief,’ the act of believing (like defining reality), or ‘belief,’ as in religious beliefs. Since this isn’t a discussion about the nature of reality, I chose to replace ‘belief’ with the synonym ‘religion’ for purposes of clarity. Also, your question was directed at my statement “I think it’s very scary when one person claims their religion is superior to another.” Seeing as how I was talking about religion to begin with, I assumed that’s what your question sought to address.
In any event, I fail to see how said substitution radically changes the meaning of your question, insofar as it applies to the discussion in this thread, or how attempting to maintain clarity and relevance is juvenile.
tOjb
Jim Burdo: So there’s freedom of speech except when it comes to religion? That’s stupid.
You misunderstand. I’m not advocating that anyone’s speech should be restricted. What I am saying is that leaders should be very careful about what they say in public, and even in private. Or, at the very least, not be surprised at the backlash from their more spurrious comments.
[T]here’s a BIG difference in stating your opinions about a mere mortal’s on-the-job performance, and saying “my God’s bigger than your God.”
No there isn’t.
The way I see it, the former might start a fight, the latter could start a war, especially if said to a region largely characterized by its religious beliefs.
Let me draw upon a historical example: President Reagan was perparing to deliver a public address. Reagan thought he was still off-air, and jokingly said, “my fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever; we begin bombing in five minutes.” Unfortunately, the mike was on, and the Soviets heard every word. After they finished panicking (and dropped back down from whatever the Soviet equivalent of DefCon 1 was), they demanded- and recieved- an apology. (You can hear the audio at http://www.kcbx.net/~rloomis/rrbomb.wav , in case you think I’m making it up.)
Now, that was just a leader joking around, in retrospect somewhat obviously so. Now imagine if Reagan had said something as outright inflamatory as “my God’s bigger than your God”? You see what I mean about the People In Charge taking extreme care in what they say, how they say it, and who they say it to?
The Dixie Chicks’ detractors were saying that trashing your president in front of a foreign crowd was stupid when your fan base is mostly country.
If by ‘country,’ you mean ‘heavily Republican,’ I’ll agree to that. The Chicks’ statement wasn’t a smart move, given their fan base.
[The Dixie Chicks’] supporters claimed that free speech meant no one should suffer any consequenses for anything they say.
I think you vastly underrate the intelligence of the Chicks’ supporters, and misrepresent their idea of free speech. But since I can’t seem to find any statement of terms as to what ‘free speech’ should be, as dictated by the Free Congress of Dixie Chicks Supporters, I’ll have to take your word for it.
Many of the senior analysts at the CIA were caught totally unawares by the fall of the Soviet Union, because their fundamentalist Christian beliefs kept them from thinking it could ever happen.
That’s nonsense. The senior analysts were career officials, not fundamentalists.
Though I regrettably cannot find the original text I read the above in (I will post it as soon as I do), I will note that Reagan’s administration quite notably courted a heavily-Christian power base. For example, Carl Berstein (one of the guys that shed light on the Watergate affair, if you’ll remember) recently co-wrote a book about how the CIA under Reagan sought, among other things, to utilize the Vatican to undermine communism in Russia. It’s very interesting, and can be read about here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0786210508?v=glance . Now, I’m not claiming that there’s some vast fundamentalist Christian conspiracy running our country. I do think, however, that many of America’s politicos are somewhat blinded by their religious beliefs, and that the trend has effects which can be measured, even by skeptics.
I’m getting tired of hearing how we have to avoid hurting Muslim’s widdle feelings when they spew out Wahabbbist crap about how all other religions are the enemy and make tv shows based on the protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Dude, have you read from Leviticus recently? Almost every major religion has some hardcore faction that emphasizes the worst their faith has to offer. Not every Muslim is a Jihading terrorist or anti-Zionist, and it’s exactly that non-Jihadist portion of Islam (which includes a sizable number of American citizens, by the way) that Boykin is offending as he tries to intimidate Muslim terrorists.
Is it wise for our leaders to talk about how our God is bigger than theirs, especially when religious beliefs make up a huge part of the Iraqi national identity?
Since when? Iraqis aren’t all Muslims and they’re secularized.
It matters in the same way it would if some whackjob Muslim president said “The Christian God will tremble before the might of Allah!” Would the people of America be saying, “well, I’m an Episcopalian, so I’m safe”? No… they’d be miffed, as would every other member of every other religion lumped under Christianity.
Bottom line is, the guys who run the show have a responsibility to not say stupid things that would embroil our country in conflict. What Boykin said was inflamatory, and it wasn’t in his best interests or the best interests of his country. Do I want him run out of uniform? No… I just want him to learn from his mistake and be more circumspect in the future. Ideally, I’d like him to not confuse religion with the affairs of state… that way lies madness and easily-avoided conflict.
tOjb