The Grauniad is taking the pllace occupird by the Daily Mail and the Telegraph during the 1930’s.
Though I suspect it is mostly due to wishful thinking, or even absence of thinking.
They do not want to believe that a group can really be as nasty as the islamists are, unless, of course they were “white” racists.
If we just talk nicely and reasonably to that nice Mr Hitler (oops) Ahmenidjad and his other islamic friends, I’m sure we can come to an accommodation.
Well, as David Thompson points out, you can’t.
Even the “moderate” islamists still believe the koran is the literal, transcribed word of “god” – even if they do want to dump the Hadiths.
And the koran, states, explicitly, that all other beliefs are inferior to “submission” (and what a give-away that name is!) and that it is the duty of muslims to convert the whole world to the dar-al-islam, and that women are inferior, and ……
The reason they don’t want to look is quiter simple – they would like to believe, like those in the 1930’s that peace at any price is better than war.
The odds are even higher now, because we are talking about a potential nuclear war.
Nonetheless, peace at any price means submission to the religion of submission, and the death of all enlightenment values.
The islamists are nazis – their programme is, tyo all intents an purposes the same as that of the NSDAP, it is just that their desired lebensraum is covering a different large slice of the planet.
How long before our governments realise that we need an increase in defence spending? ANd a 1580’s-style clampdown on the most extreme mullahs?
Because islam is NOT going to go the way of post-1800 christianity without a fight, unfortunately.
About David Thompson’s virulent attempt to destroy Karen Armstrong’s views of a “peaceful” traditional Islam:
You seem to put Islam’s bloody conquests on the hands of the founders of this religion, but fail to demonstrate how Mohammed could be the instigator of the hate and intolerance you desperately seem to want to find in it. As if the contemporary disease of such an old and important religion lied at its “roots of evil”. It seems that you’re trying to deal with the muslim problem with an awfully short cut to simplicity.
Using the dark passages of the history of Islam as proof, you pretend to believe that the interpretation of a teaching is the same as the teaching itself. By following your logic, I could conclude from Christianity’s countless massacres that Jesus was a blood-thirsty madman.
But I grant you that Karen Armstrong should be careful with her statements that seem to leave no room for doubt. Hence your article.
One last thing: focusing on the positive side of things like Armstrong does with Islam – to appease the tensions, maybe – has hardly anything to do with dumb politically-correctness. I’d rather be on this side than on the cynical side.
Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, you seem to have rather breathlessly misread my article and assigned to me views I didn’t actually express and don’t, in fact, hold. (I don’t recall ever using the phrase “roots of evil”, or anything to that effect.) It’s also difficult to adequately address the points you raise, since those points are somewhat confused and tendentious.
At no point have I argued (“virulently” or otherwise) that a “peaceful traditional Islam” is an untenable view. Clearly, the majority of a billion or so believers are not busying themselves with xenophobic aggression or fantasies of conquest. Doubtless many believers will be appalled by the actions of those who do. Nor does a recognition of the problems outlined in the piece imply any particular disposition towards any arbitrary adherent of Islam, in whatever form, or any notional community thereof. The issue, as I see it, is whether the actions of xenophobes and jihadists can be challenged in strictly theological terms, with reference to Mohammed’s teachings as outlined in the Qur’an and Sunnah.
You said: “Using the dark passages of the history of Islam as proof, you pretend to believe that the interpretation of a teaching is the same as the teaching itself. By following your logic, I could conclude from Christianity’s countless massacres that Jesus was a blood-thirsty madman.”
I don’t believe I suggested that interpretation and scripture were synonymous, and your analogy with Jesus is false. Whatever the past and present sins of Christianity (and there are many), to the best of my knowledge those horrors were not widely sanctioned by the verbatim utterances and personal examples of Christianity’s purported messiah. The difficulty faced by contemporary Muslims is that jihadists can cite verbatim the deeds and purported ‘revelations’ of Mohammed himself as the ultimate validation. This is a uniquely problematic issue, at least theologically. But, again, thanks for misrepresenting my argument and telling me what I “pretend to believe”.
You said: “Focusing on the positive side of things like Armstrong does with Islam – to appease the tensions, maybe – has hardly anything to do with dumb politically correctness. I’d rather be on this side than on the cynical side.”
I’m not entirely sure what Armstrong’s motives are, or whether political correctness is indeed the determining factor. As I’ve pointed out in subsequent comments (below), a reluctance to inadvertently foster animosity is one possible motive among many. However, regardless of one’s well-meaning intentions, it seems unwise to combine gross historical distortion with overtly political polemic, as Armstrong has done repeatedly. Whatever one’s political leanings or amiable intent, attempting to rewrite history in this way casts doubt on a person’s motives and credibility. If one has to choose a side, as you put it, I’d be inclined to side with evidence and veracity rather than hagiography and misrepresentation. It’s difficult to see how any long-term resolution and mutual accommodation can credibly be based on revisionism, dishonesty and a denial of the problem.
I suggest you read the piece again, more carefully, and base any criticism on the particulars of what I’ve actually written, rather than on what I haven’t.
I am a bit surprised that your welcome condemnation of Islamic and Christian fundamentalism does not appear to extend to the idea that one group of people, even if their remote ancestors originated there, is entitled to the land of others simply because “God” said so. I was present a few months ago at an astonishing meeting where an alliance of Israeli supporters and Christian fundamentalists attempted to prevent a couple of people talking about their attempts to build bridges across the Israeli/Palestinian divide. One of the Christians said quite openly that Palestine did not belong to the Palestinaians because God had promised it to the Jews. I think we need to condemn such fundamentalism wherever it comes from.
David Thompson makes some valid points. Attempts to ‘understand’ can sail pretty close to the wind of ‘apologia: I too have noticed the Guardian’s op-eds on Islam tend to be less than detached.
Yes, it’s true that jihadism is rooted in the words of the Qu’ran. But the worst of Christian fundamentalism (killing of doctors who perform abortions, denial of contraception to women, etc.) is also rooted in the words of the Bible.
The real issue is literalism and the fundmentalist medievalism it promotes.
One of my closest friends was raised Muslim abroad while I was raised Roman Catholic. Neither of us subscribe to the rituals of either religion – we are both female. But we both share a virtually identical value system, substantially derived from the basic tenets of both religions.
Perhaps Islamists need reminding that Mohamed was only a prophet, not a demi-god. But then, that wouldn’t suit the patriarchal social system that seeks to validate itself by reference to The Book: both of them.
So… the desert breeds ‘harsh men with harsh ways?’
So does your average sink estate/slum/ghetto.
Understanding just why an ‘environment’ might contribute to a mind-set doesn’t validate abuse of the vulnerable. If so, violent crime would be not just explicable, but justifiable.
thank you for the brilliant article pointing out karen armstrong’s revisionist history. some of her books have seriously made me consider throwing a little book burning soiree.
Here’s a thought. How about a FEMALE prophet re-interpreting the Qu’ran in the interests of justice, truth and mercy for all? Someone from the Arab world who could reach the women and put some kind of damper on the creation of fresh generations of ‘sahids’ (not sure of the spelling – means ‘martyrs.’)
Because the root of Islamofascism is patriarchal: it venerates males and despises females, glorifying the worst of male ‘values’ – war, bloodshed and violence.
Despite the acculturation of more than a few Arab mothers to the idea of sacrificing sons to Allah, I’m pretty sure that if Arab men had to give birth, they wouldn’t be so keen on seeing the fruits of their ‘labour’ snuffed out by suicide bombs.
Where is the feminist prophet? Your time has come….
I’ve been interested in Psychoanalysis and Freud since the end of my first year of University. Lately I’ve seen and read some critiques of Freud and Psychoanalysis in general, I no longer know what to believe… I guess those who actually practice know it better, but… are they really to be trusted?
I wonder what is going to happen with Psychoanalysis in the future. What is going to happen to the professionals, how many of them will be left without a job… Is it all based on nothing but belief, autosuggestion, naivete?
Can Freudian psychoanalysis actually do something for people? If so, the high costs of the analysis can’t be afforded by the average man. Isn’t it a luxury for the rich and bored?
I really don’t know any more… But I still enjoy reading Freud now and then.
Psychoanalytic Theory is still part of the modern literary theory cannon. It gives one insight into literary characters…
I had a rather hard time reading Jacques Derrida’s “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” (actually only some parts of it). I know him as one of the key figures of Deconstruction. I didn’t study his philosophy in deep detail, he was only mentioned in my Contemporary Literary Theory course as a Deconstructionist. I found his ideas interesting, he sounded a lot like an Existentialist in some respects.
If ‘God is dead,’ then man is condemned to be free (Sartre – “Les Mouches”), that is to assume responsibility for his deeds and choices. Sometimes it’s by far more difficult to find your own truth, you no longer know what’s right and what’s wrong when you don’t have a standard (a God in the sense of values, norms, rules…).
Nature determines not only the evolution but also the functioning of the human body. If humans ignore some simple demands of nature, they die of starvation and asphyxia. Sexuality belongs to the realm of strict laws of genetics, physiology and behavior. Errors can be deadly in this sphere. Non-reproductive sexual activity can be justified from the biological point of view. The human menstrual cycle hides the ovulation to prolong sexual relations. That is why humans are the most sexual creatures. Women can be attractive for a long period of time, not only during ovulation. Human sexuality binds the partners to provide the care for the helpless baby and its mother. The various kinds of sexual activities are of great biological importance and pleasure is a powerful neurobiological motive for prolonged relations of female and male for the welfare of their offspring. Humans know how to get pleasure without any biologically useful activity. They use alcohol, drugs and sex to experience free euphoria. Homosexual activities should be considered as a tool for getting pleasure and swindling nature out of pleasure. Heterosexuality and non-reproductive heterosexual activities take priority over homosexuality in binding the partners into a family and providing parental care for children. Biologically, homosexuality is not a sin but just a mistake…
This is in response to Paul Power’s post of 13/06/06.
I do not claim that this physical world is a mirage ‘only’ on the basis of leptoquark.
That is simply one example. And Mr. Power vindicates me himself by saying -………. “…the existence of such particles is not considered as definitive” …and … “..invoking the properties of particles which seem not to exist”. Thats exactly I have been saying ! The scientists know that that leptoquark is there, but they are not able to make a definite statement that it exists or not, as its existence is like non-existence !
Now, that’s similar to what the Vedic understanding has been saying. But, I do not want to use just the lepto-quark stuff to make my point. There are many other modern scientific fact ( 1. Bell’s theorem, 2. new findings which question ‘objectivity’ of a scientific experiment and prove that the object and subject are not independent at several fine-level experiments. ….etc) which, seen together, indicate that there is much beyond ‘physical matter’. There is the substratum of energy beneath matter….and more…
After this point I never use any modern scientific postulate to make my point, as the rest falls under the realms of consciousness. Now, her, the major difference between the modern concept/technology of ‘science’ and the Vedic concepts crop up. Modern science has the approach of objective study. The subject and the object are different. But when we try to study consciousness this is an attempt to study that which is studying !! An endeavor to understand that which understands !! …………………………….
Now, lets keep aside the modern science. The Vedic science has found that its consciousness which is the basic substratum of creation. It’s a large and elaborate science which delves deep into the consciousness study. There have been innumerable scientists in India, since eternity, who have done wonderful studies. But all this is not ‘scientific’ as per modern science because it has not made such inroads into consciousness studies. I hope it will.
Now Vedic technology for science has been thru consciousness. An individual uses his own consciousness to tap its finer layers which are inter connected with the rest of the creation. Loosely speaking, its called awakening of one’s consciousness. Or, more simply – Yoga. Anyone who wants to know about this technology he can delve into the treatise by Patanjali (an ancient sage) on Yoga. There is step by step description of how this can be achieved. One’s growth takes place in phased manner on the path of awakening of consciousness.
However, after some advancing on this path, the individual can unravel all the mechanism and dynamism of the creation, including the physical world.
Thus, the fundamental difference btwn Modern and Vedic sciences is that one starts from matter and is trying to discover finer levels of existence, while the other (Vedic) comes from opposite direction (it taps the finer levels first and then studies how the finer has become gross & grosser) !! For a Vedic technologist consciousness gets condensed to form energy and energy gets condensed to form matter.
Now, to a person who cannot perceive consciousness himself, matter will be the ultimate reality. But for a person whose perceptive faculties can look beyond, matter will be an apparent reality. Increasing the range of the perceptive faculties is called awakening of consciousness. ………………….. A loose example- There will be no darkness in the night for a person who can see infra red himself. Day and night, thus, are a mirage. It depends upon the relative perception of people. And Yoga ( this yoga shud not be confused with mere the physical exercises which r available in the commercial market) is the technology by which an individual’s perceptive faculties can be extended. Upto infinite levels.
Now about India’s caste system. I agree cent percent with Paul Power that “ No self-respecting biologist would utter such nonsense.” Simply because, the biologists, at present, do not have the technology to understand it. If Paul wants to confine himself to modern science, I agree with him and he doesn’t need to read my mail any further. Amen. Anyone who wants to explore what the Vedic science has to say can read. Paul will call all this rubbish and he will be correct, by his approach.
The 4-fold caste system has evolved by the study of nature’s dynamics, using the afore-mentioned technology of consciousness. ( I think the modern science can have an understanding after some more advances.) I am unable to type all explanations as it will take a very long time, but I will write the basic things: the study involves: Soul ( the entire process of its entry into the womb is known), genetics, heredity, the karma-theory and the 3 gunas ( attributes) which are inherent in nature. They are ‘Satva”, ‘Rajas’ and “tamas”. For their meaning, pls use any search engine urself.
From where the mind and consciouness in an individual comes ? What is life ? What is death ? …….. I will not write about soul here as it will take lot of time. I will write how it comes into the body. ….. There are sperms in the body. How do they get life ???? Modern science doesn’t know. This is dynamics of consciousness.
Take the example of cloning. Dolly, the sheep, was the first one to be cloned. Clone is replica, right ? So, there was no difference between Dolly band her clone ? No, there was. Their temperaments were different !!! The temperament, the mind….. could not be cloned !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Modern science has done a remarkable thing by cloning the body. But, so far, consciousness is beyond them. And, when they will enter into the science of consciousness, they will find that all Vedic postulates are true.
Now, look at a radio. There are so many radio stations. But it catches that one with which we match the frequency. Similarly, every man’s consciouness, thought-level, emotional and mental moods have different frequencies. Now, that man will attract those souls to his sperms which match with his consciouness-frequency at that moment. Millions of sperms r there. Each carries a soul. After ejaculation they all will rush towards the ovum. The travel thru the vaginal canal and the acidic secretions make them burn with pain. That’s wher the first struggle of life begins. The struggle to get a body !!
Now, it completely depends upon the woman’s ( ovum’s) consciousness-frequency at that moment…. that which particular sperm will she attract for conception !! Modern science calls it’s a chance. But Vedic science says there is nothing in the creation which is ‘by chance’. Its all science. Waiting to be discovered by the moderns.
The frequency where man and woman’s ( sperm and ovum’s ) consciousness will match—— that particular sperm (soul) will conceive.
That’s why husband and wife’s thought type is said to be one of the major determining factors of the life of the child in all aspects. For example, if its rape, that soul may get attracted which has criminal-nature. The Vedic science of eugenics starts here. With compatible matching during marriage. I will not go in detail here.
( I am getting tired of typing….. I will post the rest some other time… Then we will discuss how the castes are inherent in nature, in biology…… Pls bear with me till then. …)
Some glimpses of what will come:
“ The existence of DNA alone is not sufficient to explain how the forms of living things are manifested. For the most part, the genes on the DNA strand just code for the production of various proteins. How these proteins are combined in the complex forms of organisms is not specified by the DNA. The concept of a mental seed containing the developmental plan for bodies, including the human body, thus complements the existence of DNA.”
The vedic scientists opine that the entire creation is due to the interplay of Purusha & Prakriti. Purusha= Supreme Being. Prakriti- His will.
This ‘WILL’ or Prakriti is referred to as MOTHER- force and the entire creation is called ” Matruk Jagat” by the Vedics. Matruk = from / of mother.
Now, Sanskrit “Matru” for Mother is related to ( being of the same Aryan group of languages)the Latin word ‘mater’ from which derives materia. Its ‘maeter’in Greek. From this sourece comes the Englsih term – ‘Matter’.
Thus, what the Vedics call ‘Motherial World'( Matruk jagat) came down to be known in English as “Material” world !!
I think the ancient Vedic science has been known all over the world.
“The scientists know that that leptoquark is there, but they are not able to make a definite statement that it exists or not, as its existence is like non-existence !”
If you are not going to make an honest effort to understand plain English then debate is impossible.
Scientists do not “know that that leptoquark is there”. They have a group of theories that requires the leptoquark to exist, but the theories also require it to have certain properties which necessitate that it would have shown itself in certain experiments already done. It has not appeared in these experiments so scientists think the theories are wrong and the leptoquark does not exist.
I am not going to even bother with so-called “Vedic science”. Anything that cannot distinguish between existence and non-existence can only end in producing N-rays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray)
Mr Lamb is certainly but only half right; Muhammad (preferred sp) lived in the 1st century of his own era and the seventh of the Christian era, as dated after the fourth century CE in the west alone. Jesus, good fortune coming from Christian control of the Calendar after the fourth century, lived in the 7th century bh (Before Hijra). of course when Jesus really lived, the dates were fixed according to the year of the reign of the emperor. (And interestingly, Jesus was born, we think, in 6BCE.) In Roman terms, the range would be a period of about 40 years (Augustus’s reign, made more specific by the reference to Pontius Pilate who was overlord in Judaea from 26-36 CE, who does not overlap with Augustus. It may be therefore that Jesus was born give or take a few years in 30 Aug. (the 30th year of Augustus’ reign). But maybe not. Thanks for the correction.
I’m a little uncomfortable with the unqualified mixing of facts with value judgements, and everything inbetween.
Number 21 asserts that religious tolerance is not possible in the Middle East. It is worth remembering:
(1) Prior to 1948 a 50-50 mixture of Christians and Muslims had lived in harmony for many hundreds of years.
(2) Post 1966 the conflict between Israel and Palestine has resulted in the virtual elimination of Christianity in the Holy Land. The Christian Palestinian population has fallen from about 50% to around 5% today.
These are facts that are unknown to the bible belt of the USA.
Based on studies of the Ottoman census, up to 1,000,000 Armenian Christians were murdered in the Genocide that affected the estimated 2,000,000 Armenian Christians by the Turks, climaxing in 1914-1915. The “golden age” of peaceful co-existence is an Islamic myth, even as regards Lebanon, which is the only part of the Middle East that approaches, or once approached, the “50-50” parity Ricardo suggests. Today that ratio is a mystery which the paper government in Beirut is loathe to solve. No denominational census is permitted; none has been taken in over 50 years, but Christian attrition has been constant and very little related to events in Israel.
Further, I am at a loss to understand how your point (b) about the decline of Xns in Palestine contradicts my point about the impossibility of religious tolerance. It seems to me to corroborate it.
On Nature and Justice: Brilliant. Thanks Mr Standing!
Excellent book on this subject was Stephen Pinker’s “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature”. Another less comprehensive one was Roger Sandall, “The Culture Cult”. Now I need to find and read Rorty’s book.
I’m rather surprised by the “Al-Guardian” of this article’s title. In using this Arabic construction for a rant against Islamic fundamentalism, Mr Thompson seems to be conflating “Arabic” with “Islamic fundamentalist”. Doesn’t anyone find THAT offensive?
The expression “al-Guardian” has entered fairly common usage as shorthand for the bias of that paper’s coverage of certain issues. I don’t see how one could credibly construe its usage as a wholesale assessment of the Islamic world, or indeed the Arab world. Unless, of course, one was inclined to apply superhuman effort to find some whisper of grievance to exploit.
Perhaps you’d care to address any of the actual issues raised in my “rant”?
Number 15, about Arabic mathematics being false, anyone got any more info on this? As every history of math book I’ve ever read has rather hefty documentation of Arab math studies, I’m curious about evidence to the contrary.
As one who left England 26 years ago, I am shocked though not surprised by what appears to be the current state of ‘progressive’ political discourse, especially with regard to what is the greatest threat facing humanity, along with climate change, (whose consequences aren’t nearly as certain), namely, Islam. What puzzles me is the (pro-forma ?) reference to a dichotomy between “Muslim reformers” and “extremists”. Who are these reformers? Where are they hiding? They seem to exist only in the minds of well-intentioned (wishfull thinking) Westerners, which is probably just as well since given the proclivities of Islam (the real thing, not Ms Armstrong’s fantasies), any who came “out” would soon be despatched.
3. That Noah’s ark will never be found because it never existed.
Maybe , Don’t make it so.
4. That Christianity began as a violent first century messianic sect which learned to cope peaceably when its messiah didn’t show up.
-Wrong ..It was a revolution againts The temple laws in jerusalim.
5. That most fundamentalists are rather stupid, Muslims and Christians alike.
-Debatable.
6. That most evangelical Christians cannot describe what they mean by “inerrant” – speaking of the Bible.
-TRUE!
7. That the vast majority of Christians opposed to stem cell research think it means killing babies for their brains.
-TRUE.
8. That biblical Israel ceased to exist in 720 BC, lasted for less than two hundred years, and that modern Israel didn’t exist again until 1948.
– It lasted more than 200 years .. but the rest is TRUE.
9. That virtually no Jews use the phrase ‘Judaeo-Christian’, applied to ethics or anything else.
-DEFINATLEY TRUE.
10. That Muhammad, a delusional first century Arab who thought the God of the Jews was speaking to him, was not a Muslim.
-COMPLETELY FLSE AND IDIOTIC ON YOUR BEHLF.
11. That Jesus, a delusional first century Jew who, if he existed, thought that the God of Abraham was his father, was not a Christian.
-Technically TRUE ..But he was a prophet and we are all sons of the one and only God.
12. That most Arabs don’t like Palestinians.
– Did not do a poll and neither did you.
13. That religion is the cause and not the cure for Middle Eastern violence.
– False .. Relegion has been used in the conflict.
14. That most Lebanese who are not Shi’a would rather be called Phoenicians than Arabs.
-False most lebanese today are shia!
15. That the intellectual tradition in Arabia that is supposed to have given us everything from astronomy to the Zero and algebra…didn’t.
-Yes it did you ignorant moron.
16. That not all religions are about peace, love and brotherhood—specifically, that the word Islam does not derive from the Arabic word peace but from the term for “Give up?”
-salam=peace , ISTISLAM=surrender . the idea is you get peace if you surrender your life to god’s teachings!
17. That the term Jihad historically has never meant an inner struggle for spiritual perfection but killing the enemies of Islam before they can hurt you.
-FALSE.
18. That almost no one in the Middle East believes that the future of the Middle East resides with “moderate” Muslims.
-FALSE, There is no moderate muslims or extremist muslims or light muslims.
19. That atheism, secular humanism, and agnosticism are essential ingredients of the pluralist culture of modern Europe and America.
-TRUE.
20. That when secularism and humanism fail, democracy fails.
-TRUE.
21. That religious tolerance is not possible in the Middle East.
-FALSE.
22. That unless the phrase ‘freedom and democracy’ includes the construct ‘secular’ neither term is meaningful.
-TRUE.
23. That prior to the war on Iraq, the American president did not know that Iraq was biblical Mesopotamia, Eden.
-TRUE.
24. That the American President thinks the distinction between Shi’a and Sunni is similar the distinction between Methodist and Presbyterian.
-TRUE.
25. That the new ‘democratic’ regime in Iraq – Iraqi Shi’a – and Not Syria or Iran, were the staunchest supporters of Hezbollah prior to the invasion of Iraq.
-TRUE.
26. That this means that the people we are calling the bulwark of freedom and democracy in Iraq are the terrorists of southern Lebanon.
-TRUE.
R. Joseph Hoffmann is currently senior fellow and Chair of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, at the Center for Inquiry, Amherst, New York. From 2000 until the break out of the war against Iraq, he was Professor of Civilization Studies at the American University Of Beirut.
– where he must have been affected by some extreme maronites that hate muslims as residual of the civil war of lebanon which made them very allergic to all history of the area and muslims historic contributions and in denial of any thing postive concering there arabic identity and culture only to be matched by the uttmosy ignorence of this author lack of historical knowledge … he could only teach in an AMERICAN univeristy indeed.!!
Is it relevant whether Islam condones violence or not? Christianity as I have understood it does not. Yet from the crusades to the modern Iraq conflict to merely getting the strap in a Catholic bording schools christians use violence not in spite of but because of religion.
I think suicide bombing is morally wrong. So what? I am a modern, rational person; materialist in the strict sense of the word: science, evidence, skepticism etc. Fundamentalists of whatever brand regard people like me as evil. They don’t care that I think suicide bombers are doing the wrong thing, or that the Iraq war is a resource scramble disguised in various kinds of righteous language.
An orthodox Jew would disregard my concerns regarding Israeli policy. God gave the Jews Israel. They can do what they like to ‘defend’ it.
A militant Muslim doesn’t care for the notion that perhaps the Jewish people (as well as other displaced peoples) might have a right to a homeland. Again God gave them this land it’s Muslim land. So if they want to nuke the place that’s righteous and holy.
As for the fundamentalist Christians? Well I’ve stopped watching the overhairsprayed ‘preachers’ having their fulfilment of prophecy discussions of a Sunday morning. Do they care that I think World War 3 would be bad. No they’re all going up in the rapture.
These people who have all been bitter enemies over the past thousand years are now truly united. They want ignorance to prevail over knowledge. They want sceptical inquiry replaced once more by submission to authority derived from from The One Good Book (take your pick).
And they want to blow everything up.
Still they are convinced of their moral correctness in a way secular humanists can never be. They have God on their side.
“25. That the new ‘democratic’ regime in Iraq – Iraqi Shi’a – and Not Syria or Iran, were the staunchest supporters of Hezbollah prior to the invasion of Iraq.”
The ‘new’ regime were staunch supporters, BEFORE the invasion? Wasn’t the old regime still in place then? Don’t you really mean that the Iraqi Shi’a were supporters of Hezbollah while they were living under the Sunni-dominated regime of Saddam?
Also, “Christianity began as a violent first century messianic sect.” How violent could they have been, as a tiny minority with no political, legal or military power? Are you thinking of some example that I can’t recall?
John Coffin is right to chatise me for an impacted sentence with a pretentious preposition like “prior to” when before would do: but the general sense is that while the Bush administration touts the government in Iraq as a lesson in freedom and democracy he ignores the cousinry between Hebollah and the Iraqi Shi’a who have made common cause for generations, even if not especially before coming to “power” through US brokered elections. It is the kind of hypocrisy which is only exceeded in magnitude by the inability of most Americans to shape a picture of the regional mess.
I am glad the reference to violent Xty caught someone’s eye besides the belief-ful Muslim named Lebanese. It is pretty respectable these days to see Christian pacifism as a ploy designed to curry favor with worried Romans and to escape the predations of synagogue possees such as Paul endured.
Being a “minority” was no guarantee of peaceful intentions: The Sicarii were violent, the Zealots less so (perhaps), and the fomenters of Bar Kochba’s rebellion in the century after the time of Jesus is proof that Palestine was awash with messianic movements who ignored the political odds against their cause. I just happen to like the thesis that Chrsitianity began with a mesage about a kingdom that WAS of this world.
What do you do when you have an administration which has over-stepped the view of America and our role in the world (as a player), and focused directly to ideologies, namely: Christianity and a theistic brand of free-market capitalism. If it weren’t so serious it would almost be lampoonish (even more so demonstrated recently at the G8 with the maverick sidebar comments). Where has the concept of thinking first and applying ideological filters later gone? If one does not recognize another and their place, but instead just orders them around, the other will instinctively dig in heals and resist… and others will resist. Charging in on a M-1 tank and demanding that the chef be fired, doesn’t seem to bode too well. You can not kill a fly by swinging a sledge hammer.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. — Albert Einstein
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. — F. Scott Fitzgerald
When those in power possess the view that things are right and things will be our way; we loose track of perspective… Orwellian..? Are we feeble minded simpletons incapable of making such important decisions? It is not that we are inept, but that we lack the level of interest to get or stay involved. That is what the politicians prey on, hope for, and love…our apathy/complacency (pick your poison). Another great thing that is happening is the polarization or the populace. We are now the Hatfields and McCoys. Pro this, Anti that. The proverbial line in the sand has been etched, scraped, sand blasted, welded, molded, and branded. Just for speaking out in disagreement… out come the torches and pitchforks. The greatest thing a warmonger can use to insight his populace is fear with a half cup of anger, and a pinch of pride. You can also add a dash of insecurity and bake at 350 degrees for thirty minutes.
About the time our original 13 states adopted their new Constitution, in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: (about 300 B.C.)
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”
The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
Spinning the truth, as you see it, is easy enough. If someone is brave enough to speak out, all of a sudden their love for country and patriotism comes into question. They become this nialistic, bleeding heart, secularist who cares nothing for the protection of our borders (that is another story), for life, for God, or for morals/values. How does one measure their level of ‘patriotism’, or just ‘patriotism’ itself for that matter?
To be a good patriot are you loyal to your president, your church, your country? Does it have to entail blind support, obedience?? If that is the case, exactly at what age do you begin teaching the goose step. If your leader drinks the koolaid (Jonestown), then do you have to drink the koolaid and agree with them too?
Is your patriotism symbolized by the number of flags on your truck, or the number of magnets on your SUV? Let’s back up for just a second. What does patriotism mean for that matter??? – expression of feelings/love for one’s country. How must one express this ‘love’ to be labeled ‘patriotic’? Can love for one’s country be expressed in disagreement with policies and procedures of leadership? The more flags you fly from your SUV the more patriotic you are? The true question is not the love we have for America, but the bedlam expression of it.
Where exactly does America’s Social Contract stand? US Constitution – the governing document and the driving force behind the social contracts [Federal and State(s)]. To ensure the power of a strong government, while still honoring the strength of each individual state, all the while supporting the liberties of each individual citizen. Also developing checks to keep any one branch from usurping power from the others. It has worked well as the pendulum goes, but now it seems more motivated my nanny-nanny name calling to polarize or isolate individuals and groups. We have become so open to interests groups that we have lost our way, which of course begs the question. How do we separate the pepper from the fly sh*t?
The biggest problem with the issue of patriotism is that it is thrown around by some to elevate the status of others “Our son/daughter donates blood/recycles/only buys American…they are so patriotic!”, or it is used as a propaganda tool by others to elevate their own status and agenda at the expense of unsuspecting pawns “If you question the ‘Patriot Act’ you are not patriotic!” It is also an emotional issue; one which can easily insight a very strong and very real sense of nationalism. And when someone tries to question America’s nationalism or individual Americans’ nationalism, it provokes a bitter and ugly reprisal. Remember issues like religion, nationalism, and family incite emotion, and emotion is the enemy of rational thought! With any administration, and especially so with the current one, we should all pay a little more attention to the man behind the curtain! This is not a partisan issue. Kevin Phillips (a historically supportive republican) stated in a paper called The Unholy Alliance (Time magazine March 27, 2006 Vol. 167 No. 13) some major concerns with to way special interest groups are unilaterally forcing their ideologies through congress and getting their dogmas forced onto an apathetic populace. Specifically being those of ‘petroleum, preachers, and debt.’
The spin doctors are adjusting the paradigm to fit their needs and keep the lines polarized. Social engineering at its best. If the issues are heated and divisive like, oh I don’t know, gay marriage, flag burning, illegal emigration, stem cells, etc, then people will not focus on the quality of work being done, or not being done to the standards that should be expected by the constituency. Politicians love the red herrings and the short sightedness of the American people. Throw them a bone every now and then, and call it something cool like…The Patriot Act, the Clean Air Act, etc. they will nod, smile, and get back to their SUVs, iPods, computers, flat screens, etc. I truly do not want this to sound like sour grapes, but alas it will sound like that to those who want to place it in that produce section. How then can we move forward in this quagmire? Iraq has become a Jervis Spiral, now moving backwards and negatively for America and Americans? Is there a unifying factor to draw us together to become the bellwether in the world again? The answer, I fear, is not obvious…
Your comments or statements written in the form that they are, are offensive and rude to all who have any religious leanings whatsoever. Each and every comment appears to be designed to belittle people who have spent much of their lives pursuing a creed (regardless of which religion they believe in!) They are stereotypical, illinformed and indicative of someone who clearly has spent too much time listening to propaganda (probably your own)and too little listening to others’ needs and beliefs. You are clearly someone who has little spirituality and even less belief in the essential humanity of other human beings – it makes me wonder how much self worth you have to show so little in others.
R J Hoffman may “just happen to like the thesis that Chrsitianity began with a mesage about a kingdom that WAS of this world” but having claimed that early Christians were violent it is necessary to provide some evidence.
Thanks for the first clarification. I suspected a typo, or a sentence devouring its own tail.
On no. 4 though, the Zealots, Sicarii and Bar Kochba were not Xians. Their religious motives had direct linkage to Judean politics–attempts to reastiblish an independant state, struggle for authority with other sects etc.
Certainly there is enough talk of Kingdoms Coming, swords, fathers against sons et sec. to counter any claim to inherent pacifism in early Xianity.
But, whether or not the ‘rendering unto caeser’ was a time-buying ploy or a premature endorsement of church-state separation, 1st century Xians were not in a position to be much of a threat to anyone.
Do you have any examples of Xian violence before Constantine put the Xians in a position use violence freely?
In all the volumes of information that God passed on to his followers about how the world was created etc. why didn’t he mention that the earth was round? He goes into great detail about all kinds of other things.Must have slipped his mind.
This little trifle evoked way too much attention for what it was worth; after all, as one keen observer noticed, there is no claim that any of these statements are true, merely that CNN would never tell you these things.
Nevertheless:
(1) Were the early Christians “violent?” It depends how much you want to push the “dissimilarity principle.” The gospel writers seem at pains to display Jesus as a pacifist in bloody times, but in ways that suggest the opposite may have been true: hating father and mother, beating swords into ploughsares, or ploughshares into swords (depending on which OT prophet Jesus is quoting, Joel, Isaiah, or Micah), the violent taking the kingdom by storm, the presence of at least a zealot, Simon, and an assassin, Judas, among his entourage, and perhaps most telling of all, the sole rational charge laid against him at his trial: that he is fomenting rebellion (tax?) and “stirring up the people” (to take up arms against the Romans), not to mention insulting harangues against the pharisees and the doctors of the law, and the traditions of the elders–esp in Matt 5-8. Oh, and the “cleansing” of the temple. Fast forward to the period after the death of Jesus and the traces of violence have been subsumed or greatly reduced by a message of forgiveness which is-interestingly–formulated after the decisive defeat of the Jews in the wars against Rome and the need for the Christians to carve out a different and unbloody identity. I don’t know whether Jesus’ violence was directed against Rome or directed against the Jewish establishment; it’s not impossible that it was directed against both, in the same way Al Qaeda (no I do not wish to press that analogy) is violent against backsliding Arab Muslims and the non-Muslim West, equally. I don’t think the gospels play it straight, however, when it comes to the disposition of the earliest Jesus followers in Palestine.
(2) Was Jesus a Christian? Of course not. Even Voltaire said as much.
(3) But Muhammad, not a Muslim? The standard claim is that while Jesus lived before history was “practiced” (not true, obviously), Muhammad comes onto the world stage in the full glare of history (not true, even by Arab standards: the first “scientific” historian in the Islamic tradition was the fifteenth century writer Ibn Khaldun, who was pretty good at what he did. The earliest accounts we have of M.date to 750 C.E. with Ibn Ishaq, more than one hundred years after Muhammad’s death. Although this is the first and most basic source for information about the life of Muhammad for all Muslims, it does not present a very flattering portrait of him.
We don’t have any original copies of Ibn Ishaq’s work – we only have a later recension by Ibn Hisham. This means that our earliest sources appear two hundred years after Muhammad died. Not even the evidence we have from the Sufyandi period, 661-684, makes any mention of Muhammad. The history of the Quran outside the most credulous sources is even more tortured. There is a REAL question about the historical Muhammad, therefore, and despite how the question is answered, it is worth making note of it. (Will you get that from CNN? Of course not.)
As to the use of the word, “delusional” it is simply a word I use to describe people who claim to hear the voice of God. If you speak to God, I would describe you that way. If I say that ia speak to God, you have my permission to describe me that way.
(4) As to my lack of spirituality: I have no wish to offend people who believe extraordinary things. I do have an interest in keeping extraordinary things separate from the realm of fact, and even from informed historical speculation (which falls short of fact, but unlike religious faith is falsifiable in principle).
I highly recommend W K Clifford’s 1879 essay, The Ethics of Belief, as an endless source of instruction to anyone who thinks belief is always harmless–and that belief is immune from challenge and religion from criticism.
Maybe I’ll think of some other things CNN won’t tell you for a future post!
Another comment about #15. This statement is a bit too smart-assy to be worthwhile, and it’s also deceptive. The fact remains that math, including the elements of algebra, was studied in the Arab world before the year 1000, long before it was being used in Europe. “Algebra” and “algorithm” are words with Arab etymology. Was zero an Arab creation? It probably had multiple origins dating long before the height of Arab culture, but it’s also true that early medeival European mathematics did not use zero until they got the concept from the Arabs, who probably got it from the Hindus.
In any case, what’s indisputable is that the following symbols: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are commonly known as “Hindu-Arabic” numerals (or more colloquially merely as “Arabic” numerals) for a good reason. They are also the most widely used linguistic symbols in the world.
Have you checked current Arabic numerology, and do you have any notion that what we call “Arabic” numerals are not in use today? And do you know Arabic?
It is true that ‘algorithm’ can be traced to 9th century Persia, but the claims made by “Muslims” need to be located geographically: most do not relate to the Arab world but to Persia. Most can be traced to pre-Islamic scholarship, not Islamic. And as with the equivalent case in the Christian Empire, Islam, ultimately did not support but repressed mathematical and scientific study. To put it bluntly, it is as though Xty can take credit for Greek and Latin learning because it descends from it, when in fact it ruined it. But even in that process, as was the case with the Arab mathematicians, there were exceptions. (But, alas, not the rule.)
Asked to back up his various statements, R J Hoffman now writes “there is no claim that any of these statements are true, merely that CNN would never tell you these things”.
Where I come from there is a problem with this language. CNN only “tells” things it thinks it knows to be true. Statements of opinion, such as who is the best actor in the world, are another matter and even when such opinions are uttered in CNN programs they are not CNN’s opinion.
On the question I am interested in, I have to point to two strange arguments.
First is the notion that the fact that one of Jesus’ disciples was an assassin somehow backs up the idea that Jesus’ followers were violent. Even ignoring the obvious point that a group’s containing a person with a particular characteristic does not make that characteristic apply to the group (the fallacy of composition, anyone?), since Judas killed only one person and that person was Jesus himself and not one of Jesus’ followers tried to take revenge, I can only think that Mr Hoffman is being facetious.
Second is the credence given to the charges laid against Jesus at his trial, that he was fomenting rebellion. The same charges were laid against Gandhi by the British so presumably this means he too must be deemed to have been violent.
No, I do not “now” say: that is the premise of the article. CNN does not only “tell” things it knows to be true. If it knew, which it cannot, there is no God they would not tell you because its viewing constituency would not believe it. If it is demonstrably true that Jesus was delusional because he talked to a God who is not there, it would not tell you this either You seem to have missed the CNN Christmas and Easter pseudo-news faith fests, mirrored by equally appalling productions by Discovery, History and Nat’l Geographic–though I admit standards of truth in those organizations may be different. (I also,as a matter of syntax, have trouble with your sentence “CNN only tells things it thinks it knows to be true,” by which I assume you mean it does not think it lies to us.)
Second: I admire expertise in logic, but your assumption is flawed: We know as a matter of “textual” curiosity, not fact that Simon was a zealot and that Judas’s surname implies he belonged to a radical “terrorist” group. We cannot assume that the others were not equally disposed because we lack their surnames. (But, e.g., James is known as “Boargenes” or the son of thunder) “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” trumps your invocation of the fallacy of composition, but nice try.
And (your second) Jesus and Ghandi? False analogy, anyone? One would have to believe a priori, as a matter of credulity (faith in the innocence of Jesus, in this case) to assert that there was no merit in the charges against him–which is precisely what the writers of the story wish the reader to think, as they divert attention from Roman responsibility in order to blame the Jews for (at least) the conspiracy leadng to execution. If there is a useful analogy which might help to context the gospel story, look at contemporary Palestine under Jewish “occupation” and consider 1st century Judaea/Palestine under Roman occupation. Consider that Pilate preferred to be anywhere but in Jerusalem with its roiling sects. A sweet little pacifist sect preaching love of neighbor and paying taxes to caesar with a smile just doesn’t fit the historical picture. Something CNN won’t tell you.
R J Hoffman could have avoided much confusion if he had simply titled his piece “Some things you will not hear on CNN” rather than “Some things CNN will not tell you”. And more confusion could have been avoided if he had refrained from defending some things in his list, thereby giving the impression that these were his personal beliefs. All he had to do to respond to the various replies to his article was to write about CNN’s restriction on the dissemination of ideas.
On the question of the alleged violent propensities of Jesus’ disciples, I should remind him that the original statement was that they were indeed violent and that, treating this as a claim of fact, I was looking for supporting evidence . Which he then apparently supplied by reference to assassins and zealots. “We cannot assume that the others were not equally disposed because we lack their surnames” he rejoins. But it is up to Mr Hoffman to provide some positive evidence to support his positive claim, not shrug this requirement off with an “ah well we lack the evidence to decide either way”. The necessity to avoid the fallacy of composition remains. To demonstrate that the disciples were violent as followers of Jesus requires more than pointing to violent individuals. Judas’ violence was directed against Jesus and therefore is irrelevant to this debate. And the statement about Simon’s zealotry is strange logic: “Zealots were violent. Therefore Simon the Zealot was violent. He was a disciple of Jesus. Therefore the disciples were violent”. But if he was violent it was as a Zealot, not as a disciple of Jesus. That’s all the evidence will support.
What he wrote about my analogy between the trials and tribulations of Jesus and Gandhi has the same flaw. By giving credence to the charges laid against Jesus at his trial, he takes on the burden of showing them to be true. “One would have to believe a priori, as a matter of credulity (faith in the innocence of Jesus, in this case) to assert that there was no merit in the charges against him” is precisely backwards. One would have to believe a priori, as a matter of credulity (faith in the guilt of Jesus, in this case) to assert that there WAS merit in the charges against him.
If Mr Hoffman wishes to continue this debate then let him indicate which of the items from his list he stands over, to avoid further misunderstandings.
I did not say we lacked evidence to decide “either way” (let alone “ah, well…”); I said, more broadly, that the defensive strategies of the gospel writers have submerged beneath a clear apologetic intent the original character of the group. I said we could not know the nature of the violence–whether it was directed against Jews, Romans, or both. It is more than “interesting” that Simon is known as a zealot and Judas as an assassin and James as a son of thunder; it shows that as a matter of historical memory their reputations as extemists could not be suppressed. If we had seven more charactonymic surnames–Philip the Barbarian, Andrew the Bloody, etc.–would that do the trick? Of course not. Someone would then say, but Jesus was an alright guy: they were all reformed assassins. More pointedly, Mr Power says nothing about the anomaly of such a group surviving in the supercharged environemt of Roman Palestine. Messianic movements were normally violent–as the stories of Theudas, Bar Kochba, and other messianic pretenders serve to prove.
As to the charges against Jesus: the gospels are written by people who believed (not as a matter of fact but as a matter of faith) that the charges were false and that Jesus was innocent. The pagan opponents of Jesus thought he had a fair trial and capitalize on the fact that he was tried as an insurgent aginst Roman rule. It seems to me that some credence ought to be given to the charges that were proven rather than the gospel writers’ post hoc attempt to provide a defnese of the risen Lord. (Fortunately, the statute of limitations has run out on Jesus.)
As to “taking on the burden” of showing something to be true, it seems to me that courts are precisely in the business of evaluating evidence. The records of Gandhi’s trial, or of Gandhi’s life, in the C XX. cannot be compared to the account of an obscure Galilean villager whose story is not told as an historical record but as a defense, shot through with theological purpose. Belief in Gandhi’s pacifism is defensible because public opinion (and cameras) were trained on him. Had he avoided the glare of public attention, were the only records of his life those of his defenders or detractors–what then? My suggestion that this is false analogy could only be overcome by assuming an equivalence of accounts that are very obviously non-analogous.
You do make one point, however, that strikes me as plainly wrong: surely you cannot know whether Simon, known as a zealot acquired his reputation before or after joining the band of disciples–or whether Judas was known as a dagger-man because of previous habits, or ones he developed within the community; or do you suggest he came to be known as Iscariot only because he betrayed Jesus.
I do not see any compelling evidence for the very existence of Jesus. If we were to accept the Gospels as true then we would have no reason to reject Islam or Hinduism or whatever ; and even accepting Islam leads to a logical contradiction with accepting Christianity.
But this is a very different thing to claiming that Jesus did not exist, or to state that the charges laid against him at his trial, if it happened, were correct. The evidence is lacking to make any reasonable judgement. We cannot say he was guilty ; nor can we say he was innocent.
We have excellent standards of logic and evidence that allow us to evaluate truth claims. To accept Christianity would require us to forget these standards – but so owould accepting the truth of some of the items in the list.
I am sorry for misleading readers into thinking I was defending the notion that Jesus’ disciples were pacific. I have no way of telling if they were. Rather I was attacking the notion that they were violent. Not because we know they were not violent but merely because we lack the necessary evidence to support this claim. I have read that real experts think Pilate was a ruthless man sent to run a turbulent province and that therefore he would have had Jesus executed without ceremony just to keep the peace. Not necessarily because he thought Jesus was a trouble maker but rather because Jesus was upsetting the Jewish religious authorities who themselves could foment unrest. So that, to the real Pilate, the question of Jesus’ innocence or guilt would not have arisen: the only issue to matter would have been that of public order. This analysis, made in the absence of evidence about Jesus’ trial, is based on a very rough “balance of probabilities” . The picture of Pilate, based on some real evidence however scanty, does seem to go against the notion of accepting the outcome of Jesus’ trial.
(By real experts I mean scholars of the Roman Empire whose work is not dedicated to supporting the Gospels).
Bear in mind that Freud was addicted to cocaine for many years, especially
when he was raising his children & anti
semitism must have been a hideous burden to a young father.He was quite
an unusually robust man, & even found time to be a deceitful husband.He is definitely a pioneer of studies of the mind, & to say he was a pseudo scientist is inaccurate & too harsh.
I’m in agreement with Roger. It would be wise and welcome if as many of the mentioned points as possible could link to some online source that confirms their claims. (Like the origin of the number zero for instance). These are popular beliefs you’re going against after all, and all blanket staments with a mini-C.V. can fascillitate is an argument from authority.
From the evidence provided by his letters in the 1880s and 1890s it seems that Freud used cocaine intermittently for migraines, nasal problems and depression. However, there is no evidence that he was addicted to it.
There is no evidence that anti-semitism played a significant role in Freud’s life experience in this period of his life.
The evidence that Freud was a deceitful husband (presumably relating to his sister-in-law Minna) is certainly worthy of consideration, but the contention remains unproven.
As far as his being a pioneer of the mind is concerned, in the late 1800s he was one of many psychologists and psychiatrists who were interested in the study of mental processes – e.g., hypnosis, suggestion, mental and emotional problems, etc.
Al-Guardian & the Brotherhood …..
The Grauniad is taking the pllace occupird by the Daily Mail and the Telegraph during the 1930’s.
Though I suspect it is mostly due to wishful thinking, or even absence of thinking.
They do not want to believe that a group can really be as nasty as the islamists are, unless, of course they were “white” racists.
If we just talk nicely and reasonably to that nice Mr Hitler (oops) Ahmenidjad and his other islamic friends, I’m sure we can come to an accommodation.
Well, as David Thompson points out, you can’t.
Even the “moderate” islamists still believe the koran is the literal, transcribed word of “god” – even if they do want to dump the Hadiths.
And the koran, states, explicitly, that all other beliefs are inferior to “submission” (and what a give-away that name is!) and that it is the duty of muslims to convert the whole world to the dar-al-islam, and that women are inferior, and ……
The reason they don’t want to look is quiter simple – they would like to believe, like those in the 1930’s that peace at any price is better than war.
The odds are even higher now, because we are talking about a potential nuclear war.
Nonetheless, peace at any price means submission to the religion of submission, and the death of all enlightenment values.
The islamists are nazis – their programme is, tyo all intents an purposes the same as that of the NSDAP, it is just that their desired lebensraum is covering a different large slice of the planet.
How long before our governments realise that we need an increase in defence spending? ANd a 1580’s-style clampdown on the most extreme mullahs?
Because islam is NOT going to go the way of post-1800 christianity without a fight, unfortunately.
Look forward to round two of World War two folks.
It is going to be VERY unpleasant.
About David Thompson’s virulent attempt to destroy Karen Armstrong’s views of a “peaceful” traditional Islam:
You seem to put Islam’s bloody conquests on the hands of the founders of this religion, but fail to demonstrate how Mohammed could be the instigator of the hate and intolerance you desperately seem to want to find in it. As if the contemporary disease of such an old and important religion lied at its “roots of evil”. It seems that you’re trying to deal with the muslim problem with an awfully short cut to simplicity.
Using the dark passages of the history of Islam as proof, you pretend to believe that the interpretation of a teaching is the same as the teaching itself. By following your logic, I could conclude from Christianity’s countless massacres that Jesus was a blood-thirsty madman.
But I grant you that Karen Armstrong should be careful with her statements that seem to leave no room for doubt. Hence your article.
One last thing: focusing on the positive side of things like Armstrong does with Islam – to appease the tensions, maybe – has hardly anything to do with dumb politically-correctness. I’d rather be on this side than on the cynical side.
Pierre Lemarchand,
Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, you seem to have rather breathlessly misread my article and assigned to me views I didn’t actually express and don’t, in fact, hold. (I don’t recall ever using the phrase “roots of evil”, or anything to that effect.) It’s also difficult to adequately address the points you raise, since those points are somewhat confused and tendentious.
At no point have I argued (“virulently” or otherwise) that a “peaceful traditional Islam” is an untenable view. Clearly, the majority of a billion or so believers are not busying themselves with xenophobic aggression or fantasies of conquest. Doubtless many believers will be appalled by the actions of those who do. Nor does a recognition of the problems outlined in the piece imply any particular disposition towards any arbitrary adherent of Islam, in whatever form, or any notional community thereof. The issue, as I see it, is whether the actions of xenophobes and jihadists can be challenged in strictly theological terms, with reference to Mohammed’s teachings as outlined in the Qur’an and Sunnah.
You said: “Using the dark passages of the history of Islam as proof, you pretend to believe that the interpretation of a teaching is the same as the teaching itself. By following your logic, I could conclude from Christianity’s countless massacres that Jesus was a blood-thirsty madman.”
I don’t believe I suggested that interpretation and scripture were synonymous, and your analogy with Jesus is false. Whatever the past and present sins of Christianity (and there are many), to the best of my knowledge those horrors were not widely sanctioned by the verbatim utterances and personal examples of Christianity’s purported messiah. The difficulty faced by contemporary Muslims is that jihadists can cite verbatim the deeds and purported ‘revelations’ of Mohammed himself as the ultimate validation. This is a uniquely problematic issue, at least theologically. But, again, thanks for misrepresenting my argument and telling me what I “pretend to believe”.
You said: “Focusing on the positive side of things like Armstrong does with Islam – to appease the tensions, maybe – has hardly anything to do with dumb politically correctness. I’d rather be on this side than on the cynical side.”
I’m not entirely sure what Armstrong’s motives are, or whether political correctness is indeed the determining factor. As I’ve pointed out in subsequent comments (below), a reluctance to inadvertently foster animosity is one possible motive among many. However, regardless of one’s well-meaning intentions, it seems unwise to combine gross historical distortion with overtly political polemic, as Armstrong has done repeatedly. Whatever one’s political leanings or amiable intent, attempting to rewrite history in this way casts doubt on a person’s motives and credibility. If one has to choose a side, as you put it, I’d be inclined to side with evidence and veracity rather than hagiography and misrepresentation. It’s difficult to see how any long-term resolution and mutual accommodation can credibly be based on revisionism, dishonesty and a denial of the problem.
I suggest you read the piece again, more carefully, and base any criticism on the particulars of what I’ve actually written, rather than on what I haven’t.
I am a bit surprised that your welcome condemnation of Islamic and Christian fundamentalism does not appear to extend to the idea that one group of people, even if their remote ancestors originated there, is entitled to the land of others simply because “God” said so. I was present a few months ago at an astonishing meeting where an alliance of Israeli supporters and Christian fundamentalists attempted to prevent a couple of people talking about their attempts to build bridges across the Israeli/Palestinian divide. One of the Christians said quite openly that Palestine did not belong to the Palestinaians because God had promised it to the Jews. I think we need to condemn such fundamentalism wherever it comes from.
RE: Al-Guardian
David Thompson makes some valid points. Attempts to ‘understand’ can sail pretty close to the wind of ‘apologia: I too have noticed the Guardian’s op-eds on Islam tend to be less than detached.
Yes, it’s true that jihadism is rooted in the words of the Qu’ran. But the worst of Christian fundamentalism (killing of doctors who perform abortions, denial of contraception to women, etc.) is also rooted in the words of the Bible.
The real issue is literalism and the fundmentalist medievalism it promotes.
One of my closest friends was raised Muslim abroad while I was raised Roman Catholic. Neither of us subscribe to the rituals of either religion – we are both female. But we both share a virtually identical value system, substantially derived from the basic tenets of both religions.
Perhaps Islamists need reminding that Mohamed was only a prophet, not a demi-god. But then, that wouldn’t suit the patriarchal social system that seeks to validate itself by reference to The Book: both of them.
To Daragh:
So… the desert breeds ‘harsh men with harsh ways?’
So does your average sink estate/slum/ghetto.
Understanding just why an ‘environment’ might contribute to a mind-set doesn’t validate abuse of the vulnerable. If so, violent crime would be not just explicable, but justifiable.
thank you for the brilliant article pointing out karen armstrong’s revisionist history. some of her books have seriously made me consider throwing a little book burning soiree.
Ovidu Stoica:
Here’s a thought. How about a FEMALE prophet re-interpreting the Qu’ran in the interests of justice, truth and mercy for all? Someone from the Arab world who could reach the women and put some kind of damper on the creation of fresh generations of ‘sahids’ (not sure of the spelling – means ‘martyrs.’)
Because the root of Islamofascism is patriarchal: it venerates males and despises females, glorifying the worst of male ‘values’ – war, bloodshed and violence.
Despite the acculturation of more than a few Arab mothers to the idea of sacrificing sons to Allah, I’m pretty sure that if Arab men had to give birth, they wouldn’t be so keen on seeing the fruits of their ‘labour’ snuffed out by suicide bombs.
Where is the feminist prophet? Your time has come….
I’ve been interested in Psychoanalysis and Freud since the end of my first year of University. Lately I’ve seen and read some critiques of Freud and Psychoanalysis in general, I no longer know what to believe… I guess those who actually practice know it better, but… are they really to be trusted?
I wonder what is going to happen with Psychoanalysis in the future. What is going to happen to the professionals, how many of them will be left without a job… Is it all based on nothing but belief, autosuggestion, naivete?
Can Freudian psychoanalysis actually do something for people? If so, the high costs of the analysis can’t be afforded by the average man. Isn’t it a luxury for the rich and bored?
I really don’t know any more… But I still enjoy reading Freud now and then.
Psychoanalytic Theory is still part of the modern literary theory cannon. It gives one insight into literary characters…
I had a rather hard time reading Jacques Derrida’s “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” (actually only some parts of it). I know him as one of the key figures of Deconstruction. I didn’t study his philosophy in deep detail, he was only mentioned in my Contemporary Literary Theory course as a Deconstructionist. I found his ideas interesting, he sounded a lot like an Existentialist in some respects.
“The Rise of the Info-Novel”
This article offers a demystifying view on the Postmodern novel. Maybe the Postmodern trend should cease – readers are a bit fed up with it, it seems.
“Relatively Speaking”
If ‘God is dead,’ then man is condemned to be free (Sartre – “Les Mouches”), that is to assume responsibility for his deeds and choices. Sometimes it’s by far more difficult to find your own truth, you no longer know what’s right and what’s wrong when you don’t have a standard (a God in the sense of values, norms, rules…).
I can’t believe how stupid this article is! What an utter piece of rubbish!
Nature determines not only the evolution but also the functioning of the human body. If humans ignore some simple demands of nature, they die of starvation and asphyxia. Sexuality belongs to the realm of strict laws of genetics, physiology and behavior. Errors can be deadly in this sphere. Non-reproductive sexual activity can be justified from the biological point of view. The human menstrual cycle hides the ovulation to prolong sexual relations. That is why humans are the most sexual creatures. Women can be attractive for a long period of time, not only during ovulation. Human sexuality binds the partners to provide the care for the helpless baby and its mother. The various kinds of sexual activities are of great biological importance and pleasure is a powerful neurobiological motive for prolonged relations of female and male for the welfare of their offspring. Humans know how to get pleasure without any biologically useful activity. They use alcohol, drugs and sex to experience free euphoria. Homosexual activities should be considered as a tool for getting pleasure and swindling nature out of pleasure. Heterosexuality and non-reproductive heterosexual activities take priority over homosexuality in binding the partners into a family and providing parental care for children. Biologically, homosexuality is not a sin but just a mistake…
This is in response to Paul Power’s post of 13/06/06.
I do not claim that this physical world is a mirage ‘only’ on the basis of leptoquark.
That is simply one example. And Mr. Power vindicates me himself by saying -………. “…the existence of such particles is not considered as definitive” …and … “..invoking the properties of particles which seem not to exist”. Thats exactly I have been saying ! The scientists know that that leptoquark is there, but they are not able to make a definite statement that it exists or not, as its existence is like non-existence !
Now, that’s similar to what the Vedic understanding has been saying. But, I do not want to use just the lepto-quark stuff to make my point. There are many other modern scientific fact ( 1. Bell’s theorem, 2. new findings which question ‘objectivity’ of a scientific experiment and prove that the object and subject are not independent at several fine-level experiments. ….etc) which, seen together, indicate that there is much beyond ‘physical matter’. There is the substratum of energy beneath matter….and more…
After this point I never use any modern scientific postulate to make my point, as the rest falls under the realms of consciousness. Now, her, the major difference between the modern concept/technology of ‘science’ and the Vedic concepts crop up. Modern science has the approach of objective study. The subject and the object are different. But when we try to study consciousness this is an attempt to study that which is studying !! An endeavor to understand that which understands !! …………………………….
Now, lets keep aside the modern science. The Vedic science has found that its consciousness which is the basic substratum of creation. It’s a large and elaborate science which delves deep into the consciousness study. There have been innumerable scientists in India, since eternity, who have done wonderful studies. But all this is not ‘scientific’ as per modern science because it has not made such inroads into consciousness studies. I hope it will.
Now Vedic technology for science has been thru consciousness. An individual uses his own consciousness to tap its finer layers which are inter connected with the rest of the creation. Loosely speaking, its called awakening of one’s consciousness. Or, more simply – Yoga. Anyone who wants to know about this technology he can delve into the treatise by Patanjali (an ancient sage) on Yoga. There is step by step description of how this can be achieved. One’s growth takes place in phased manner on the path of awakening of consciousness.
However, after some advancing on this path, the individual can unravel all the mechanism and dynamism of the creation, including the physical world.
Thus, the fundamental difference btwn Modern and Vedic sciences is that one starts from matter and is trying to discover finer levels of existence, while the other (Vedic) comes from opposite direction (it taps the finer levels first and then studies how the finer has become gross & grosser) !! For a Vedic technologist consciousness gets condensed to form energy and energy gets condensed to form matter.
Now, to a person who cannot perceive consciousness himself, matter will be the ultimate reality. But for a person whose perceptive faculties can look beyond, matter will be an apparent reality. Increasing the range of the perceptive faculties is called awakening of consciousness. ………………….. A loose example- There will be no darkness in the night for a person who can see infra red himself. Day and night, thus, are a mirage. It depends upon the relative perception of people. And Yoga ( this yoga shud not be confused with mere the physical exercises which r available in the commercial market) is the technology by which an individual’s perceptive faculties can be extended. Upto infinite levels.
Now about India’s caste system. I agree cent percent with Paul Power that “ No self-respecting biologist would utter such nonsense.” Simply because, the biologists, at present, do not have the technology to understand it. If Paul wants to confine himself to modern science, I agree with him and he doesn’t need to read my mail any further. Amen. Anyone who wants to explore what the Vedic science has to say can read. Paul will call all this rubbish and he will be correct, by his approach.
The 4-fold caste system has evolved by the study of nature’s dynamics, using the afore-mentioned technology of consciousness. ( I think the modern science can have an understanding after some more advances.) I am unable to type all explanations as it will take a very long time, but I will write the basic things: the study involves: Soul ( the entire process of its entry into the womb is known), genetics, heredity, the karma-theory and the 3 gunas ( attributes) which are inherent in nature. They are ‘Satva”, ‘Rajas’ and “tamas”. For their meaning, pls use any search engine urself.
From where the mind and consciouness in an individual comes ? What is life ? What is death ? …….. I will not write about soul here as it will take lot of time. I will write how it comes into the body. ….. There are sperms in the body. How do they get life ???? Modern science doesn’t know. This is dynamics of consciousness.
Take the example of cloning. Dolly, the sheep, was the first one to be cloned. Clone is replica, right ? So, there was no difference between Dolly band her clone ? No, there was. Their temperaments were different !!! The temperament, the mind….. could not be cloned !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Modern science has done a remarkable thing by cloning the body. But, so far, consciousness is beyond them. And, when they will enter into the science of consciousness, they will find that all Vedic postulates are true.
Now, look at a radio. There are so many radio stations. But it catches that one with which we match the frequency. Similarly, every man’s consciouness, thought-level, emotional and mental moods have different frequencies. Now, that man will attract those souls to his sperms which match with his consciouness-frequency at that moment. Millions of sperms r there. Each carries a soul. After ejaculation they all will rush towards the ovum. The travel thru the vaginal canal and the acidic secretions make them burn with pain. That’s wher the first struggle of life begins. The struggle to get a body !!
Now, it completely depends upon the woman’s ( ovum’s) consciousness-frequency at that moment…. that which particular sperm will she attract for conception !! Modern science calls it’s a chance. But Vedic science says there is nothing in the creation which is ‘by chance’. Its all science. Waiting to be discovered by the moderns.
The frequency where man and woman’s ( sperm and ovum’s ) consciousness will match—— that particular sperm (soul) will conceive.
That’s why husband and wife’s thought type is said to be one of the major determining factors of the life of the child in all aspects. For example, if its rape, that soul may get attracted which has criminal-nature. The Vedic science of eugenics starts here. With compatible matching during marriage. I will not go in detail here.
( I am getting tired of typing….. I will post the rest some other time… Then we will discuss how the castes are inherent in nature, in biology…… Pls bear with me till then. …)
Some glimpses of what will come:
“ The existence of DNA alone is not sufficient to explain how the forms of living things are manifested. For the most part, the genes on the DNA strand just code for the production of various proteins. How these proteins are combined in the complex forms of organisms is not specified by the DNA. The concept of a mental seed containing the developmental plan for bodies, including the human body, thus complements the existence of DNA.”
…………………….. Yashendra
An interesting thing about ‘Material world’.
The vedic scientists opine that the entire creation is due to the interplay of Purusha & Prakriti. Purusha= Supreme Being. Prakriti- His will.
This ‘WILL’ or Prakriti is referred to as MOTHER- force and the entire creation is called ” Matruk Jagat” by the Vedics. Matruk = from / of mother.
Now, Sanskrit “Matru” for Mother is related to ( being of the same Aryan group of languages)the Latin word ‘mater’ from which derives materia. Its ‘maeter’in Greek. From this sourece comes the Englsih term – ‘Matter’.
Thus, what the Vedics call ‘Motherial World'( Matruk jagat) came down to be known in English as “Material” world !!
I think the ancient Vedic science has been known all over the world.
To Yashendra:
“The scientists know that that leptoquark is there, but they are not able to make a definite statement that it exists or not, as its existence is like non-existence !”
If you are not going to make an honest effort to understand plain English then debate is impossible.
Scientists do not “know that that leptoquark is there”. They have a group of theories that requires the leptoquark to exist, but the theories also require it to have certain properties which necessitate that it would have shown itself in certain experiments already done. It has not appeared in these experiments so scientists think the theories are wrong and the leptoquark does not exist.
I am not going to even bother with so-called “Vedic science”. Anything that cannot distinguish between existence and non-existence can only end in producing N-rays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray)
Jesus said you will know them by their fruits. Only God has the right to judge the heart of a person. How does Islam claim this right?
Muhammed lived in the seventh century, not the first century.
Mr Lamb is certainly but only half right; Muhammad (preferred sp) lived in the 1st century of his own era and the seventh of the Christian era, as dated after the fourth century CE in the west alone. Jesus, good fortune coming from Christian control of the Calendar after the fourth century, lived in the 7th century bh (Before Hijra). of course when Jesus really lived, the dates were fixed according to the year of the reign of the emperor. (And interestingly, Jesus was born, we think, in 6BCE.) In Roman terms, the range would be a period of about 40 years (Augustus’s reign, made more specific by the reference to Pontius Pilate who was overlord in Judaea from 26-36 CE, who does not overlap with Augustus. It may be therefore that Jesus was born give or take a few years in 30 Aug. (the 30th year of Augustus’ reign). But maybe not. Thanks for the correction.
Just s afew thoughts.
I’m a little uncomfortable with the unqualified mixing of facts with value judgements, and everything inbetween.
Number 21 asserts that religious tolerance is not possible in the Middle East. It is worth remembering:
(1) Prior to 1948 a 50-50 mixture of Christians and Muslims had lived in harmony for many hundreds of years.
(2) Post 1966 the conflict between Israel and Palestine has resulted in the virtual elimination of Christianity in the Holy Land. The Christian Palestinian population has fallen from about 50% to around 5% today.
These are facts that are unknown to the bible belt of the USA.
Based on studies of the Ottoman census, up to 1,000,000 Armenian Christians were murdered in the Genocide that affected the estimated 2,000,000 Armenian Christians by the Turks, climaxing in 1914-1915. The “golden age” of peaceful co-existence is an Islamic myth, even as regards Lebanon, which is the only part of the Middle East that approaches, or once approached, the “50-50” parity Ricardo suggests. Today that ratio is a mystery which the paper government in Beirut is loathe to solve. No denominational census is permitted; none has been taken in over 50 years, but Christian attrition has been constant and very little related to events in Israel.
Further, I am at a loss to understand how your point (b) about the decline of Xns in Palestine contradicts my point about the impossibility of religious tolerance. It seems to me to corroborate it.
On Nature and Justice: Brilliant. Thanks Mr Standing!
Excellent book on this subject was Stephen Pinker’s “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature”. Another less comprehensive one was Roger Sandall, “The Culture Cult”. Now I need to find and read Rorty’s book.
I’m rather surprised by the “Al-Guardian” of this article’s title. In using this Arabic construction for a rant against Islamic fundamentalism, Mr Thompson seems to be conflating “Arabic” with “Islamic fundamentalist”. Doesn’t anyone find THAT offensive?
Al-Guardian & the Brotherhood
Sunil Mukhi,
The expression “al-Guardian” has entered fairly common usage as shorthand for the bias of that paper’s coverage of certain issues. I don’t see how one could credibly construe its usage as a wholesale assessment of the Islamic world, or indeed the Arab world. Unless, of course, one was inclined to apply superhuman effort to find some whisper of grievance to exploit.
Perhaps you’d care to address any of the actual issues raised in my “rant”?
Number 15, about Arabic mathematics being false, anyone got any more info on this? As every history of math book I’ve ever read has rather hefty documentation of Arab math studies, I’m curious about evidence to the contrary.
As one who left England 26 years ago, I am shocked though not surprised by what appears to be the current state of ‘progressive’ political discourse, especially with regard to what is the greatest threat facing humanity, along with climate change, (whose consequences aren’t nearly as certain), namely, Islam. What puzzles me is the (pro-forma ?) reference to a dichotomy between “Muslim reformers” and “extremists”. Who are these reformers? Where are they hiding? They seem to exist only in the minds of well-intentioned (wishfull thinking) Westerners, which is probably just as well since given the proclivities of Islam (the real thing, not Ms Armstrong’s fantasies), any who came “out” would soon be despatched.
1. That there is no God.
A matter of beleif i beleive.
2. That you will not live forever.
TRUE
3. That Noah’s ark will never be found because it never existed.
Maybe , Don’t make it so.
4. That Christianity began as a violent first century messianic sect which learned to cope peaceably when its messiah didn’t show up.
-Wrong ..It was a revolution againts The temple laws in jerusalim.
5. That most fundamentalists are rather stupid, Muslims and Christians alike.
-Debatable.
6. That most evangelical Christians cannot describe what they mean by “inerrant” – speaking of the Bible.
-TRUE!
7. That the vast majority of Christians opposed to stem cell research think it means killing babies for their brains.
-TRUE.
8. That biblical Israel ceased to exist in 720 BC, lasted for less than two hundred years, and that modern Israel didn’t exist again until 1948.
– It lasted more than 200 years .. but the rest is TRUE.
9. That virtually no Jews use the phrase ‘Judaeo-Christian’, applied to ethics or anything else.
-DEFINATLEY TRUE.
10. That Muhammad, a delusional first century Arab who thought the God of the Jews was speaking to him, was not a Muslim.
-COMPLETELY FLSE AND IDIOTIC ON YOUR BEHLF.
11. That Jesus, a delusional first century Jew who, if he existed, thought that the God of Abraham was his father, was not a Christian.
-Technically TRUE ..But he was a prophet and we are all sons of the one and only God.
12. That most Arabs don’t like Palestinians.
– Did not do a poll and neither did you.
13. That religion is the cause and not the cure for Middle Eastern violence.
– False .. Relegion has been used in the conflict.
14. That most Lebanese who are not Shi’a would rather be called Phoenicians than Arabs.
-False most lebanese today are shia!
15. That the intellectual tradition in Arabia that is supposed to have given us everything from astronomy to the Zero and algebra…didn’t.
-Yes it did you ignorant moron.
16. That not all religions are about peace, love and brotherhood—specifically, that the word Islam does not derive from the Arabic word peace but from the term for “Give up?”
-salam=peace , ISTISLAM=surrender . the idea is you get peace if you surrender your life to god’s teachings!
17. That the term Jihad historically has never meant an inner struggle for spiritual perfection but killing the enemies of Islam before they can hurt you.
-FALSE.
18. That almost no one in the Middle East believes that the future of the Middle East resides with “moderate” Muslims.
-FALSE, There is no moderate muslims or extremist muslims or light muslims.
19. That atheism, secular humanism, and agnosticism are essential ingredients of the pluralist culture of modern Europe and America.
-TRUE.
20. That when secularism and humanism fail, democracy fails.
-TRUE.
21. That religious tolerance is not possible in the Middle East.
-FALSE.
22. That unless the phrase ‘freedom and democracy’ includes the construct ‘secular’ neither term is meaningful.
-TRUE.
23. That prior to the war on Iraq, the American president did not know that Iraq was biblical Mesopotamia, Eden.
-TRUE.
24. That the American President thinks the distinction between Shi’a and Sunni is similar the distinction between Methodist and Presbyterian.
-TRUE.
25. That the new ‘democratic’ regime in Iraq – Iraqi Shi’a – and Not Syria or Iran, were the staunchest supporters of Hezbollah prior to the invasion of Iraq.
-TRUE.
26. That this means that the people we are calling the bulwark of freedom and democracy in Iraq are the terrorists of southern Lebanon.
-TRUE.
R. Joseph Hoffmann is currently senior fellow and Chair of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, at the Center for Inquiry, Amherst, New York. From 2000 until the break out of the war against Iraq, he was Professor of Civilization Studies at the American University Of Beirut.
– where he must have been affected by some extreme maronites that hate muslims as residual of the civil war of lebanon which made them very allergic to all history of the area and muslims historic contributions and in denial of any thing postive concering there arabic identity and culture only to be matched by the uttmosy ignorence of this author lack of historical knowledge … he could only teach in an AMERICAN univeristy indeed.!!
Is it relevant whether Islam condones violence or not? Christianity as I have understood it does not. Yet from the crusades to the modern Iraq conflict to merely getting the strap in a Catholic bording schools christians use violence not in spite of but because of religion.
I think suicide bombing is morally wrong. So what? I am a modern, rational person; materialist in the strict sense of the word: science, evidence, skepticism etc. Fundamentalists of whatever brand regard people like me as evil. They don’t care that I think suicide bombers are doing the wrong thing, or that the Iraq war is a resource scramble disguised in various kinds of righteous language.
An orthodox Jew would disregard my concerns regarding Israeli policy. God gave the Jews Israel. They can do what they like to ‘defend’ it.
A militant Muslim doesn’t care for the notion that perhaps the Jewish people (as well as other displaced peoples) might have a right to a homeland. Again God gave them this land it’s Muslim land. So if they want to nuke the place that’s righteous and holy.
As for the fundamentalist Christians? Well I’ve stopped watching the overhairsprayed ‘preachers’ having their fulfilment of prophecy discussions of a Sunday morning. Do they care that I think World War 3 would be bad. No they’re all going up in the rapture.
These people who have all been bitter enemies over the past thousand years are now truly united. They want ignorance to prevail over knowledge. They want sceptical inquiry replaced once more by submission to authority derived from from The One Good Book (take your pick).
And they want to blow everything up.
Still they are convinced of their moral correctness in a way secular humanists can never be. They have God on their side.
THINGS CNN WILL NEVER TELL YOU…
Uhhh.
“25. That the new ‘democratic’ regime in Iraq – Iraqi Shi’a – and Not Syria or Iran, were the staunchest supporters of Hezbollah prior to the invasion of Iraq.”
The ‘new’ regime were staunch supporters, BEFORE the invasion? Wasn’t the old regime still in place then? Don’t you really mean that the Iraqi Shi’a were supporters of Hezbollah while they were living under the Sunni-dominated regime of Saddam?
Also, “Christianity began as a violent first century messianic sect.” How violent could they have been, as a tiny minority with no political, legal or military power? Are you thinking of some example that I can’t recall?
John Coffin is right to chatise me for an impacted sentence with a pretentious preposition like “prior to” when before would do: but the general sense is that while the Bush administration touts the government in Iraq as a lesson in freedom and democracy he ignores the cousinry between Hebollah and the Iraqi Shi’a who have made common cause for generations, even if not especially before coming to “power” through US brokered elections. It is the kind of hypocrisy which is only exceeded in magnitude by the inability of most Americans to shape a picture of the regional mess.
I am glad the reference to violent Xty caught someone’s eye besides the belief-ful Muslim named Lebanese. It is pretty respectable these days to see Christian pacifism as a ploy designed to curry favor with worried Romans and to escape the predations of synagogue possees such as Paul endured.
Being a “minority” was no guarantee of peaceful intentions: The Sicarii were violent, the Zealots less so (perhaps), and the fomenters of Bar Kochba’s rebellion in the century after the time of Jesus is proof that Palestine was awash with messianic movements who ignored the political odds against their cause. I just happen to like the thesis that Chrsitianity began with a mesage about a kingdom that WAS of this world.
What do you do when you have an administration which has over-stepped the view of America and our role in the world (as a player), and focused directly to ideologies, namely: Christianity and a theistic brand of free-market capitalism. If it weren’t so serious it would almost be lampoonish (even more so demonstrated recently at the G8 with the maverick sidebar comments). Where has the concept of thinking first and applying ideological filters later gone? If one does not recognize another and their place, but instead just orders them around, the other will instinctively dig in heals and resist… and others will resist. Charging in on a M-1 tank and demanding that the chef be fired, doesn’t seem to bode too well. You can not kill a fly by swinging a sledge hammer.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. — Albert Einstein
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. — F. Scott Fitzgerald
When those in power possess the view that things are right and things will be our way; we loose track of perspective… Orwellian..? Are we feeble minded simpletons incapable of making such important decisions? It is not that we are inept, but that we lack the level of interest to get or stay involved. That is what the politicians prey on, hope for, and love…our apathy/complacency (pick your poison). Another great thing that is happening is the polarization or the populace. We are now the Hatfields and McCoys. Pro this, Anti that. The proverbial line in the sand has been etched, scraped, sand blasted, welded, molded, and branded. Just for speaking out in disagreement… out come the torches and pitchforks. The greatest thing a warmonger can use to insight his populace is fear with a half cup of anger, and a pinch of pride. You can also add a dash of insecurity and bake at 350 degrees for thirty minutes.
About the time our original 13 states adopted their new Constitution, in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: (about 300 B.C.)
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”
The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage”
______________________________________________________________________________
Spinning the truth, as you see it, is easy enough. If someone is brave enough to speak out, all of a sudden their love for country and patriotism comes into question. They become this nialistic, bleeding heart, secularist who cares nothing for the protection of our borders (that is another story), for life, for God, or for morals/values. How does one measure their level of ‘patriotism’, or just ‘patriotism’ itself for that matter?
To be a good patriot are you loyal to your president, your church, your country? Does it have to entail blind support, obedience?? If that is the case, exactly at what age do you begin teaching the goose step. If your leader drinks the koolaid (Jonestown), then do you have to drink the koolaid and agree with them too?
Is your patriotism symbolized by the number of flags on your truck, or the number of magnets on your SUV? Let’s back up for just a second. What does patriotism mean for that matter??? – expression of feelings/love for one’s country. How must one express this ‘love’ to be labeled ‘patriotic’? Can love for one’s country be expressed in disagreement with policies and procedures of leadership? The more flags you fly from your SUV the more patriotic you are? The true question is not the love we have for America, but the bedlam expression of it.
Where exactly does America’s Social Contract stand? US Constitution – the governing document and the driving force behind the social contracts [Federal and State(s)]. To ensure the power of a strong government, while still honoring the strength of each individual state, all the while supporting the liberties of each individual citizen. Also developing checks to keep any one branch from usurping power from the others. It has worked well as the pendulum goes, but now it seems more motivated my nanny-nanny name calling to polarize or isolate individuals and groups. We have become so open to interests groups that we have lost our way, which of course begs the question. How do we separate the pepper from the fly sh*t?
The biggest problem with the issue of patriotism is that it is thrown around by some to elevate the status of others “Our son/daughter donates blood/recycles/only buys American…they are so patriotic!”, or it is used as a propaganda tool by others to elevate their own status and agenda at the expense of unsuspecting pawns “If you question the ‘Patriot Act’ you are not patriotic!” It is also an emotional issue; one which can easily insight a very strong and very real sense of nationalism. And when someone tries to question America’s nationalism or individual Americans’ nationalism, it provokes a bitter and ugly reprisal. Remember issues like religion, nationalism, and family incite emotion, and emotion is the enemy of rational thought! With any administration, and especially so with the current one, we should all pay a little more attention to the man behind the curtain! This is not a partisan issue. Kevin Phillips (a historically supportive republican) stated in a paper called The Unholy Alliance (Time magazine March 27, 2006 Vol. 167 No. 13) some major concerns with to way special interest groups are unilaterally forcing their ideologies through congress and getting their dogmas forced onto an apathetic populace. Specifically being those of ‘petroleum, preachers, and debt.’
The spin doctors are adjusting the paradigm to fit their needs and keep the lines polarized. Social engineering at its best. If the issues are heated and divisive like, oh I don’t know, gay marriage, flag burning, illegal emigration, stem cells, etc, then people will not focus on the quality of work being done, or not being done to the standards that should be expected by the constituency. Politicians love the red herrings and the short sightedness of the American people. Throw them a bone every now and then, and call it something cool like…The Patriot Act, the Clean Air Act, etc. they will nod, smile, and get back to their SUVs, iPods, computers, flat screens, etc. I truly do not want this to sound like sour grapes, but alas it will sound like that to those who want to place it in that produce section. How then can we move forward in this quagmire? Iraq has become a Jervis Spiral, now moving backwards and negatively for America and Americans? Is there a unifying factor to draw us together to become the bellwether in the world again? The answer, I fear, is not obvious…
Dear Mr Hoffmann,
Your comments or statements written in the form that they are, are offensive and rude to all who have any religious leanings whatsoever. Each and every comment appears to be designed to belittle people who have spent much of their lives pursuing a creed (regardless of which religion they believe in!) They are stereotypical, illinformed and indicative of someone who clearly has spent too much time listening to propaganda (probably your own)and too little listening to others’ needs and beliefs. You are clearly someone who has little spirituality and even less belief in the essential humanity of other human beings – it makes me wonder how much self worth you have to show so little in others.
Yours (AND AWAITING A RESPONSE!)
SBarr
R J Hoffman may “just happen to like the thesis that Chrsitianity began with a mesage about a kingdom that WAS of this world” but having claimed that early Christians were violent it is necessary to provide some evidence.
THINGS CNN WILL NEVER TELL YOU…
Thanks for the first clarification. I suspected a typo, or a sentence devouring its own tail.
On no. 4 though, the Zealots, Sicarii and Bar Kochba were not Xians. Their religious motives had direct linkage to Judean politics–attempts to reastiblish an independant state, struggle for authority with other sects etc.
Certainly there is enough talk of Kingdoms Coming, swords, fathers against sons et sec. to counter any claim to inherent pacifism in early Xianity.
But, whether or not the ‘rendering unto caeser’ was a time-buying ploy or a premature endorsement of church-state separation, 1st century Xians were not in a position to be much of a threat to anyone.
Do you have any examples of Xian violence before Constantine put the Xians in a position use violence freely?
Muhammed wasn’t a muslim? Sorry if you’ve been asked this question, but what is the story there or where can I find it?
Interesting list. Please site sources.
In all the volumes of information that God passed on to his followers about how the world was created etc. why didn’t he mention that the earth was round? He goes into great detail about all kinds of other things.Must have slipped his mind.
Rather glib; looks calculated to offend rather than convince. Any serious reader would want some sources for the purported facts.
But it’s noticeable that there is no assertion that these “things” are indeed facts. Looks like a cheap copout even if it wasn’t so intended.
On My CNN Post:
This little trifle evoked way too much attention for what it was worth; after all, as one keen observer noticed, there is no claim that any of these statements are true, merely that CNN would never tell you these things.
Nevertheless:
(1) Were the early Christians “violent?” It depends how much you want to push the “dissimilarity principle.” The gospel writers seem at pains to display Jesus as a pacifist in bloody times, but in ways that suggest the opposite may have been true: hating father and mother, beating swords into ploughsares, or ploughshares into swords (depending on which OT prophet Jesus is quoting, Joel, Isaiah, or Micah), the violent taking the kingdom by storm, the presence of at least a zealot, Simon, and an assassin, Judas, among his entourage, and perhaps most telling of all, the sole rational charge laid against him at his trial: that he is fomenting rebellion (tax?) and “stirring up the people” (to take up arms against the Romans), not to mention insulting harangues against the pharisees and the doctors of the law, and the traditions of the elders–esp in Matt 5-8. Oh, and the “cleansing” of the temple. Fast forward to the period after the death of Jesus and the traces of violence have been subsumed or greatly reduced by a message of forgiveness which is-interestingly–formulated after the decisive defeat of the Jews in the wars against Rome and the need for the Christians to carve out a different and unbloody identity. I don’t know whether Jesus’ violence was directed against Rome or directed against the Jewish establishment; it’s not impossible that it was directed against both, in the same way Al Qaeda (no I do not wish to press that analogy) is violent against backsliding Arab Muslims and the non-Muslim West, equally. I don’t think the gospels play it straight, however, when it comes to the disposition of the earliest Jesus followers in Palestine.
(2) Was Jesus a Christian? Of course not. Even Voltaire said as much.
(3) But Muhammad, not a Muslim? The standard claim is that while Jesus lived before history was “practiced” (not true, obviously), Muhammad comes onto the world stage in the full glare of history (not true, even by Arab standards: the first “scientific” historian in the Islamic tradition was the fifteenth century writer Ibn Khaldun, who was pretty good at what he did. The earliest accounts we have of M.date to 750 C.E. with Ibn Ishaq, more than one hundred years after Muhammad’s death. Although this is the first and most basic source for information about the life of Muhammad for all Muslims, it does not present a very flattering portrait of him.
We don’t have any original copies of Ibn Ishaq’s work – we only have a later recension by Ibn Hisham. This means that our earliest sources appear two hundred years after Muhammad died. Not even the evidence we have from the Sufyandi period, 661-684, makes any mention of Muhammad. The history of the Quran outside the most credulous sources is even more tortured. There is a REAL question about the historical Muhammad, therefore, and despite how the question is answered, it is worth making note of it. (Will you get that from CNN? Of course not.)
As to the use of the word, “delusional” it is simply a word I use to describe people who claim to hear the voice of God. If you speak to God, I would describe you that way. If I say that ia speak to God, you have my permission to describe me that way.
(4) As to my lack of spirituality: I have no wish to offend people who believe extraordinary things. I do have an interest in keeping extraordinary things separate from the realm of fact, and even from informed historical speculation (which falls short of fact, but unlike religious faith is falsifiable in principle).
I highly recommend W K Clifford’s 1879 essay, The Ethics of Belief, as an endless source of instruction to anyone who thinks belief is always harmless–and that belief is immune from challenge and religion from criticism.
Maybe I’ll think of some other things CNN won’t tell you for a future post!
Another comment about #15. This statement is a bit too smart-assy to be worthwhile, and it’s also deceptive. The fact remains that math, including the elements of algebra, was studied in the Arab world before the year 1000, long before it was being used in Europe. “Algebra” and “algorithm” are words with Arab etymology. Was zero an Arab creation? It probably had multiple origins dating long before the height of Arab culture, but it’s also true that early medeival European mathematics did not use zero until they got the concept from the Arabs, who probably got it from the Hindus.
In any case, what’s indisputable is that the following symbols: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are commonly known as “Hindu-Arabic” numerals (or more colloquially merely as “Arabic” numerals) for a good reason. They are also the most widely used linguistic symbols in the world.
Dear Rick
Have you checked current Arabic numerology, and do you have any notion that what we call “Arabic” numerals are not in use today? And do you know Arabic?
It is true that ‘algorithm’ can be traced to 9th century Persia, but the claims made by “Muslims” need to be located geographically: most do not relate to the Arab world but to Persia. Most can be traced to pre-Islamic scholarship, not Islamic. And as with the equivalent case in the Christian Empire, Islam, ultimately did not support but repressed mathematical and scientific study. To put it bluntly, it is as though Xty can take credit for Greek and Latin learning because it descends from it, when in fact it ruined it. But even in that process, as was the case with the Arab mathematicians, there were exceptions. (But, alas, not the rule.)
JH
Asked to back up his various statements, R J Hoffman now writes “there is no claim that any of these statements are true, merely that CNN would never tell you these things”.
Where I come from there is a problem with this language. CNN only “tells” things it thinks it knows to be true. Statements of opinion, such as who is the best actor in the world, are another matter and even when such opinions are uttered in CNN programs they are not CNN’s opinion.
On the question I am interested in, I have to point to two strange arguments.
First is the notion that the fact that one of Jesus’ disciples was an assassin somehow backs up the idea that Jesus’ followers were violent. Even ignoring the obvious point that a group’s containing a person with a particular characteristic does not make that characteristic apply to the group (the fallacy of composition, anyone?), since Judas killed only one person and that person was Jesus himself and not one of Jesus’ followers tried to take revenge, I can only think that Mr Hoffman is being facetious.
Second is the credence given to the charges laid against Jesus at his trial, that he was fomenting rebellion. The same charges were laid against Gandhi by the British so presumably this means he too must be deemed to have been violent.
Re Mr Power
No, I do not “now” say: that is the premise of the article. CNN does not only “tell” things it knows to be true. If it knew, which it cannot, there is no God they would not tell you because its viewing constituency would not believe it. If it is demonstrably true that Jesus was delusional because he talked to a God who is not there, it would not tell you this either You seem to have missed the CNN Christmas and Easter pseudo-news faith fests, mirrored by equally appalling productions by Discovery, History and Nat’l Geographic–though I admit standards of truth in those organizations may be different. (I also,as a matter of syntax, have trouble with your sentence “CNN only tells things it thinks it knows to be true,” by which I assume you mean it does not think it lies to us.)
Second: I admire expertise in logic, but your assumption is flawed: We know as a matter of “textual” curiosity, not fact that Simon was a zealot and that Judas’s surname implies he belonged to a radical “terrorist” group. We cannot assume that the others were not equally disposed because we lack their surnames. (But, e.g., James is known as “Boargenes” or the son of thunder) “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” trumps your invocation of the fallacy of composition, but nice try.
And (your second) Jesus and Ghandi? False analogy, anyone? One would have to believe a priori, as a matter of credulity (faith in the innocence of Jesus, in this case) to assert that there was no merit in the charges against him–which is precisely what the writers of the story wish the reader to think, as they divert attention from Roman responsibility in order to blame the Jews for (at least) the conspiracy leadng to execution. If there is a useful analogy which might help to context the gospel story, look at contemporary Palestine under Jewish “occupation” and consider 1st century Judaea/Palestine under Roman occupation. Consider that Pilate preferred to be anywhere but in Jerusalem with its roiling sects. A sweet little pacifist sect preaching love of neighbor and paying taxes to caesar with a smile just doesn’t fit the historical picture. Something CNN won’t tell you.
R J Hoffman could have avoided much confusion if he had simply titled his piece “Some things you will not hear on CNN” rather than “Some things CNN will not tell you”. And more confusion could have been avoided if he had refrained from defending some things in his list, thereby giving the impression that these were his personal beliefs. All he had to do to respond to the various replies to his article was to write about CNN’s restriction on the dissemination of ideas.
On the question of the alleged violent propensities of Jesus’ disciples, I should remind him that the original statement was that they were indeed violent and that, treating this as a claim of fact, I was looking for supporting evidence . Which he then apparently supplied by reference to assassins and zealots. “We cannot assume that the others were not equally disposed because we lack their surnames” he rejoins. But it is up to Mr Hoffman to provide some positive evidence to support his positive claim, not shrug this requirement off with an “ah well we lack the evidence to decide either way”. The necessity to avoid the fallacy of composition remains. To demonstrate that the disciples were violent as followers of Jesus requires more than pointing to violent individuals. Judas’ violence was directed against Jesus and therefore is irrelevant to this debate. And the statement about Simon’s zealotry is strange logic: “Zealots were violent. Therefore Simon the Zealot was violent. He was a disciple of Jesus. Therefore the disciples were violent”. But if he was violent it was as a Zealot, not as a disciple of Jesus. That’s all the evidence will support.
What he wrote about my analogy between the trials and tribulations of Jesus and Gandhi has the same flaw. By giving credence to the charges laid against Jesus at his trial, he takes on the burden of showing them to be true. “One would have to believe a priori, as a matter of credulity (faith in the innocence of Jesus, in this case) to assert that there was no merit in the charges against him” is precisely backwards. One would have to believe a priori, as a matter of credulity (faith in the guilt of Jesus, in this case) to assert that there WAS merit in the charges against him.
If Mr Hoffman wishes to continue this debate then let him indicate which of the items from his list he stands over, to avoid further misunderstandings.
Re: Mr Power
I did not say we lacked evidence to decide “either way” (let alone “ah, well…”); I said, more broadly, that the defensive strategies of the gospel writers have submerged beneath a clear apologetic intent the original character of the group. I said we could not know the nature of the violence–whether it was directed against Jews, Romans, or both. It is more than “interesting” that Simon is known as a zealot and Judas as an assassin and James as a son of thunder; it shows that as a matter of historical memory their reputations as extemists could not be suppressed. If we had seven more charactonymic surnames–Philip the Barbarian, Andrew the Bloody, etc.–would that do the trick? Of course not. Someone would then say, but Jesus was an alright guy: they were all reformed assassins. More pointedly, Mr Power says nothing about the anomaly of such a group surviving in the supercharged environemt of Roman Palestine. Messianic movements were normally violent–as the stories of Theudas, Bar Kochba, and other messianic pretenders serve to prove.
As to the charges against Jesus: the gospels are written by people who believed (not as a matter of fact but as a matter of faith) that the charges were false and that Jesus was innocent. The pagan opponents of Jesus thought he had a fair trial and capitalize on the fact that he was tried as an insurgent aginst Roman rule. It seems to me that some credence ought to be given to the charges that were proven rather than the gospel writers’ post hoc attempt to provide a defnese of the risen Lord. (Fortunately, the statute of limitations has run out on Jesus.)
As to “taking on the burden” of showing something to be true, it seems to me that courts are precisely in the business of evaluating evidence. The records of Gandhi’s trial, or of Gandhi’s life, in the C XX. cannot be compared to the account of an obscure Galilean villager whose story is not told as an historical record but as a defense, shot through with theological purpose. Belief in Gandhi’s pacifism is defensible because public opinion (and cameras) were trained on him. Had he avoided the glare of public attention, were the only records of his life those of his defenders or detractors–what then? My suggestion that this is false analogy could only be overcome by assuming an equivalence of accounts that are very obviously non-analogous.
You do make one point, however, that strikes me as plainly wrong: surely you cannot know whether Simon, known as a zealot acquired his reputation before or after joining the band of disciples–or whether Judas was known as a dagger-man because of previous habits, or ones he developed within the community; or do you suggest he came to be known as Iscariot only because he betrayed Jesus.
Re R J Hoffman:
I do not see any compelling evidence for the very existence of Jesus. If we were to accept the Gospels as true then we would have no reason to reject Islam or Hinduism or whatever ; and even accepting Islam leads to a logical contradiction with accepting Christianity.
But this is a very different thing to claiming that Jesus did not exist, or to state that the charges laid against him at his trial, if it happened, were correct. The evidence is lacking to make any reasonable judgement. We cannot say he was guilty ; nor can we say he was innocent.
We have excellent standards of logic and evidence that allow us to evaluate truth claims. To accept Christianity would require us to forget these standards – but so owould accepting the truth of some of the items in the list.
I am sorry for misleading readers into thinking I was defending the notion that Jesus’ disciples were pacific. I have no way of telling if they were. Rather I was attacking the notion that they were violent. Not because we know they were not violent but merely because we lack the necessary evidence to support this claim. I have read that real experts think Pilate was a ruthless man sent to run a turbulent province and that therefore he would have had Jesus executed without ceremony just to keep the peace. Not necessarily because he thought Jesus was a trouble maker but rather because Jesus was upsetting the Jewish religious authorities who themselves could foment unrest. So that, to the real Pilate, the question of Jesus’ innocence or guilt would not have arisen: the only issue to matter would have been that of public order. This analysis, made in the absence of evidence about Jesus’ trial, is based on a very rough “balance of probabilities” . The picture of Pilate, based on some real evidence however scanty, does seem to go against the notion of accepting the outcome of Jesus’ trial.
(By real experts I mean scholars of the Roman Empire whose work is not dedicated to supporting the Gospels).
Bear in mind that Freud was addicted to cocaine for many years, especially
when he was raising his children & anti
semitism must have been a hideous burden to a young father.He was quite
an unusually robust man, & even found time to be a deceitful husband.He is definitely a pioneer of studies of the mind, & to say he was a pseudo scientist is inaccurate & too harsh.
I’m in agreement with Roger. It would be wise and welcome if as many of the mentioned points as possible could link to some online source that confirms their claims. (Like the origin of the number zero for instance). These are popular beliefs you’re going against after all, and all blanket staments with a mini-C.V. can fascillitate is an argument from authority.
A response to Sharon Thompson:
From the evidence provided by his letters in the 1880s and 1890s it seems that Freud used cocaine intermittently for migraines, nasal problems and depression. However, there is no evidence that he was addicted to it.
There is no evidence that anti-semitism played a significant role in Freud’s life experience in this period of his life.
The evidence that Freud was a deceitful husband (presumably relating to his sister-in-law Minna) is certainly worthy of consideration, but the contention remains unproven.
As far as his being a pioneer of the mind is concerned, in the late 1800s he was one of many psychologists and psychiatrists who were interested in the study of mental processes – e.g., hypnosis, suggestion, mental and emotional problems, etc.