On today’s edition of “Meet the Press,” during which time Colin Powell dealt a body blow to the McCain campaign by endorsing Barack Obama, Powell made a brilliant observation that, frankly, I wish had occurred to me.
He commented on how people in the GOP party (he wasn’t talking about McCain per se, but the party in general) kept accusing Obama of being a Muslim. And he said the first and obvious answer is that Obama is a Christian and always has been. But the better and more appropriate answer should be–so what if he were? Why should some seven year old American kid who aspires to be president and happens to be Muslim be receiving the message that, because of his religion, he can forget about it? And Powell went on to describe a photograph he saw of a military grave with a mourning mother, and there wasn’t a cross or a star of David on the soldier’s tombstone, but instead the crescent of the Muslim. What does it say about this country, Powell wondered, that that kind of message is being sent out? That young Muslims can fight and die for this country but never be involved in running it.
It’s even more striking when one considers that back in 1960, JFK being Catholic was a HUGE deal because people contended that a Catholic shouldn’t be president because he’d be taking marching orders from the Vatican. One only hopes that forty years from now we’ll look back on the notion that a Muslim can never be president with the same “isn’t that a silly idea” attitude that we now look back on the thought that a Catholic–or for that matter, a black man–couldn’t ever be President.
PAD
• 
Great discussion, and one to which I can obviously relate. 😀
First of all, to El Hombre Malo’s post discussing the issue…right on. My mom and aunts grew up in a household that, while not exactly non-religious, were more of the “bare minimum” type. They grew up in London, and while my mum moved here (North America) after she got married, my aunts stayed in the UK. My grandfather never forced any of them to wear hijab, and none of them did, for a long time. When my aunt was in high school, though, she decided to start wearing it as, EHM said, a symbol against forced assimilation (bc. they’d moved from India). Pretty soon, it was adopted by most of my mum’s extended family, on their own. The funny thing is that what had originally been a decision of independence has now been adopted by some of the chauvinistic guys as a means of subjugation against their daughters…as if they didn’t grow up in households where things were much more lax.
Personally, I’m pìššëd at the way all these personal choices, as outlined by the religion, which have always been personal choices rather than societal rules, are being mandated by law in places like Saudi. The “women can’t drive” thing, or travel alone…that’s such bs. Most of the Muslim guys I know are nothing like that, and I’m tired of them, and me and my other girl friends, being defined by the ones that are. I think part of the problem is that Islam lost a central authority with the end of the caliphate, that had the ability to speak, with one voice, what the proper interpretation of a lot of these supposed laws are supposed to entail. So we just have the wackjobs speaking for us, because they’re talking the loudest. It’s a lot harder than you’d imagine to find someone qualified who represents the entire population, because it is extremely diverse. I don’t think I have anything in common with Arab Muslims, besides religion, or Indonesian Muslims, or Iranian Muslims. So how are we going to find someone who speaks for all of us, to condemn the horrible stuff that goes on? There are a bunch of people talking about it individually, but I don’t think it has the impact that is needed to convey that to the world. I just don’t really know what the alternatives are.
Further complicating the issue, in my opinion, is, as you said Bill, the labels. I absolutely recognize that there is an extremist sect in the religion, that must be dealt with and stopped. And I think I’m aware enough to recognize that when people say “Islamic terrorist” they’re probably not referring to me. But it’s really difficult to then try and explain to Muslims in other countries that there is a nuance that they’re not picking up on. Religion *is* part of our identity, and when it is so often linked with extremism, with almost nothing to reflect and balance with the other viewpoints, it’s not an easy sell.
Bill Mulligan:
But the original quote was “Islamic Extremism” and not terrorists. And that targets people and organizations that get labeled “extremist” or “radical”, regardless of their activities. Many faith based organizations in the muslim world have become illegal because they posed a threat to their goverment or simply because they opposed situations they saw as unfair. The extreme right laicists in Turkey almost illegalized the ruling party because it was defined as an islamic conservative party, much like demo-cristian parties all over Europe. Charities have been closed down, schools and hospitals closed, because they were labeled “extremists”. And not only by their own corrupt goverments but by western goverments, forbidding fund raising for any organization labeled “extremist”, regardless of its activities.
This creates the notion among muslims that the target is Islam, not terrorism. Pushing these organizations underground also radicalize its members and create a frustration that really violent organizations can channel.
The islamic movement in Morocco was on its way to win the elections when it was illegalized. It contested the religious status of the monarch (moroccan kings base their powers in their supposed Muhammed ascendancy, a notion that is anathema to muslims outside Morocco). A party whose ideas you might or might not like, suddenly became illegal for trying to change the system in a peaceful way… is it surprising a few years later moroccan terrorism appeared? The KKK or even neo-nazi movements are not illegal in the USA. They can march, gather, comunicate and raise funds. Their only problem is public oppinion, and the moment one of its members step out of line it gets busted… because only acts are criminal. Christian extremists openly talk about world domination, theocracy and waging wars for the advance of an “spiritual” agenda, and they are free to do so. Its only normal muslims suspect bigotry when many organizations way less offensive and violent than that get illegalized merely because of their religious stance.
Bill Mulligan:
But the original quote was “Islamic Extremism” and not terrorists. And that targets people and organizations that get labeled “extremist” or “radical”, regardless of their activities. Many faith based organizations in the muslim world have become illegal because they posed a threat to their goverment or simply because they opposed situations they saw as unfair. The extreme right laicists in Turkey almost illegalized the ruling party because it was defined as an islamic conservative party, much like demo-cristian parties all over Europe. Charities have been closed down, schools and hospitals closed, because they were labeled “extremists”. And not only by their own corrupt goverments but by western goverments, forbidding fund raising for any organization labeled “extremist”, regardless of its activities.
This creates the notion among muslims that the target is Islam, not terrorism. Pushing these organizations underground also radicalize its members and create a frustration that really violent organizations can channel.
The islamic movement in Morocco was on its way to win the elections when it was illegalized. It contested the religious status of the monarch (moroccan kings base their powers in their supposed Muhammed ascendancy, a notion that is anathema to muslims outside Morocco). A party whose ideas you might or might not like, suddenly became illegal for trying to change the system in a peaceful way… is it surprising a few years later moroccan terrorism appeared? The KKK or even neo-nazi movements are not illegal in the USA. They can march, gather, comunicate and raise funds. Their only problem is public oppinion, and the moment one of its members step out of line it gets busted… because only acts are criminal. Christian extremists openly talk about world domination, theocracy and waging wars for the advance of an “spiritual” agenda, and they are free to do so. Its only normal muslims suspect bigotry when many organizations way less offensive and violent than that get illegalized merely because of their religious stance.
Speaking of things Peter said that are (very) loosely connected to Powell…
Peter have you seen “W.” and what’s your assessment?
Speaking of things Peter said that are (very) loosely connected to Powell…
Peter have you seen “W.” and what’s your assessment?
“When I was in NY I noticed orthodox women covering their heads with hats in a certain way. Not all and some just partially. Is this religiously motivated or modesty induced? Jews in Spain are mostly sefardi (I assumed the ones in NY to be mostly askenazi) and Ive never seen sefardi women cover their heads in any special way.”
1. Jewish Orthodox married women, Sfradi or Ashkenazi, cover their heads. There are a variety of styles og head coverings, including hats, scarfs, wigs. I don’t know what’s the origin of the tradition.
2. When did Sfaradi Jews get to Spain? Did they come from North Africa after de-colonization like the ones in France?
3. The larger chunck of Jews that came to the US are Ashkenazi, but the original Jewish community in the US and specifically in NY was Sfaradi. And there are Sfradi Jews in America both from that group and from later groups of immigrants. There is a Sfradi cemetary in Chinatown with graves of Jews who fought in the revolutionary war.
“many countries with homogeneous religious landscapes have a great deal of bible-thumping in their political discourse. In many centroamerican countries political leaders abuse of that kind of retoric quite often, and Nicaragua´s Ortega regained power on a faith inspired platform heavily backed by catholic hierarchy (and thanks to that, they now have the most restrictive abortion laws on the world, not allowing it even if the mother’s life is at risk).
The first impulse is to link this phenomenon to the country development, but then you take similar countries like Italy and Spain, traditionaly catholic and homogenous, culturally similar and with close development and industrialization levels… and the level of religious influence and religious rethoric in politics vary a great deal. Moreso, scandinavian countries, with national, almost mandatory churches, are virtually devoid of religious discourse in politics, while in the laicist french republic, the political right use religious simbols often.”
The influence of religion in Nicaragua can probably be explained in the context of the more recent struggle between Marxist in reactionaries.
The history of Spain’s civil war and Franco coud be the reason for the difference with Italy. Although there might be cultural differences I’m not aware of.
France’s history of anti-clericalism, as well as the struggles between left and right could explain how religion still is something of political commodity there. Scandinavian countries are a good example of my point, religiously and nationally homogenous countries, very stable left wing politics for years — religion is taken for granted. Religion becomes an issue when there are counter forces.
The US is different in several aspects. On the one hand it is more diverse. As a result religion became important in maintaining communal identities and is not taken for granted. On the other hand the US did not have the French revoltion kind of struggle between an established reactionary church and anti-clerical forces. On the other hand, despite the differences both Europe and the US went through both secularism, rejection of traditional establishments like religion, and counter-reaction to secularism later.
“When I was in NY I noticed orthodox women covering their heads with hats in a certain way. Not all and some just partially. Is this religiously motivated or modesty induced? Jews in Spain are mostly sefardi (I assumed the ones in NY to be mostly askenazi) and Ive never seen sefardi women cover their heads in any special way.”
1. Jewish Orthodox married women, Sfradi or Ashkenazi, cover their heads. There are a variety of styles og head coverings, including hats, scarfs, wigs. I don’t know what’s the origin of the tradition.
2. When did Sfaradi Jews get to Spain? Did they come from North Africa after de-colonization like the ones in France?
3. The larger chunck of Jews that came to the US are Ashkenazi, but the original Jewish community in the US and specifically in NY was Sfaradi. And there are Sfradi Jews in America both from that group and from later groups of immigrants. There is a Sfradi cemetary in Chinatown with graves of Jews who fought in the revolutionary war.
“many countries with homogeneous religious landscapes have a great deal of bible-thumping in their political discourse. In many centroamerican countries political leaders abuse of that kind of retoric quite often, and Nicaragua´s Ortega regained power on a faith inspired platform heavily backed by catholic hierarchy (and thanks to that, they now have the most restrictive abortion laws on the world, not allowing it even if the mother’s life is at risk).
The first impulse is to link this phenomenon to the country development, but then you take similar countries like Italy and Spain, traditionaly catholic and homogenous, culturally similar and with close development and industrialization levels… and the level of religious influence and religious rethoric in politics vary a great deal. Moreso, scandinavian countries, with national, almost mandatory churches, are virtually devoid of religious discourse in politics, while in the laicist french republic, the political right use religious simbols often.”
The influence of religion in Nicaragua can probably be explained in the context of the more recent struggle between Marxist in reactionaries.
The history of Spain’s civil war and Franco coud be the reason for the difference with Italy. Although there might be cultural differences I’m not aware of.
France’s history of anti-clericalism, as well as the struggles between left and right could explain how religion still is something of political commodity there. Scandinavian countries are a good example of my point, religiously and nationally homogenous countries, very stable left wing politics for years — religion is taken for granted. Religion becomes an issue when there are counter forces.
The US is different in several aspects. On the one hand it is more diverse. As a result religion became important in maintaining communal identities and is not taken for granted. On the other hand the US did not have the French revoltion kind of struggle between an established reactionary church and anti-clerical forces. On the other hand, despite the differences both Europe and the US went through both secularism, rejection of traditional establishments like religion, and counter-reaction to secularism later.
El Hombre, it is wrong to talk about Turkey and other Muslim countries in the same context. In places like Egypt or Morrocco or Algier you have despotic government and Islamic extremists who are quite extreme. In Turkey the issue is different since the Muslims are not that extreme on the one hand, but the secular tradition left by Ataturk is very restrictive. The two are not the same.
El Hombre, it is wrong to talk about Turkey and other Muslim countries in the same context. In places like Egypt or Morrocco or Algier you have despotic government and Islamic extremists who are quite extreme. In Turkey the issue is different since the Muslims are not that extreme on the one hand, but the secular tradition left by Ataturk is very restrictive. The two are not the same.
But the original quote was “Islamic Extremism” and not terrorists. And that targets people and organizations that get labeled “extremist” or “radical”, regardless of their activities.
Not to me. You get to be an extremist by activities, not by being a Muslim. What innocent groups have been deliberately targeted?
Now, it’s possible that groups can do both good and bad. I’m not willing to put up with a little terrorism support for a lot of hospital building. But if a completely innocent organization has been misidentified as extremist for no good reason I would welcome the chance to urge my congressmen and senators to fix the error. Which ones are they?
Its only normal muslims suspect bigotry when many organizations way less offensive and violent than that get illegalized merely because of their religious stance.
Are you talking about this country? If not, what can I do about it? What the Moroccan do isn’t anything we have a whole lot of control over. They may call anyone who opposes the corrupt government an extremist. We generally limit it to those who are killing people or supporting those who do. Just because some are using the “extremist” label inappropriately doesn’t mean everyone does.
Of course, some would argue that some of the groups clearly labeled as extremist by the USA–Hamas, Hezbollah , etc–are not extremist. I would disagree.
But the original quote was “Islamic Extremism” and not terrorists. And that targets people and organizations that get labeled “extremist” or “radical”, regardless of their activities.
Not to me. You get to be an extremist by activities, not by being a Muslim. What innocent groups have been deliberately targeted?
Now, it’s possible that groups can do both good and bad. I’m not willing to put up with a little terrorism support for a lot of hospital building. But if a completely innocent organization has been misidentified as extremist for no good reason I would welcome the chance to urge my congressmen and senators to fix the error. Which ones are they?
Its only normal muslims suspect bigotry when many organizations way less offensive and violent than that get illegalized merely because of their religious stance.
Are you talking about this country? If not, what can I do about it? What the Moroccan do isn’t anything we have a whole lot of control over. They may call anyone who opposes the corrupt government an extremist. We generally limit it to those who are killing people or supporting those who do. Just because some are using the “extremist” label inappropriately doesn’t mean everyone does.
Of course, some would argue that some of the groups clearly labeled as extremist by the USA–Hamas, Hezbollah , etc–are not extremist. I would disagree.
– It is hypocritical for Radical Christian Conservatives to denounce Muslims, when these same Christians don’t have such a good track record defending women’s rights in their own backyards.
– It is cowardly for left-wing human rights advocates to cop out to “multiculturalism” and avoid denouncing sexism when it happens in Islamic countries.
– It is hypocritical for Radical Christian Conservatives to denounce Muslims, when these same Christians don’t have such a good track record defending women’s rights in their own backyards.
– It is cowardly for left-wing human rights advocates to cop out to “multiculturalism” and avoid denouncing sexism when it happens in Islamic countries.
Well, yes, but I don’t see that happening in the left wing circles I’m passing through; it’s more common to see parallels drawn between the more extreme Islamic countries and the more extreme parts of the right wing in this country.
Well, yes, but I don’t see that happening in the left wing circles I’m passing through; it’s more common to see parallels drawn between the more extreme Islamic countries and the more extreme parts of the right wing in this country.
roger tang,
If you haven’t checked out the work of Irshad Manji, I highly recommend it. She frequently highlights examples of well-meaning Western liberals hiding behind “multiculturalism” to avoid appearing racist towards Islamic cultures that commit frequent human rights violations. If your left-wing circles are eschewing that cop-out, then good. But it happens plenty.
roger tang,
If you haven’t checked out the work of Irshad Manji, I highly recommend it. She frequently highlights examples of well-meaning Western liberals hiding behind “multiculturalism” to avoid appearing racist towards Islamic cultures that commit frequent human rights violations. If your left-wing circles are eschewing that cop-out, then good. But it happens plenty.
And I can see why…verrrrry cool woman and writer. Much obliged for the reference. (I live and [very] occasionally learn).
And I can see why…verrrrry cool woman and writer. Much obliged for the reference. (I live and [very] occasionally learn).
Micha:
Atually, Nicaragua´s Otega was the president of the Sandinista goverment in the 80’s and is a staunch ally of Chavez right now. I pointed out his example because he regained power by promising faith based initiatives with a heavy backing of the catholic hyerarchy. Talking about strange bed fellows.
Regarding Turkey, I dont try to equate its case with north african countries, but as another example of an organization beign labeled “extremist” simply because its explicit muslim character.
As far as I know, jews started to return to Spain in the XIX century, mainly from africa and latinoamerica. Franco’s regime was overtly anti-semite but there was a de-facto tolerance, so the community has grown steadily. I kind of assumed most would be sefardi, given the historical link, but I just read the majority are askenazi that previously lived in South America.
Bill Mulligan:
“Not to me. You get to be an extremist by activities, not by being a Muslim”
Kudos to you then. But the fact is Islam has come to equate extremism in many people’s discourse. Such perceived extremism allowed the Algerian goverment to cancel the elections fearing a landslide victory for the Islamic FIS party. They were labeled terrorists and the western world happily swallowed that pill, backing (even military) the algerian goverment in the subsequent prosecution of islamists.
The FIS(Islamic Salvation Front) defended ideas no one here would vote for, but forcefully negating their right to pursue their goals in a democratic and peaceful way is an example of the double standarts I was talking about. So yes, after that a civil war ensued and ultimatelly the islamic militias savagery made them lose the popular backing they had. But the truth is the western world suspended their belief in democracy conveniently, and the FIS was labeled a terrorist organization.
Regarding the Moroccan case (much like the algerian), the USA not only backs whatever labeling the goverment gives to islamists, but also was given a “Major non-NATO ally” status in 2004, shortly followed by a Free Trade Agreement that same year. Check the human rights record of Morocco (or Egypt, also a Major non NATO ally) and think about writing that letter to your congressmen.
Micha:
Atually, Nicaragua´s Otega was the president of the Sandinista goverment in the 80’s and is a staunch ally of Chavez right now. I pointed out his example because he regained power by promising faith based initiatives with a heavy backing of the catholic hyerarchy. Talking about strange bed fellows.
Regarding Turkey, I dont try to equate its case with north african countries, but as another example of an organization beign labeled “extremist” simply because its explicit muslim character.
As far as I know, jews started to return to Spain in the XIX century, mainly from africa and latinoamerica. Franco’s regime was overtly anti-semite but there was a de-facto tolerance, so the community has grown steadily. I kind of assumed most would be sefardi, given the historical link, but I just read the majority are askenazi that previously lived in South America.
Bill Mulligan:
“Not to me. You get to be an extremist by activities, not by being a Muslim”
Kudos to you then. But the fact is Islam has come to equate extremism in many people’s discourse. Such perceived extremism allowed the Algerian goverment to cancel the elections fearing a landslide victory for the Islamic FIS party. They were labeled terrorists and the western world happily swallowed that pill, backing (even military) the algerian goverment in the subsequent prosecution of islamists.
The FIS(Islamic Salvation Front) defended ideas no one here would vote for, but forcefully negating their right to pursue their goals in a democratic and peaceful way is an example of the double standarts I was talking about. So yes, after that a civil war ensued and ultimatelly the islamic militias savagery made them lose the popular backing they had. But the truth is the western world suspended their belief in democracy conveniently, and the FIS was labeled a terrorist organization.
Regarding the Moroccan case (much like the algerian), the USA not only backs whatever labeling the goverment gives to islamists, but also was given a “Major non-NATO ally” status in 2004, shortly followed by a Free Trade Agreement that same year. Check the human rights record of Morocco (or Egypt, also a Major non NATO ally) and think about writing that letter to your congressmen.
Hombre Malo, there is more to a true democracy than popular elections. Any religious party seeking entrance in the democratic process should abide by at least two little rules if they ever attain power:
1) Non-believers and minority religions will have their rights fully respected, and they’ll have a voice in the media and government.
2) People wanting to leave the majority religion will not be punished for doing so.
If they don’t abide by these rules, them the elections themselves are only a farce to legimitize a theocracy.
The problem is not with a Muslim in office, the problem is with a LIAR in office. If he is a Muslam and is lying about it this raises a lot of questions. (what i think will happen is Obama will win, we get four years of Jimmy Carter all over again, we swap parties in congress again, and in four years we ellect another Republican and Peter David restarts his little clock.)
“Regarding Turkey, I dont try to equate its case with north african countries, but as another example of an organization beign labeled “extremist” simply because its explicit muslim character.”
I don’t think anybody labeled the islamic party in Turkey as extremists. Maybe the Kamalists inside Turkey. But like I said, the issue for them is not extremism but religion in general.
“Regarding the Moroccan case (much like the algerian), the USA not only backs whatever labeling the goverment gives to islamists, but also was given a “Major non-NATO ally” status in 2004, shortly followed by a Free Trade Agreement that same year. Check the human rights record of Morocco (or Egypt, also a Major non NATO ally) and think about writing that letter to your congressmen.”
This is a loose loose situation for the US. If it interferes in the affairs of these countries to promote democracy then they are hated for doing that + destabalizing the region + putting in power people who don’t like them. If they don’t interfere they end up supporting tyrannies that don’t like them. European countries act exactly the same as the americans in that regard, prefering stability to problems. But then there is less expectation from Europeans to do anything, so there is less criticism.
“As far as I know, jews started to return to Spain in the XIX century, mainly from africa and latinoamerica. Franco’s regime was overtly anti-semite but there was a de-facto tolerance, so the community has grown steadily. I kind of assumed most would be sefardi, given the historical link, but I just read the majority are askenazi that previously lived in South America.”
The historical link is irrelevant. Despite the fact that Sfaradi means Spanish, and some have family names that refer to Spain, they don’t have any real connection, sentimental or otherwise, to Spain by now.
“Atually, Nicaragua´s Otega was the president of the Sandinista goverment in the 80’s and is a staunch ally of Chavez right now. I pointed out his example because he regained power by promising faith based initiatives with a heavy backing of the catholic hyerarchy. Talking about strange bed fellows.”
Interesting. Is it possible that despite the influence of Marxism in South America, it, like the US, did not go through a strong process of secularization and anti-clericalism as Europe did?
“Regarding Turkey, I dont try to equate its case with north african countries, but as another example of an organization beign labeled “extremist” simply because its explicit muslim character.”
I don’t think anybody labeled the islamic party in Turkey as extremists. Maybe the Kamalists inside Turkey. But like I said, the issue for them is not extremism but religion in general.
“Regarding the Moroccan case (much like the algerian), the USA not only backs whatever labeling the goverment gives to islamists, but also was given a “Major non-NATO ally” status in 2004, shortly followed by a Free Trade Agreement that same year. Check the human rights record of Morocco (or Egypt, also a Major non NATO ally) and think about writing that letter to your congressmen.”
This is a loose loose situation for the US. If it interferes in the affairs of these countries to promote democracy then they are hated for doing that + destabalizing the region + putting in power people who don’t like them. If they don’t interfere they end up supporting tyrannies that don’t like them. European countries act exactly the same as the americans in that regard, prefering stability to problems. But then there is less expectation from Europeans to do anything, so there is less criticism.
“As far as I know, jews started to return to Spain in the XIX century, mainly from africa and latinoamerica. Franco’s regime was overtly anti-semite but there was a de-facto tolerance, so the community has grown steadily. I kind of assumed most would be sefardi, given the historical link, but I just read the majority are askenazi that previously lived in South America.”
The historical link is irrelevant. Despite the fact that Sfaradi means Spanish, and some have family names that refer to Spain, they don’t have any real connection, sentimental or otherwise, to Spain by now.
“Atually, Nicaragua´s Otega was the president of the Sandinista goverment in the 80’s and is a staunch ally of Chavez right now. I pointed out his example because he regained power by promising faith based initiatives with a heavy backing of the catholic hyerarchy. Talking about strange bed fellows.”
Interesting. Is it possible that despite the influence of Marxism in South America, it, like the US, did not go through a strong process of secularization and anti-clericalism as Europe did?
Rene:
Dont take me wrong… I never intended to say the victory of theocratic parties is in any way preferable. But youll have to admit there are much better alternatives than the expedite illegalization of popular politic organizations, specially when they act peacefully. A strong constitutional framework and a proper separation of power would do preserve the two conditions you mention, without demolishing any faith the population may have in democracy.
Micha:
The rise to power of the Islamic pary in Turkey was widely mentioned by european media as a concern regarding the entry of Turkey into the EU. At the same time, countries like germany allow the activities of an extreme righ kemalist organization, the Grey Wolves, within its borders. The Wolves, non religious, seem to be kosher enough for Merkel’s party, as they work together to get the turkish-germans vote. Yet, the wolves are responsible for the murder of left leaning journalists and academics. Again, a double standart.
Regarding both the Algerian civil war and Moroccos ilegalization of many islamic organizations… actually European countries played a role. Not only they didnt object but in the case of Algeria they even sent military aid. As I said to Rene, I think there are better ways to prevent theocracy. But all involve strenghtening democratic institutions and safenets and that might be the demise of the phony systems in place now.
“The historical link is irrelevant”
Well, thats not what they say…at least to spanish television cameras. I admit my view of the whole issue is limited to literature and media produced in Spain. I remember a serie of documentary films a few years ago but it might very well be propaganda and sentimentalistic crap. Maybe the sentimental connection works the other way, because for many spaniards, the existence of the Ladino language alone is exciting, and I remember all my history books at school refering to the 1492 expulsion as a tragedy both for the expelled and the country.
“Is it possible that despite the influence of Marxism in South America, it, like the US, did not go through a strong process of secularization and anti-clericalism as Europe did?”
Well, every country is different, I guess. Mexico had strict anti-clerical regulations, but other countries are officially catholic and give a special status to the catholic church. In the case of Nicaragua, the marxist Sandinista goverment of the 80’s was on very good terms with “theology of liberation” priest, one of them becoming a high rank official in the goverment. Those “red” catholics are now virtually extinct or unable to exert any influence (thanks to the present day pope when he was the main “inquisitor”), and Ortega’s backers are ultra conservative hierarchy bishops. I personally think the man is a disgrace.
I had been told, a while back, that the way women in treated in Islan was based on historical tradition. As explained to me, originally women in Africa often faced danger of being kidnapped or raped, and so women would conceal themselves with veils to avoid making themseves an appealing target, and they would walk three steps behind a man for protection. To me, this makes a lot of sense as many religious works are very deeply steeped in history. This can also be a flaw, as things that made sense at a certain point in history no longer work that way now. (I think it was Bill Maher who observed that while the Bible is supposed to be about universal truths and eternal verities, so much of it is about (what was then) current politics and national warfare.)
I had been told, a while back, that the way women in treated in Islan was based on historical tradition. As explained to me, originally women in Africa often faced danger of being kidnapped or raped, and so women would conceal themselves with veils to avoid making themseves an appealing target, and they would walk three steps behind a man for protection. To me, this makes a lot of sense as many religious works are very deeply steeped in history. This can also be a flaw, as things that made sense at a certain point in history no longer work that way now. (I think it was Bill Maher who observed that while the Bible is supposed to be about universal truths and eternal verities, so much of it is about (what was then) current politics and national warfare.)
I think Godwin’s Law’s can now safely be adapted in what I am coining as Morrow’s Corollary. Since Wikipedia has already been updated, I’ll just quote the article:
“On October 20,2008 Rachel Maddow, on The Rachel Maddow Show, proposed an amendment to Godwin’s law that as the time a liberal candidate is believed to be winning an election or argument, the probability that they will be labeled communist or socialist approaches 1.”
Posted by Jonathan (the other one)
This is not entirely accurate – or rather, this is not accurate at all. The group we know as the Pilgrims (they called themselves Saints) were in fact evicted from first England, then Denmark, for attempting to force their own brand of Puritanical Protestantism on their neighbors. Once in the New World, they proceeded to set up their ideal theocracy…
And this caused the founding of Rhode island, by a collateral ancestor of mine, Roger Williams, whom they ran out of their colony for being different. (I think he was a Baptist, which had different meaning in those days than it does today.)
Posted by El hombre Malo
Micha:
Atually, Nicaragua´s Otega was the president of the Sandinista goverment in the 80’s and is a staunch ally of Chavez right now. I pointed out his example because he regained power by promising faith based initiatives with a heavy backing of the catholic hyerarchy. Talking about strange bed fellows.
Ober the years, various totalitarian governments have co-opted the religious hierarchy (not saying that thast’s the case here, just pointing it out) and much of the South American Catholic clergy is involved in the “liberation theology” movement, which, i hear, gives the Boys from the Vatican the pip…
Posted by anonymouse
The problem is not with a Muslim in office, the problem is with a LIAR in office. If he is a Muslam and is lying about it this raises a lot of questions.
Ah, yes. Proof by circular reasoniong.
Posted by Jonathan (the other one)
This is not entirely accurate – or rather, this is not accurate at all. The group we know as the Pilgrims (they called themselves Saints) were in fact evicted from first England, then Denmark, for attempting to force their own brand of Puritanical Protestantism on their neighbors. Once in the New World, they proceeded to set up their ideal theocracy…
And this caused the founding of Rhode island, by a collateral ancestor of mine, Roger Williams, whom they ran out of their colony for being different. (I think he was a Baptist, which had different meaning in those days than it does today.)
Posted by El hombre Malo
Micha:
Atually, Nicaragua´s Otega was the president of the Sandinista goverment in the 80’s and is a staunch ally of Chavez right now. I pointed out his example because he regained power by promising faith based initiatives with a heavy backing of the catholic hyerarchy. Talking about strange bed fellows.
Ober the years, various totalitarian governments have co-opted the religious hierarchy (not saying that thast’s the case here, just pointing it out) and much of the South American Catholic clergy is involved in the “liberation theology” movement, which, i hear, gives the Boys from the Vatican the pip…
Posted by anonymouse
The problem is not with a Muslim in office, the problem is with a LIAR in office. If he is a Muslam and is lying about it this raises a lot of questions.
Ah, yes. Proof by circular reasoniong.
It’s interesting that anonymouse had to go back to Jimmy Carter to find a suitable Liberal bogeyman.
Indirect admission that Bill Clinton was a good President, after all. The worse things get with Bush, the more the Clinton years look like a golden age.
anonymouse
It’s okay to proofread your post before making it, to correct your spelling, grammar, and punctuation mistakes.
While it is true that a person can have a valid point even if they don’t present it properly, repeated errors within a posting distract the thoughtful reader to the point where your point can be lost.
And I did NOT just say you had a valid point. In fact, I think your head needs some fresh air and sunlight.
Hmmm… I work with many Muslims and find that the overall moral code is far closer to orthodox Christianity (and orthodox Judaism) than it is to far left wing moral relativism, which is not suprising since all three religions except the Torah as sacred text. I just find it hard to believe those on this board would be thrilled with a conservative, no matter what their religious affiliation, as president. Someone who would call himself christian, jewish, or muslim but then rejects majors tenets of their faith wouldn’t be much of a representative. I’d consider it the same as having an atheist in the oval office. (Now where is the ground swell of support for our first atheist president?-probably will happen when the democratic party officially announces its merger with the communist party).
Hmmm… I work with many Muslims and find that the overall moral code is far closer to orthodox Christianity (and orthodox Judaism) than it is to far left wing moral relativism, which is not suprising since all three religions except the Torah as sacred text. I just find it hard to believe those on this board would be thrilled with a conservative, no matter what their religious affiliation, as president. Someone who would call himself christian, jewish, or muslim but then rejects majors tenets of their faith wouldn’t be much of a representative. I’d consider it the same as having an atheist in the oval office. (Now where is the ground swell of support for our first atheist president?-probably will happen when the democratic party officially announces its merger with the communist party).
Rudy, speaking as an atheist … kindly take the bigotry someplace else.
“Someone who would call himself christian, jewish, or muslim but then rejects majors tenets of their faith wouldn’t be much of a representative.”
Surely that describes most politicians? Whether it’s toe-tapping in a bathroom stall, flirting with underage male pages, or having affairs with interns who turn up dead.
“Someone who would call himself christian, jewish, or muslim but then rejects majors tenets of their faith wouldn’t be much of a representative.”
Surely that describes most politicians? Whether it’s toe-tapping in a bathroom stall, flirting with underage male pages, or having affairs with interns who turn up dead.
“Someone who would call himself christian, jewish, or muslim but then rejects majors tenets of their faith wouldn’t be much of a representative.”
Who’s faith and representative of whom?
“Someone who would call himself christian, jewish, or muslim but then rejects majors tenets of their faith wouldn’t be much of a representative.”
Who’s faith and representative of whom?
“I work with many Muslims and find that the overall moral code is far closer to orthodox Christianity (and orthodox Judaism) than it is to far left wing moral relativism”
So many questions to ask…
A- What kind of Muslims? Shia, Sunni…? Wahabbi, Sufi? Because orthodoxy can be defined by each and every one of these branch (and more) and differ a great deal.
B- Orthodox christianity? You mean Catholics (both papist or not… the eastern churches call themselves catholic too, meaning “universal”…yet we usually call them orthodox). Do you consider any protestant church to be “orthodox”?
C- Do you realize that most atheists and agnostic share the same basic moral code than deists? The assumption such codes derive from religion oversee the possibility of humans creating those religions. Do you realize that our moral code is basically the same as the romans or the greeks?
“A- What kind of Muslims? Shia, Sunni…? Wahabbi, Sufi? Because orthodoxy can be defined by each and every one of these branch (and more) and differ a great deal.
B- Orthodox christianity? You mean Catholics (both papist or not… the eastern churches call themselves catholic too, meaning “universal”…yet we usually call them orthodox). Do you consider any protestant church to be “orthodox”?
C- Do you realize that most atheists and agnostic share the same basic moral code than deists? The assumption such codes derive from religion oversee the possibility of humans creating those religions. Do you realize that our moral code is basically the same as the romans or the greeks?
Ookay. Too big a topic to go into regarding what is and is not historical Islam, Christianity, or Judaism, but my point was that on the spectrum of worldviews these three religions are much closer than those who ascribe to moral relativism. I understand that there are people who believe that you can be a moral relativist and be a member of one of the monotheistic religions. That would be a logical fallacy on their part. It would be akin to saying “I’m an atheist who believes in God”. Does not compute.
As far as the morality of atheism. I do no think you will find one who ascribes to a moral code in the same way and in the same relationship, as member of the big three monotheistic religions does. The morality of atheism is more pragmatic, adopting whatever morality will get them to where they want to go. The morality of atheism can change depending on the times and circumstances. The morality of the big three is not dependent on time or circumstances and is unchanging. This does not sit well with those are trying to bring about a new morality on society.
“A- What kind of Muslims? Shia, Sunni…? Wahabbi, Sufi? Because orthodoxy can be defined by each and every one of these branch (and more) and differ a great deal.
B- Orthodox christianity? You mean Catholics (both papist or not… the eastern churches call themselves catholic too, meaning “universal”…yet we usually call them orthodox). Do you consider any protestant church to be “orthodox”?
C- Do you realize that most atheists and agnostic share the same basic moral code than deists? The assumption such codes derive from religion oversee the possibility of humans creating those religions. Do you realize that our moral code is basically the same as the romans or the greeks?
Ookay. Too big a topic to go into regarding what is and is not historical Islam, Christianity, or Judaism, but my point was that on the spectrum of worldviews these three religions are much closer than those who ascribe to moral relativism. I understand that there are people who believe that you can be a moral relativist and be a member of one of the monotheistic religions. That would be a logical fallacy on their part. It would be akin to saying “I’m an atheist who believes in God”. Does not compute.
As far as the morality of atheism. I do no think you will find one who ascribes to a moral code in the same way and in the same relationship, as member of the big three monotheistic religions does. The morality of atheism is more pragmatic, adopting whatever morality will get them to where they want to go. The morality of atheism can change depending on the times and circumstances. The morality of the big three is not dependent on time or circumstances and is unchanging. This does not sit well with those are trying to bring about a new morality on society.
Rudy, the Torah =/= the Bible =/= the Qu’ran. The first five books of the Christian Bible (the Pentateuch) are, I understand, quite similar to the beginning of the Torah; they do differ significantly after that. (Amusingly enough, the Books of the Maccabees, one of the few sections that has verifiable historical details, was left out of the Bible as “apocryphal”.)
Islam, as I understand it, claims Mohammed’s legitimacy as an heir of Abram/Abraham through Abram’s older son, Ishmael (the one born to Abram’s concubine Hagar, when they thought his wife Sara too old to bear children), while Judaism, and its offshoot Christianity, traces the lineage through Abram and Sarai’s (or Abraham and Sarah’s) son Isaac. As these events occur in the 21st chapter of Genesis, it’s hardly accurate to call the Qu’ran “the Torah” (“…all three religions except [sic] the Torah as sacred text”).
Then there are the differences in “morality” between Sunni, Shi’a, and Wahhabism – at least as stark as the differences between Reform and Orthodox Judaism, or between United Methodist, Southern Baptist, and Fundamentalist Pentacostal…
(And where do the Unitarians fit into this spectrum?)
Rudy, the Torah =/= the Bible =/= the Qu’ran. The first five books of the Christian Bible (the Pentateuch) are, I understand, quite similar to the beginning of the Torah; they do differ significantly after that. (Amusingly enough, the Books of the Maccabees, one of the few sections that has verifiable historical details, was left out of the Bible as “apocryphal”.)
Islam, as I understand it, claims Mohammed’s legitimacy as an heir of Abram/Abraham through Abram’s older son, Ishmael (the one born to Abram’s concubine Hagar, when they thought his wife Sara too old to bear children), while Judaism, and its offshoot Christianity, traces the lineage through Abram and Sarai’s (or Abraham and Sarah’s) son Isaac. As these events occur in the 21st chapter of Genesis, it’s hardly accurate to call the Qu’ran “the Torah” (“…all three religions except [sic] the Torah as sacred text”).
Then there are the differences in “morality” between Sunni, Shi’a, and Wahhabism – at least as stark as the differences between Reform and Orthodox Judaism, or between United Methodist, Southern Baptist, and Fundamentalist Pentacostal…
(And where do the Unitarians fit into this spectrum?)
“(And where do the Unitarians fit into this spectrum?)”
Or Anglicans for that matter 🙂
Hey, I agree with Rudy when he says the Abrahamic faiths are more similar among themselves than “moral relativism”. What there is to disagree about it?
On the other hand, I also agree with Hombre Malo: while there is a certain pragmatism to non-religious persons regarding personal matters, they’re not any more willing to go to any lengths to get what they want than religious persons, I’d say.
You don’t need religion to figure out that behavior that results in direct damage to other persons is disruptive to society. (And let’s not forget that “Because my God said you suck” is a very popular excuse for murder, from Al-Qaeda to lone crazies. In fact, belief that God is on your side is often a potent aphrodisiac for immoral behaviour)
Most liberals of the non-religious variety have a moral code that is derived from Human Rights ideals, environmentalism, the French Revolution, and a whole lot of other sources. It’s only Conservatives of the paranoid variety that believe Liberals are “amoral”.
But I still think Christianity made some important contributions to modern morality. The concept of mercy to those weaker than yourself is something that the greeks and romans weren’t too hot about (not that Christians are always merciful, quite the opposite, but they at least took steps to popularize the notion).
Sadly, for every good meme Christianity (and related faiths) popularized, there is a bad one. Sexual repression being the most twisted and damaging. By trying to tame the wild river of human sexuality into a very exclusive ritual, they truly f*cked with our heads.
Hey, I agree with Rudy when he says the Abrahamic faiths are more similar among themselves than “moral relativism”. What there is to disagree about it?
On the other hand, I also agree with Hombre Malo: while there is a certain pragmatism to non-religious persons regarding personal matters, they’re not any more willing to go to any lengths to get what they want than religious persons, I’d say.
You don’t need religion to figure out that behavior that results in direct damage to other persons is disruptive to society. (And let’s not forget that “Because my God said you suck” is a very popular excuse for murder, from Al-Qaeda to lone crazies. In fact, belief that God is on your side is often a potent aphrodisiac for immoral behaviour)
Most liberals of the non-religious variety have a moral code that is derived from Human Rights ideals, environmentalism, the French Revolution, and a whole lot of other sources. It’s only Conservatives of the paranoid variety that believe Liberals are “amoral”.
But I still think Christianity made some important contributions to modern morality. The concept of mercy to those weaker than yourself is something that the greeks and romans weren’t too hot about (not that Christians are always merciful, quite the opposite, but they at least took steps to popularize the notion).
Sadly, for every good meme Christianity (and related faiths) popularized, there is a bad one. Sexual repression being the most twisted and damaging. By trying to tame the wild river of human sexuality into a very exclusive ritual, they truly f*cked with our heads.
The morality of atheism is more pragmatic, adopting whatever morality will get them to where they want to go.
And as an atheist, I am telling you that you are flatly incorrect, and in a decidedly offensive way to boot.
Kindly stop telling me what I believe. You do not have the grounds to do so, particularly coming from what is pretty clearly a dámņëd uninformed opinion.
The morality of atheism is more pragmatic, adopting whatever morality will get them to where they want to go.
And as an atheist, I am telling you that you are flatly incorrect, and in a decidedly offensive way to boot.
Kindly stop telling me what I believe. You do not have the grounds to do so, particularly coming from what is pretty clearly a dámņëd uninformed opinion.