I agree with you. Not all Muslims are bloodthirsty people wanting to kill all the infidels. Druze Muslims are a good example of this. They live peaceably with Israelis and serve in the Israeli military.

That being said, peaceable Muslims are, if not MINOs, then pretty close. What the Koran advocates is what Osama Bin Laden is doing. I think that it's really great that the MINOs have changed Islam's modern iteration to be more peacable, it sure helps my neck out, but the Muslims who follow Muhammad's vision are the Mullah Omar types.

Islam needs a reformation.

I reject LaShawn's generaliztion because, if true, why the hell did I spend seven months in Iraq bringing freedom to 25 million people who will "always be on a mission to conquer" us?

I for one was surprised and delighted to see such nationalistic spirit among the Iraqis on January 30th. I should've known better given the cooperation that the local Iraqis gave our Marine unit in Baghdad in 2003. I was blinded by stories of tribal factions and unsurmountable ethnic differences. Those Muslims actively working against the totalitarian elements of hard-line Islam SHOULD be cut out of the pack. Words and distinctions DO matter. The very worst threat comes from a decidedly tiny minority of the Muslim population.

Unfortunately, (and I think this may be the reason for LaShawn's frustration) the violent hard-liners are being tacitly sheltered by too many "moderate" Muslims. Islam as a whole needs some serious sweeping reform. As freedom speads, perhaps the moderates will finally feel empowered enough to stand up against the Wahabists and implement thoses reforms.

In short:

Islam needs a reformation, like you said.

(And pardon my typos)

Sure, that's the plan.

But layer this analogy - imagine the difference between someone (Bill Cosby, LaShawn herself, perhaps) making a reasonable, cogent argument about systemic education challenges among African-Americans and the relation of cultural and socioeconomic factors, vs. some racist making generalized, racist comments about the intrinsic aptitude of blacks. Or consider how critical comments about immigration policy and threats posed by illegal immigration vastly differ from generalized, racist condemnation of immigrants.

There are very important distinctions to be made in our language and intent, distinctions that do not stray into the territory of politically correct, devalued speech, yet uphold fairness and respect for other people.

I feel like these distinctions are absent from much of the acceptable right-wing rhetoric about Muslims. And what's ironic about this is how it undermines the very same policies that the people using the rhetoric ostensibly support.

Bill,

Excellent point, and one I agree that I missed when I linked uncritically back to La Shawn (with whom I normally agree a lot). I've linked back to this post in a further update to my original post, advising my readers to take your argument into consideration.

Thanks. I figured. But the failure to make any distinctions have been slipping by a lot of people lately. Sorry to single you out.

Re: Islam needs a reformation.

It already had one. Who do you think the fundamentalists are? They are the reformers. The Christian Reformation was brought about by the printing press and a literate population. It is hard to actually read the Christian Bible for yourself and not have a reformation in the way you envision a reformation.

Today you have a literate population and lots of Korans and the collected sayings. And when people read it for themselves they will not come to the same reformation as you would like them to.

arrasmith -

like this?

'When you purchase a Hebrew slave, his service will last for six years. In the seventh year he will leave a free man. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and children will belong to the master, and he will depart alone. But if the slave says to you, "I do not want to leave you," because he loves you and your family, and is well off with you, then you must take an awl and drive it through the slave's ear and into the door. He will be your servant forever."

Ops, that's the Bible.

No problem with getting singled out if I've missed it! That comes with the territory.

Or arrasmith, how about ...

"If you hear that in one of the towns, there are men who are telling people to go and worship other gods, it is your duty to look into the matter and examine it. If it is proved and confirmed, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword. You must lay the town under the curse of destruction, the town and everything in it. You must pile up all its loot in the public square and burn the town and all its loot. That town is to be a ruin for all time, and never rebuilt."

Oops. That's in the Bible too.

Or how about ...

"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.

And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him."

You don't get to pick and choose. You have to read the WHOLE THINGS (the Koran and Bible aren't that long). That is the point. Otherwise you have people quoting verses on civil laws and saying we are evil for having such words. And then missing ...

One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"

And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

The idea of "scripture alone" is what the concept of a reformation is based on. If it was based on the interpritation through a single person it would not change the mind of every believer. Which is what you are calling for with Islam. The truth of the text is in the text. It is there or it is not there.

Your preconceived concept of "reformation" is not within the text of the Koran. If it was it would have come out by now. Your idea is within the Bible, because that is what you are basing your whole concept on anyway.

Well, when I say "political and religious reformation," I doubt that the "political" end comes from the same place as your technical definition of a religious reformation. If Islam is critically at odds with modernization, make that case.

Many very smart, very practical people think that that's a bunch of crap.

And the fact remains that a literal interpretation of the Bible retains the capacity for instruction of rather bad behavior, semantics aside. Is Christianity a more naturally benevolent faith? Perhaps, sure. But the human interpretation of faith and its instruction is nothing if not malleable, historically, across all religions.

Otherwise, we'd all still be stoning the crap out of each other and waging wars of religious conquest.

Islam needs a Reformation eh? I know that is a nifty little trope that gets offered all the time as meaningful historical analysis, but it is most perplexing to me. Why exactly does Islam need a Reformation and what doctrinal issues should be challenged? Justification by faith alone? The granting of indulgences?

Please, any doctrinal issues one could identify for reform (such as the childish belief that one gets 72 virgins in heaven for blowing up a busload of Jews) are merely epiphenomena and symptoms of the deeper disease in Islamic society.

The Reformation in Europe initiated a two-century paroxysm of violence and cruelty that stands on par with the Mongol invasions as one of the darkest periods in human history. It was on the blood soaked fields of the Palatinate that the Enlightenment —and religious tolerance posited as a moral principle— was born...and this is exactly what Islamic civilization has never come to terms with.

How about "modernization" of Islamic societies? Is that a more amenable term?

Or shall you sneer at that as well?

Let me see if I can get Bernard Lewis online, perhaps he can answer your questions.

Bill, your two scripture quotes are from the Old Testament (i.e. The Old Dispensation) that has been replaced with the New Testament. We got into this on another post where I gave a detailed explanation of the differences and the reasons for it. Those scriptures don't apply to followers of God since Jesus Christ's time.

arrasmith: I definitely agree with you! I misread your comment at first as coming from Bill (and thus automatically being critical of the Bible) and thus wrote the below defense of the Scripture you quoted. I then reread (vs. scanning it) your post and notice my mistake. I decided to go ahead and post my defense of that scripture anyway:

The quote about slaves was good, sound, commonsense advice that was borne out as such in our own awful history of slavery. Absolutely nothing (beyond getting some poor slaves killed) was accomplished by slaves rebelling. Only when the non-slave (i.e. Lincoln, etc.) took up their cause, did anything significant happen.

A theme throughout the NT is to "love your enemies" and to "honor the king" which in this case had legalized slavery. The only time Christians are not supposed to obey authority (of any sort!) is when it violates the Bible (not *them* violating the Bible, but when it causes *you* to violate the Bible). Thus those who were slaves were to do that. It was really good commonsense advice. If they rebelled, they were just cruelly killed and it did nothing to accomplish anything. Reforms only came then from the non-slaves.

"And the fact remains that a literal interpretation of the Bible retains the capacity for instruction of rather bad behavior, semantics aside."

If I followed the selected tidbits you like to quote out of context from Scripture, there is definitely potential for me to have some very bad behavior. The Bible taken as a whole is a totally different story.

I'm not sneering, I'm just pointing out that people who insist, "Islam needs a Reformation" don't understand what the Reformation was about. What Islam needs is religious tolerance, women's rights, freedom of speech, and democracy. These were never the concern of Luther, Calvin, or the Council of Trent, but rather of Locke, Voltaire, and Montesquieu. All of these are ideas of the Enlightenment —which was a direct response to the bloody nightmare of the European Wars of Religion initiated by the Reformation.

Re: This talk of the reformation bringing war, death and destruction

The war wasn't really about the scriptural principles and certainly wasn't in adherence to scriptural principles. It was about power. Who gets to control what. Religion was used as a deceptive tool to gain control of the masses. Belief in a higher being was used to elevate the leaders to the rank of special-emmisary-from-God-and-you'd-better-do-what-I-say-or-else-you-are-going-against-God. The Reformation was an excuse for the power hungry. The wars of the Reformation were in direct apposition to Scripture and a transparent (now) manipulation of the masses.

That being said, there were definitely true reformers out there whose priority was truth, not power. Much, much good came out of the Reformation. Most of the good that came out of the Reformation was done by the peaceful ones.

I was spending more time on the religious aspects, but as far as can they be more like us ( which is what most people mean with modernization ) then of course they can ...

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/06/lost-in-translation.html

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/06/fork-in-road.html

that is pretty obvious from Michael Yon's articles and most milblogs. But, modernization will always be countered by those who are acting in what they see as in harmony with their faith ...

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/05/killing-for-god.html

The difficulty is that we can't argue with them via their faith. If a Christian goes and blows up themselves and others, I can easily argue against them via the Bible. I can't do the same with the Koran. So we rather have to approach them from some other moral guidepost then their faith.

One last religious aside ... can you name a "rather bad behavior" that wouldn't be condemned by a "literal interpretation of the Bible"?

The Reformation did bring war death and destruction, but I'm not going to blame that on Luther anymore than I would blame the Napoleonic wars of Montesquieu.

I was merely trying to establish that the model of reform that Islam needs is much more in terms of the latter than the former.

I am a Christian and believe in the Bible. The Bible is compatible with "religious tolerance, women's rights, freedom of speech, and democracy." The Koran, inherently, is not. A reformation, like the Christian one (going to the Bible as the authority, not man), for Islam would be disastrous. Taking the Koran as it is written would mandate the wiping out of Western Civilization. Jason is absolutely right in what he is saying.

The difficulty and disagreement here is one of nomenclature. Bill isn't a scholar of the Bible or the Reformation (at least that is what I have gathered in the little I have interacted with him) and thus is taking "reformation" literally in its dictionary meaning, which is fine. Jason seems to have a sense of Reformation history that is causing him to object to the word reformation because of its historical connotations.

Islam needs reform. Islam needs a "reformation" but not a "Reformation." Islam needs reform, but it is confusing to refer to "the action of reform" as "a reformation" because what Islam needs is not at all what the Christian Reformation was.

"The Bible is compatible with "religious tolerance, women's rights, freedom of speech, and democracy." The Koran, inherently, is not."

No. Religious texts written centuries ago are only compatiable with "religious tolerance, women's rights, freedom of speech, and democracy" to the extent that one can read them morally rather than literally. Most Christians have this ability, many Muslims do not...but this has absolutely nothing to do with the underlying text itself. It is rather a function of the culture in which the religion is practiced.

Wow. I guess religious discussions never end. :)

Jason: "... one can read them morally ..."

But what you are saying is that you should read the text with a predefined moral ruler. If a segment of text fits your ruler ... use it ... if it doesn't fit ... don't use it. But for those who believe: the text IS the ruler.

For them other ideas ( like tolerance, rights, speech, democracy ) must be measured by what defines their moral guidance. So those ideas are measured against the Koran, Bible, or whatever defines their moral ruler.

For you, your ruler is tolerance, rights, etc. Hence you measure the Koran, Bible, whatever against that. You must flip your thinking to see how others view your moral beliefs. A good example is the Yezidi people that Micheal Yon writes about at ...

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/06/lost-in-translation.html

... you really should read their religious history and beliefs to see an example of converging moral ideas.

Anyway, for a Bible believing Christian it all can go back to my question: can you name a "rather bad behavior" that wouldn't be condemned by a "literal interpretation of the Bible"?

For someone who believes that the Bible is the Word of God and want to be "like Christ"="Christian" it is how they measure their morality . It is how they measure THEIR OWN life. What is left after this point is how they then apply it to their daily walk.

I disagree with that (what Jason said in his last comment; arrasmith put it very well). I believe in the total authority and literal reading of the Bible. I follow some things that the Bible says (such as believing that Christian women should wear veils) that are looked upon as weird by the vast majority of Christendom. I read the Bible daily and nowhere do I find in a literal reading thereof any thing that conflicts with human rights, women's rights (It depends upon your interpertation of this one. I certainly don't agree with a women's "right" to choose to kill her baby. It's the same way I don't support a man's "right" to kill someone that he doesn't like.), freedom of speech, democracy, and religious tolerance.

With religious tolerance: Often the most vocal advocates of religious tolerance take the label "religious tolerance" much further than its actual definition. I believe religious tolerance is respecting (not being rude to them or insulting them) others' beliefs and in not chopping their heads off if they disagree. I believe that Jesus Christ is the *only* way to eternal life. I believe that there is absolute truth apart from man's ideas. I believe there is a God in heaven. I don't believe those last three statements and my telling them to others is a violation of the principle of religious tolerance. Those who say that "religious tolerance" = "no proselytization" really irritate me. They say that if I tell others about Jesus, I am being intolerant of their beliefs. Well what are they being of mine? It's the ultimate hypocrisy.

I believe in the peaceful spread of the Gospel. Jesus is our ultimate example of the way Christians ought to behave themselves: He never fought back physically against his enemies. He gave himself up to die on the cross. He spread his word peacefully and didn't force anyone to believe. Those who in history haven't spread their "gospel" peacefully are in very violation of the gospel they are trying to spread.

"Bill, your two scripture quotes are from the Old Testament (i.e. The Old Dispensation) that has been replaced with the New Testament. We got into this on another post where I gave a detailed explanation of the differences and the reasons for it. Those scriptures don't apply to followers of God since Jesus Christ's time."

Wow Hans, so the Ten Commandments don't apply anymore?

I didn't say that well. The OT applies except where the NT supercedes it.

Here's our conversation: http://www.indcjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1720

None of the 10 commandements are superceded by the NT. Usually things from the OT are not abolished by the NT, but built upon. Jesus said, "I have not come to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfill them." Usually we are held to a higher standard in the NT. An example is one of the 10 commandments: "Thou shalt not kill." Jesus said, "Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, 'Thou shalt not kill'; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment"

There are many instances in the NT of Jesus saying, "It hath been said... but I say unto you."

@ Hans

I think your reasoning is quite solid, but to me such reasoning only confirms my rejection of Christianity. I refuse to turn off my mind and simply obey the dictates of a text, regardless of who wrote it, and any God that demands that should never have provided me with a mind to begin with. Of course the Judeo-Christian God seems to create beings in his own image simply to bask in the adoration he demands of them as well as to judge them for their inevitable shortcomings.

I take my grandma to church sometimes and listen to these idiotic sermons where I'm told that I better be good because God can see everything, even my thoughts, and if I'm good and do what he says he'll give me the bestest present ever (eternal bliss), but if I'm naughty and don't do what he says, he'll mess me up real bad forever.

Hearing crap like that I can’t help but get momentarily confused and forget if the minister is talking about the divine or Santa Claus. And besides, what kind of morality is that...based only on fear of punishment from the big daddy in the sky? Sounds like the morality of an 8 year old to me.

If that's what you want you can have it. But don't pretend that your particular religion is anymore amenable to modernity than Islam. If Christianity doctrine is so compatible with religious tolerance, women's rights, free speech, and democracy like you claim it is contra Islam, then why did it take nearly 18 centuries for Christian civilization to realize these things?

"I refuse to turn off my mind and simply obey the dictates of a text, regardless of who wrote it, and any God that demands that should never have provided me with a mind to begin with."

On the contrary, there is loads of evidence out that there (that is suppressed by man's desire to do anything he wants and not be accountable to God) that the world was created by God and thus for the existence of God. (I would reccomend The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel) You do not have to turn off your mind to be a Christian; on the contrary, I am surprised at how people can look at the complexity and detail of humans (to just take one microscopic aspect of the universe) and not realize that there is a God.

"based only on fear of punishment from the big daddy in the sky?"

That is not at all what our obedience is based on. It is out of a genuine love for God and out of a realization of all he has done for us. (Chief among these was giving his life for us on the cross.)

"then why did it take nearly 18 centuries for Christian civilization to realize these things?"

The people that have literally interperted the Bible (1st century NT Christians, small sects from the 2nd century to the Reformation, etc.) have always been out of the mainstream and in a minority. "Christian civilization" as a name for a group of people (i.e. referring to Western civ) is so far from the actual events of history as to be a oxymoron. The vast majority of people during those times were CINOs. They were called Christians for political and expediency reasons. It is one of the hardest misconceptions for True Christians(TM) to correct. The Crusades (insert stupid atrocity done for political not religious purposes) were done in Christ's name (as I said above) for political and mass-appeal purposes. Those weren't people who were following the Bible as I see it. If you look at history carefully, there was always a small group of believers who were true to God.

Ooo .. Ooo ... Pick me! ;) Interesting how this ran off topic to a defense of us Bible thumpers. Anyhoo.

Re: Jason

I was flipping through the Bible looking for the turn-off-your-brain verse and couldn't find it though. Interesting aside is that you do find that verse in the Koran ( Surah 5:101-102 ).

Works. Probably the biggest sticking point with people. Works are not what saves you. I suppose one simple example I can think of is the end of Saving Private Ryan. The whole "earn this" when someone is dying in your place.

Christians are not supposed to do good things to buy their way up. They can't, the price has already been paid. Nothing you can or could do would pay the price anyway (only Christ could pay the price). Christians are to do good things as a sign of commitment to Christ and to what He wants us to be. To become more like Him every day.

Back to Saving Private Ryan. Put yourself into a real life situation where someone gave up their life for you. Would you want to run around dumping on that? Could you imagine standing over their grave, asking your wife if you have been a good man, and have her answer "well no ... you are a man who does evil every day". Being good isn't about getting a reward. It is about honoring God.

As far as 18 centuries to get to "modernization". There has been NO civilization like ours today. Ever. So the whole "realize these things" comment is kind of funny. Realize it from what? Where do you think your moral doctrines come from?

Too many people today do not know the cultures of the past to really know how much of a radical departure Judaism was and how really really radical Christianity was.

Oops. That's in the Bible too.

Posted by Bill from INDC at June 6, 2005 01:01 PM
**************************************************
Then that's Islam too, isn't it? Mohamed being the Last Prophet of the People of the Book Islam has its roots in the Old Testament as well as Christianity.

NOW want to compare the Quran with the NEW Testament?

That's not quite the point that I was making, but then again, obviously it is with you. Thanks.

#1 Bill I agree with you, that when we discuss the issue of the Islamic fundamentalist who want to kill us, we should be careful over generalization.

#2 I admit that I am not super familiar at all with the Koran, and do not know exactly what the Koran says in regards to Jihad and the murder of non muslims (I have seen some quotes that lead me to believe the Koran isn't all that peaceful, but reserve judgement since I haven't read the whole thing in context). Which brings me to #3.

#3 Bill yours and others have quoted Bible verses to indicate that the Bible was all about slavery. So here is your basic lesson in reading the Bible in context.

When reading the Bible and quoting scriptures, you should first consider the context-read the verses in and around the verse you are quoting (sometimes those verses indicate a meaning the quoted verse alone doesn't indicate). Then you should read the chapter, and book of the Bible. Consider the authoer, and also consider the time period it was written in.

The thing is with the verses you quoted, is that the Bible was actually leaps and bounds above what was cultural practice regarding slaves and women. Slaves in the Hebrew culture actually had a lot of rights. Then you go to the NT quotes. Believe it or not, but once again Christianity was leaps and bounds above the prevailing culture in its treatment of women and slaves. The problem is that the early Christian church was part of the Roman empire, and slavery was a major component of the economy (I have seen quotes that well over 50% of people in the Roman Empire were slaves). The early church did not actually believe in or teach or encourage active revolt against the government-it taught living by example, and basically changing the world one heart/one conversion at a time. So basically the NT instructions were for slaves and masters to live as Christlike and be examples to non Christians.

So context matters. Which brings me back to the Koran, I don't know it, I am not familiar with nor do I have a handle on the context of the writing, but I absolutely think that the jihadist wing of the religion is scary and has to be stopped, and the only people who can really do that are the non jihadist wing, and they don't seem very inclined as a whole to do that-there just doesn't seem as yet to be a mass movement to put a stop to the jihadist. Until that happens, people are still going to die. Also, too many muslims do the double speak thing (Saudi Arabia is good for this, on the one hand they say they are all committed to putting a stop to the jihadists, but then turn around and fund them, and their schools still teach jihadist principles-they are only paying lip service to putting an end to it, so where exactly do these people fit on the reformation scale, and how culpable are they in the jihadist movement?).

#4 Another quick bible lesson regarding the OT. There are basically three kinds of laws given in the OT.

1. There are basic moral laws (these would be things like the ten commandments, laws against adultery, theft etc). These laws will always be the same, and they are eternal, and Christians and Jews are expected to follow them.

2. There are the civil laws (keep in mind that when the Torah was written it was in preparation for God to set up the Israelites as a Kingdom, after MOses led them out of Egypt to the Promised land, and they would have gotten there a lot sooner than a whole generation had they not been such whiners). There are proscribed punishments for the violation of some of the moral laws, all the rules about slaves, prisoners of war etc, there are also rules laid out for how the future King should govern, as well as requirements for how to judge disputes (who does it, how many witnesses are required etc). Since we do not live in Israel or a theocracy and haven't for a long time, these laws do not require that anyone follow them, although some of the moral principles behind these laws may still apply (take adultery while the moral principle of remaining faithful to your vows remains the same, the proscribed punishment-stoning-does not).

3. Last are the ceremonial laws-these are all laws that God created specifically for the Jewish people, because he wanted them to be set apart-they were His chosen people. These are the laws that involved clean/unclean foods, ceremonial washing, the sacrificial system etc. These laws no longer apply, because the matter was settled in the NT that Christians did not have to be Jewish or convert to Judaism in order to become a Christian. Peter's vision on the roof, pretty much indicated that the dietary laws no longer applied, and of courst the death of Christ on the cross pretty much absolved Christians from needing to follow the sacrificial system.

That is why some of the OT laws absolutely do still apply, but why others do not.

Just Me -

Bill yours and others have quoted Bible verses to indicate that the Bible was all about slavery. So here is your basic lesson in reading the Bible in context.

That's not my point, to "indicate that" that was what it was "all about." My point was that portions of holy scripture are abandoned with modernization and cultural change, in the context of the time period. Is Christianity an intrinsically more tolerant religion than Islam? From what I know, sure. Judaism? Maybe, not sure. That doesn't mean that Islam is beyond tolerance or fundamentally incompatible with the modern world.

Find and read one of the links under the linked Wizbang post that a comenter dropped (I dont feel like finding it) - there are passages in the Koran that contradict some of it's nastier elements as well. So there's some added context.

And PS - Spare me the patronizing "so here is your basic lesson" stuff, especially when you didn't quite understand my point in using the quotes in the first place.

"Mohamed being the Last Prophet of the People of the Book Islam has its roots in the Old Testament as well as Christianity."

Not exactly.

Islam parted ways with the OT right about the time Isaac was born (book of Genesis 16/17ish, Ishmael was born to Hagar, and God set his own covenant with him). Ishmael according to this story would be against everyman and everyman against him. Ishmael is the connection arabs have with the Hebrews. It wasn't really until Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt that the traditions we understand as Judaism were born-several hundred years after Ishmael.

So pretty much all the OT law, and everything Jesus taught don't have much at all to do with Islam. Their main commonality is that they are all three monotheistic, and all three have some form of convenant relationship with God (or at least Ishmael has a convenant relationship Biblically, I don't know if Islam teaches this still).

While LaShawn's post is emotionally satisfying and it fits nicely with my "nuke Khartoum" gut reaction to the slaughter past and current in Sudan, it plain and simply doesn't solve anything. Jim Geraghty point that the Islamist terrorists, past and present, don't represent all Muslims any more that the excesses of the Crusaders represent all Cristianity. Nevertheless, my gut would still like to nuke Khartoum.

Ya know we can blah, blah, and blah somemore on bibles and quorans (bible for muslims...not a good speller).

But still, I feel LaShawn's frustration. Where is the muslim outrage? I haven't seen it yet. There was a word of a protest at LGF a few days ago, about the "insurgents", only a few showed up.

Ok. This is America. No one is going to chop your head off for opposing terrorism. I'd expect your business would pick up if you were muslim and showed some brass and showed up at said rally.

Whatever. LaShawn is right. This is war. You want to appease these assholes? Go right ahead. I'll say a prayer as I pass your headless body.

These "insurgents" have an agenda. Plain and simple. They want to take over the world.

If you don't bow to Allah, well then God bless ya, and please, this is no pun.

Please remember the souls we lost on 9/11. This isn't a joke. This is war. And they do have an agenda.

"That's not my point, to "indicate that" that was what it was "all about." My point was that portions of holy scripture are abandoned with modernization and cultural change, in the context of the time period."

Except that isn't what you said, you made a snarky "how bout this, oops that's in the Bible too" comment.

Also, they weren't abandoned because of modernization-the moral principles never have been abandoned. The civil laws were abandoned first because Israel was conquered by the Assyrians and Judah by the Babylonians, and the Nation of Israel ceased to exist. Now some of the concepts, like slavery were certainly abandoned as societies modernized and grew, but slavery wasn't unique to the judeo christian religion, slavery was a part of every culture and still is in some current ones. The ceremonial laws weren't abaondoned because of modernization either, they were abaondoned, because Christians aren't Jewish, and weren't expected to be Jewish (that question was settled in Acts in the NT).

The truth is that the basic structure of honoring human rights and the uniqueness/specialness of the individual is woven completely into the fabric of the Judeo Christian religion (it may be for Islam-as I have said I haven't read the Koran).

When Christians through history got into trouble, and screwed things up (Inquisition, to a degree the Crusades, etc) they screwed things up, because they abandoned the principles in the Bible, and became corrupted. Also, I think history has shown that the interweaving of Church and state is not a good thing. It tends to lead to a corrupted/weaker church.

That was one of the things Martin Luther was upset about, when he nailed his 95 thesis to the church door. He was bothered by the curruption that was in the church, and the abandoning of the concept of grace (he was highly upset with the selling of indulgences for one thing).

"Is Christianity an intrinsically more tolerant religion than Islam? From what I know, sure. Judaism? Maybe, not sure. That doesn't mean that Islam is beyond tolerance or fundamentally incompatible with the modern world."

I agree, but then I haven't made the argument that Islam is beyond tolerance.

But my Bible tells me to judge people by their fruits, and right now the fruits coming out of Islam as a whole, are pretty rotten.

But I don't think Christians, Jews, Secularists, etc are going to be able to do anything to change the problems with Islam right now-the voice that shouts down the Islamo fascists, has got to be a moderate muslim voice, and frankly right now, there just doesn't seem to be too many out there. I have been very impressed with various interviews/columns by Irshad Manji (a Muslim woman), but her views are considered so extreme that other Islamicists have called for her death. I have to say, that there are some Christian leaders out there that I totally disagree with, but I don't recall starting a death compaign in their honor. And that is the fundamental problem-it seems like at the moment-the moderate voices are barely engaged in the battle at this point, but if there is going to be any change, the change has to come from within.

Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest, he criticised his church from within, and that is what it took to get the ball rolling in the Christian reformation.

You only need a very small percentage of the billion or so Muslims to be of the Islamo-fascist sort to threaten the world with bio and/or nuke WMD. Christian fanatics until the 20th century tended to have local or regional reach and that required time, treasure and manpower. Muslim fanatics who seem developmentally at the level of the middle ages Christians will have access to far greater destructive power and a global reach. It won't matter if the vast majority of Muslims are as described by Jim Geraghty if one or more low yield nukes or dirty bombs go off in American cities. Asymmetrical response is a two edged sword. I damn hope the second of (Belmont Club) Wretchard's Three Conjectures doesn't come to pass. (He has a Fourth Conjecture posted today). Enlightenment took centuries to take hold in Europe and on the 61st anniversary of D-Day, one wonders how enlightened they truly are even now. But I don't hear of any worries of Christian Euro nuclear kamakazis; can you say the same of Islam?

"Enlightenment took centuries to take hold in Europe and on the 61st anniversary of D-Day, one wonders how enlightened they truly are even now. But I don't hear of any worries of Christian Euro nuclear kamakazis; can you say the same of Islam? "

It is a good point, and while I fully want my government to do what it can to stop the islamic jihadists from doing something like this, and detaining those they catch trying, and charging those who should be charged, and shoot killing the guys who engage them in battle, I think when it comes down to it, the key to future protection is to change the direction/beliefs systems of this group. That change can't and won't come from the West, it won't/can't come from non muslims.

The only way to get the change needed so that the idiots (by idiots I mean the ones who want to kill us and any other infidel) stop strapping on bombs and killing people, is for the Muslims who don't believe this type of behavior is acceptable.

Islam certainly needs a change/reformation/modernization/whatever you want to call it, but the people who do the changing are going to have to be other muslims. And there just doesn't seem to be at the moment too many moderate/reform oriented Muslims taking the stand at this point. HOpefully they will see the dangerthe extremists in their midst represent, and confront them head on, but right now I see very little action and a lot of double speak going on.

But I don't hear of any worries of Christian Euro nuclear kamakazis; can you say the same of Islam?

What's your point, chuckR? Are you saying "kill 'em all?"

Hmmm?

And does anything in my post suggest that I'm ignorant of this reality?

Dear fellow bloggers,

I am a very strong believer in the instant runoff system. I also believe that the 2008 presidential election will be unlike any presidential election any of us have ever seen. This is because it is the first presidential election since 1928 where not a single presidential or vice presidential incumbent will be running for the big chair.

And, because this race is so very wide open, it also has already started, earlier probably than any presidential election in our lifetime. Candidates are already criss-crossing the nation, testing their stump speeches, raising money for candidates from their party or for their own leadership PAC, etc. etc.

So, since the contest has already begun, and because I am such a strong believer in instant runoff, I have created an instant runoff poll at http://demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=IRV . I have included the names of all those people which the National Journal's Political Hotline have mentioned most frequently as possible 2008 presidential candidates in recent months.

The great thing about instant runoff is that the winner usually reflects quite accurately the consensus choice of the group voting, since the system not only measures STRENGTH of support but DEPTH of support as well. For this reason, a properly conducted instant runoff, if implemented for the country's entire population, would probably guarantee a result with which most of America would be significantly more pleased than those which come out of our current rather antiquated plurality winner system.

So you are hereby cordially invited to stop by and vote. Let's find out who most of us REALLY believe should be president. Vote for as many people as you want, but remember that you must only vote for candidates of whom you approve, NOT candidates of whom you do not approve, no matter how low you rank them. In addition, as soon as you vote, you will be able to see the latest figures in this ongoing poll simply by clicking the Results link.

And, by the way, please don't hesitate to tell your fellow political buffs about this survey. I believe that the more people who vote the more accurate this survey will be.

Yours in reform,

Charles

Bill,

Like too many on the Right, La Shawn Barber's reckless declaration stems from a continuing frustration and building anger, of having to defend the administration's failures on Iraq. On Conservative radio, less and less are careful distinctions made as to who the Islamofacists are. Now, if your anti-US outrage is the result of manipulative, partisan Mullahs - 'here's your sign'.

If a Christian Reformation beget a La Shawn Barber, what's to believe an Islamic Reformation would not produce another Bin Laden? If there's no one in the Republican Party powerful enough to challenge the bigotry of Ms. Barber, why should we be surprised that the House of Saud oil profits still fund madrases?

The ONLY Muslims who are relugiously reasonable DO NOT FOLLOW the Koran.

That means that they are and will remain a minority. So... you can infer whatever you choose from that.

a typo ....religiously.... and I associte with many of the reasonable ones regularly. They are deathly afraid of what is being done in the name of their religion.

Bill,

This is your Blog, so you can say what you want to. However, it is also my opinion that you have amply demonstrated your ignorance of the Bible with your out of context quotes.

You are the one who is patronizing. But, it is your blog.

And PS - Spare me the patronizing "so here is your basic lesson" stuff, especially when you didn't quite understand my point in using the quotes in the first place.

leaddog -

The ONLY Muslims who are relugiously reasonable DO NOT FOLLOW the Koran.

And the only good Christians view the Bible in an allegorical modern context, skipping the select parts about stoning. I love the admonitions about context. Because other than a historical context - which validates my point about culture shaping interpretations of religious doctrine, there is no other semantical context that doesn't amount to some bit of rationalization or revision of those passages. Because they exist.

I love this:

you have amply demonstrated your ignorance of the Bible with your out of context quotes.

All I do is point to these quotes, an make an oblique negative reference, and I'm "showing" my "ignorance."

There is no context that completely erases these passages; the codefication of this behavior existed at some point. That's a fact. Your ignorance, rationalizations and hostility in defense of a religion is showing. Face it - the "word of God as interpreted and written by man," had some flaws.

PS - Curious - and I'm serious - do you have an opinion on Scientology? Do you feel that you have the reasonable ability to have an opinion?

Just Me:

Except that isn't what you said, you made a snarky "how bout this, oops that's in the Bible too" comment.

So? Personally, I find your desire to advocate for your religion off topic, considering that I'm merely arguing that the call to kill all Muslims because they all want to kill us is wrong. And merely demonstrating that religion is adaptable within a given cultural framework.

The snarkiness does not invalidate my point - The Bible (the Old Testament) can be a violent, uncompromising book. Interpreted literally, even as it is in historical context, it led to behaviors that we would view rather dimly in a modern context.

You chose to take your own interpretation of my snarkiness, and then launch into a scholarly historical treatise, rationalizing the words printed on the page. This rationalization and context may be important to understanding the Bible's importance and message, but there those passages are, in black and white. Which makes the point ...

... that the words printed on the page exist, and therefore it is wrong to assume that all religious behaviors are codefied forever by virtue of the existence of certain religious doctrine. They are only truly relevant within the context of a culture, and our attempts to modernize the muslim world seek to have a fundamental impact on just this factor.

I'm simply arguing against sweeping, immutable bigotry, not rational analysis of the flaws in Islam, nor against Christianity, and most of the points that you make only reinforce my basic premise.

Does Christianity lend itself to modern cultural pluralism and ethics more than other religions? Sure.

Judaism? I have little knowledge of this religion other than the old Testament, so the jury is out.

Islam? Probably not, but religion is not immutable, and it's wrong to condemn a billion people.

Very simple. Should be non-controversial.

Good job Bill. It needed to be said. And you said it very well as always.

I would argue Islam is already in the throes of an Enlightenment. People don't realize there are two sides of Islam, one devoied of rational thought, one devoted to it. Christianity had a similar period when Greek reason was rediscovered and melded with Christ's teachings, eventually resulting in things like the Renaissance and Newtonian physics.

I've had that picture of the fingers up in my cube since the day it came out.

Re: TallDave "... when Greek reason was rediscovered and melded with Christ's teachings ..."

Starting note: I teach Mathematics at a university. One topic I've taught is History of Mathematics.

All I want to say about the above is Greek reason should have had nothing to do with Christ. But, the 1500's were sure interesting and many people confuse correlation with causality.

What does that all mean? It is about timing.

1) Carolingian Renaissance ( about 800 AD ). The big intellectual feat of this era was to begin the creation of a literate population through schools. The concept of an education survived the coming final wave of barbarian invasions.

2) Movable metal type printing press ( about 1450 AD ). And the stealing of how paper was made from Chinese prisoners by their Islamic captors. Which was then stolen from the Moors in Spain by their Christian conquerors. ( presses need cheep printing material ).

3) Constantinople with its original copies of Greek texts fell to Islam (the Turks) in 1453. This drove those texts into Europe and a literate populous who had access to mass printing. Side note: prior to 1450 there were maybe a few thousand books world wide. By 1500 there were probably several MILLION.

So ... many many eager and capable minds get access to manuscripts to work on. Both "Greek reason" and Greek and Hebrew copies of the Christian Bible. And here comes the HUGE problem. People take up worship of Greek knowledge.

Everyone at that time imagines the greatness of Greek thought and lifestyle. And how it is was so much better than what they had ( no Greek stories on plagues and barbarians ). So everyone pretty much agrees that those Greek ideas are the perfection of what Man is capable of.

Example: Galileo. That model of everything revolving around the Earth? It was Greek. Everyone believed that the Greeks couldn't have been wrong ( including the rulers of the Catholic Church, who had accepted the Greek science as basically divine ).

The whole melding of Greek science to religion was pretty stupid. It only took all those active minds less than ONE CENTURY to find the limitations of the Greeks. To find things the Greeks couldn't even comprehend and move beyond what they accomplished. All those new minds *had to* go on to develop new ideas and throw out the old ones that were wrong.

As far as the Christian Reawakening. All that was needed was access to the Word of God. Not being told what it said, but reading what it really says.

Do not confuse two separate events.

How does this apply to Islam. It doesn't. We can look to the past for help in guiding our future. But, you must take today's status and think of new and original ways to move to the future that you would like to see.

The big questions:
Can it be done? If yes, how?

"Mohamed being the Last Prophet of the People of the Book Islam has its roots in the Old Testament as well as Christianity."

Not exactly.

Islam parted ways with the OT right about the time Isaac was born (book of Genesis 16/17ish, Ishmael was born to Hagar, and God set his own covenant with him). Ishmael according to this story would be against everyman and everyman against him. Ishmael is the connection arabs have with the Hebrews. It wasn't really until Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt that the traditions we understand as Judaism were born-several hundred years after Ishmael
**************************************************Not exactlty back at yah ;-)

You are correct in the facts you present, but you left out exactly how Jesus becomes a Muslim Prophet? Which according to Islam he was. So your theory of total separation at the time you indicate may be in error?
“O people of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of Allah and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Apostles. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One Allah: glory be to him: (for Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.”
Chapter 4, Verse 171

**************************************************
That's not quite the point that I was making, but then again, obviously it is with you. Thanks.

Posted by Bill from INDC at June 6, 2005 09:51 PM
**************************************************
Can you then explain the point your were making it looked like me you were implying a "gotcha" indicating that other religions ie Christianity had facets we now reject in modern times. true on the face by maybe it were best to use text that is solely Christain and not shared by Islam? You did not so far as I can tell address my question of comparing the Quran with the New Testament.

I don't advocate the extermination of all Muslims but those who practice the orginal form of Islam as practiced by Muhamed and His Companions or the Islamic Jihadists in Sudan certainly advocate the extermination of everyone like you or I.

Can you dispute that statement?

No, I cannot dispute that statement. just as you can't dispute the statement that those that might follow the old, yet not the new testament literally also have an admonition to kill non-believers.

The new testament also has some choice passages that are ignored in modern times, but it's a relatively benign religious text, I agree.

This isn't a pissing match between Christianity and Islam. For one, because Christianity is not the entire world. For another thing, never have I stated that Christianity is equivalent to or worse than Islam as far as literal interpretation. My sole point is that portions exist which would be pretty negative if interpreted literally, revealing that religion adapts over the years within a cultural framework.

Bill: " ... you can't dispute the statement that those that might follow the old, yet not the new testament literally also have an admonition to kill non-believers."

I dispute that statement. Can you give me the example you are thinking of? I'm talking about something that requires the taking of someone's life from outside of Jewish society just because they don't believe in God (a non-believer). Which does leave wiping out a society because they happen to toss their kids in fires for their gods. That maybe hard to handle, but it isn't an attack on unbelievers.

Also, I don't see your point is any of the very strict Jewish sects from today.

Bill: "The new testament also has some choice passages ..."

Again: Which ones? I'm assuming here that you are implying texts that encourage what you would consider bad behavior in light of today. I asked the above and no one has answered yet: can you name a "rather bad behavior" that wouldn't be condemned by a "literal interpretation of the Bible"?

Anyway, yes religion ( which is the outward display of a faith ) does change with cultures. Because obviously you display your faith within the culture you live. How Christians display their faith in Africa is different than how Christians display their faith in America. That doesn't mean that their faith or what their faith is based on changes.

Back to Islam. The Koran, Sayings, and History of Islam all have simple statements and EXAMPLES of killing those outside their culture who do not believe. Strictly because they do not believe. So how can Islam get past this so they can live peaceable with those who have different ideas?

One: because Islam has holy interpreters that can issue new holy commands you can have a seperation of those versus into the past versus future.

Two: there will always be those who simply read the Koran and the life of its prophet on their own. Which means there will always be war between them and the world.

The goal is to create societies where you maximize one and minimize two. And personally democracy and increasing the rights of individuals is a good way to do that. Democracy increases an individuals stake within society. Getting along in a democracy increases your families chances to improve their state. But, do not think we will ever remove that number two problem. It will be like storms over the plains. Some days it will be sunny others will be terrible.

Arasmith,

I was referring to the Greek traditions of freedom, reason and critical debate. Of course from a modern perspective, the Greeks were brutes, but they did make some significant contributions.

As far as the Christian Reawakening. All that was needed was access to the Word of God. Not being told what it said, but reading what it really says.

Exactly, and with the advent of reason and debate and freedom, people were finally able to talk about these things and discover the real truth of Christ's words.

How does this apply to Islam. It doesn't.

Wrong, it does. Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims have all been forced by the exercise of reason to indirectly accept Christian principles in the guise of secular humanism. This process continues unabated.

There are certainly aspects of Islam that advocate war and violence against infidels. Every place there is religious conflict today, it generally involves Muslims. But the light is slowly dawning everwhere.

TallDave,

about,
... advent of reason and debate and freedom ...
and
... Wrong, it does [apply to Islam].

The Greeks did excel at many things. But reason and debate are in all cultures. Much of what they accomplished did not just spring from their minds. Rather they were first worked on by neighboring societies. They happened to have a society that generated wealth for many more individuals. Making it possible for more people to sit around thinking rather than actually working. More people thinking on problems = more problems solved. Good night, they had religions based on thinking about numbers! :)

As for freedom. As with all societies of the time ... freedom was for those with power.

These are not things that got absorbed into Christianity. They are things that man has always had. It is just whether you choose to use them.

Why do I not think this applies to Islam? They had everything Europe had in the 1500's. Plus a more stable society and more collected knowledge from the past. They were probably the most powerful and stable nations of the era. And the situation in Islamic countries didn't change. So, to me, it will take something different than what caused the changes of modernization in the rest of the world.

I'm simply arguing against sweeping, immutable bigotry

Then use a legitimate example of such.

Barber's comment can properly be interpreted as a statement of Muslim (the religion) intent. Not a description of all Muslims. The intent (as promoted my religious leaders) may or may not be accurate in your opinion, but it is awful easy to support using statements of "leaders" acknowledged as such by their "followers".

When such leaders claim that "love of death" is a Muslim advantage over Jew and Christian "love of life", it is NOT BIGOTRY to refer to that as a "cult of death".

boris -

I ceased to be interested in your predictable opinions a long time ago.

your predictable opinions

Well it's more a point of logic than an opinion. Muslims can openly change their "intent", as expressed by their "leaders" and supported by their "followers" and still be Muslims and Barber's so called bigotry would evaporate.

I know you can't tell the difference, but trust me, it is.

I wrote that her statement "looks like ... bigotry." I wrote that she sounded of "like a bigot." That her choice of words did not make distinctions, and that her statement was inflammatory, on its face. And that making inflammatory statements is a bad thing.

But predictably, as you do every time you drop your $.02 on this blog, you have your head too far up your own bum to notice the distinction.

But reason and debate are in all cultures.
As for freedom. As with all societies of the time ... freedom was for those with power.

Not true. Open public debate was quite peculiar to Greece, as was the concept of individual freedom. And they produced unique historical effects, as Victor Hanson has pointed out in numerous books.

For instance, it was virtually unthinkable in any non-Greek society for someone to openly question the decisions of the leadership, and in fact often punishable by death, whereas in Greece, even under less enlightened leaders like Alexander the Great, it was not unusual for a mere phalangite to offer criticisms to Alexander himself.

That her choice of words did not make distinctions

As a matter of intent, distinctions are not necessary. There may have been some "good" communists who did not "intend" to spread communism worldwide, nevertheless, that was the intent of communism and saying so is not bigoted nor does it "appear" to be.

At least I have a head.

To illustrate my point, at ITM the brothers have noted that whenever something new was invented Koranic scholars would hurriedly find some passage that "proved" Mohammed had actually invented it first. That kind of ridiculous rationalization quickly falls apart in open public debate.

This phenomenon almost by itself explains why Islam, at 1300 AD the most civilized and advanced culture in the world, stopped advancing and was soon surpassed by the "barbarians" in Europe. They believed all knowledge was known, and new research was deemed unnecessary and was stifled.

As a matter of intent, distinctions are not necessary.

Ok Boris -

"All Jews are killers of non-Jews. We must kill them all before they kill us."

Now guess my intent.

Seriously, stop embarrassing yourself.

Open public debate was quite peculiar to Greece

The Greeks codified the way to argue ( of course the rules of logic were not REALLY codified until ... hmm got off topic ... don't think anyone is interested in finite vs infinite set theory? ). So we now we can call people sophists as an insult. But, how is that different from the small group level discussions of the Plains Indians? Or drinking riddles ...

Voiceless it cries,
Wingless flutters,
Toothless bites.
Mouthless mutters.

(Bonus if you can find where I stole that from).

Public debate was common at the time. The Greeks were just advanced enough to write about it. And with more and more leisure time they were able to advance it. Their knack of abstract thought also set them apart from previous groups. But given the chance, I believe that skill is in everyone.

I suppose I could talk about the status of slaves (1/3 of the population), children (look up "expose it"), women, etc. All I really want to say is I have a very difficult time with looking at Greek culture as if it sprang from the ground a perfect idea of man.

Their advances were a feature of "soil" and "seed". The society created an environment ( the soil ) that was ready for the knowledge ( the seed ). That is all. And most of real work was done between 350BC and 200BC by Greek immigrants in Egypt.

Back to Islam ...

Your point of Koranic scholars finding passages to prove that the Koran contained all ideas anyway is what I'm talking about as well. Why did Islam not participate in advancement? The Koran. On its face it is supposed to contain everything.

It may be obvious to you and me that it doesn't. But, for those who use it as the end all definition of truth, what we say doesn't matter. Reason and debate can not win that argument. You must approach from another direction.

Now guess my intent.

Non responsive and incoherant.

Try using an established group with a stated ideoligical intent, eg worldwide communism, for a valid analogy. Is it bigoted to claim that comunism intended to spread worldwide by force of arms if necessary? On the basis that some party members had no such intent but were simply members for reasons of self interest?

The point is simple enough to address, and yet ...

Your analogy does not hold up directly based on the criteria that you've established. Judaism was an established group with a codefied ideological intent. Why hasn't it taken over the world or been crushed?

So simple to address, yet ...

Communism, on its face, in all of its forms, does not even have a literal, codefied manifest doctrine to spread worldwide by force of arms; there are plenty of harmless commies ranting in parks that believe that the rise of the proletariat will (would) be a natural, smooth occurrence. And like blind followers of a culturally discredited religion, they happen to be wrong.

Your point has been addressed. Now forgive me if I step out of debate with you. It's not because I can't parry your quips, it's not because I bow to the strength of your cunning, rather I've made these points already in the preceding 60+ comments (specifically how religions, despite their literal proclamations, tend to change in literal relevance within a cultural context) ...

... and it's also because I can't stand your arguments on just about every topic. I'm simply not that interested in your opinion.

But, how is that different from the small group level discussions of the Plains Indians?

It's different in that the Greeks were city-states while the Plains Indians were tribes. The former practices mass repression as a rule, the latter is incapable of it by definition.

So we now we can call people sophists as an insult.

Sophistry is an insult, debate is essential to the maintenance and advance of civilization.

Public debate was common at the time. The Greeks were just advanced enough to write about it.

Public debate was extremely uncommon. The standard practice was the ruler decided, the mass of people obeyed unquestioningly, and dissenters were killed. See neighboring Persia at the time, plus every place Alexander conquered.

Your point of Koranic scholars finding passages to prove that the Koran contained all ideas anyway is what I'm talking about as well. Why did Islam not participate in advancement? The Koran. On its face it is supposed to contain everything.

Exactly, and public debate quickly exposes the flaws in such a notion. This is why Christianity, with free and open debate, was able to get past the persecution of Galileo and eventually accept scientific progress and research, while Islam was not.

It may be obvious to you and me that it doesn't. But, for those who use it as the end all definition of truth, what we say doesn't matter. Reason and debate can not win that argument.

In fact, reason and debate are the argument. Being forced to publicly defend untenable positions tends to weaken those positions considerably. Reductio al Koranum only works as long as no one is allowed to point out how silly it is.

sorry, s/b Reductio ad Koranum

I liked Reductio al Koranum better. :)

I think where you and I differ is with size and purpose. I am considering public debate as any time more than two people gather to argue ( for fun or profit ). Not just the traditional Greek idea of public debate. For example syllogism was commonly used around the world, even though people didn't have a name for it. Or understand what it really was.

... works as long as no one is allowed to point out how silly it is.

Yes, you can have a well reasoned debate about how the Koran is wrong. That Moses wasn't Jesus' uncle. etc. Then Alexander walks up and cuts the knot in half rather than unties it.

You can debate and reason, have the person hit you on the head with a club, raise his hands and yell "I Win!". And for all intensive purposes he did. That is because reason, debate, and logic are all tools. If the person decides not to use them ...

Lastly on the persecution of Galileo. The Greeks "persecuted" Galileo since Aristotle in the 4th century BC. That was when Aristotle declared the Heliocentric idea as crap.

Later the Catholic church ( rather stupidly IMO ) decided to take up Aristotle as being right by default. No arguments allowed. What did any of that have to do with Christ? Nothing. Nothing other than the blind following of the minds of the past.

So was it God's Word that needed to be refined by reason and debate or rather Greek thought?

Was it God' Word that needed to be refined by reason and debate or rather the human leaders of the era?

Communism, on its face, in all of its forms, does not even have a literal, codefied manifest doctrine to spread worldwide by force of arms;

So your answer is what???? Therefore it is bigotry to claim that communists intended to take over the world by force of arms if necessary? Even though millions died because the communists with guns had them killed?

The point you're missing (deliberately) is that

Communism, whether openly or discretely, in most of its forms, murdered millions as a result of it's codefied manifest doctrine to spread worldwide by revolution and or force of arms when necesssary;

The point that come who called themselves communist did not is irrelevant. The claim that communism had this "intent" is more than a valid opinion, it is an incontrovertable observation.

You may have a contrary opinion which in no way makes the forgoing observation BIGOTRY in any way.

You still have not addressed Judaism, which by virtue of the old Testament, does have a stated position on what to do with unbelievers. Yet it hasn't come to fruition, and I'd like to hear your "acceptable" stated view on the "bloodthirsty Jews," four-million of which tend heavily towards pacifism and live in the Empire State. Communism is not analagous to Islam, unless many other religions are equally analagous to Communism. Islamofascism is more analagous to Communism, in the form that you're talking about (as codefied by the early Asian ambition and the USSR).

And it remains that all of this lies outside of the fact that ...

... making the statement that all Muslims are out to kill us, and thus we probably have to kill all of them first ...

... is wrong. (not to mention impractical and stupid) Which was what I wrote about.

And your willingness to argue against that point pretty much disturbs me. Says quite a bit about you, boris.

arra,

Well, the functional difference is the idea that citizens of a state have a right to debate in public, without violent sanction. The Greeks' invention of that idea (though imperfectly applied by them) was one of the most important events in human history.

Aristotle and Ptolemy may have discarded the heliocentric model, but they did not use the state to violently suppress empirical data suggesting it was correct. In fact, I would wager heavily that had they had access to Tycho Brahe's work, public debate would quickly have forced them to accept it.

So was it God's Word that needed to be refined by reason and debate or rather Greek thought?

I would argue Christ's teachings and Greek debate (which allowed better understanding of Christ's teachings) were both necessary ingredients in the Enlightenment.

Fortunately for Muslims, they don't need to accept Christ to enjoy the terrestrial benefits of His teachings, because secular humanism is based on the already-present example of post-Enlightenment Christian societies; the pre-Enlightenment people would probably not have figured it out without His help.

I think it's important also to notee the Greeks lacked something very important: the scientific method. The immense value of direct, repeatable experimentation was not yet understood. Also, too much of their reasoning was based on commonly-held flawed assumptions. Still, despite those handicaps they accomplished a lot intellectually with critical debate.