Babi Thank you so much.
Robby oh Robby, Help Please.
Ann Alden
June 8, 2003 - 02:58 pm
Its possible to send these articles out to those who do not want to sign up but its really no problem to sign up. Like Robby says, they don't bother you with anything you say you don't want.
Ann Alden
June 8, 2003 - 03:03 pm
Here is that article. Ginger, I have sent you the same by email, let me know if you get it so I can hone my copying talents if I need to.
June 8, 2003
Why America Outpaces Europe (Clue: The God Factor)
By NIALL FERGUSON
XFORD, England — It was almost a century ago that the German sociologist Max Weber published
his influential essay "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism." In it, Weber argued that
modern capitalism was "born from the spirit of Christian asceticism" in its specifically Protestant form —
in other words, there was a link between the self-denying ethos of the Protestant sects and the behavior
patterns associated with capitalism, above all hard work.
Many scholars have built careers out of criticizing Weber's thesis. Yet the experience of Western Europe
in the past quarter-century offers an unexpected confirmation of it. To put it bluntly, we are witnessing
the decline and fall of the Protestant work ethic in Europe. This represents the stunning triumph of
secularization in Western Europe — the simultaneous decline of both Protestantism and its unique work
ethic.
Just as Weber's 1904 visit to the United States convinced him that his thesis was right, anyone visiting
New York today would have a similar experience. For in the pious, industrious United States, the
Protestant work ethic is alive and well. Its death is a peculiarly European phenomenon — and has grim
implications for the future of the European Union on the eve of its eastward expansion, perhaps most
economically disastrous for the "new" Europe.
Many economists have missed this vindication of Weber because they are focused on measures of
productivity, like output per hour worked. On that basis, the Western European economies have spent
most of the past half-century spectacularly catching up with the United States.
But what the productivity numbers don't reveal is the dramatic divergence over two decades between the
amount of time Americans work and the amount of time Western Europeans work. By American standards,
Western Europeans are astonishingly idle.
According to a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the average
working American spends 1,976 hours a year on the job. The average German works just 1,535 — 22
percent less. The Dutch and Norwegians put in even fewer hours. Even the British do 10 percent less work
than their trans-Atlantic cousins. Between 1979 and 1999, the average American working year lengthened
by 50 hours, or nearly 3 percent. But the average German working year shrank by 12 percent.
Yet even these figures understate the extent of European idleness, because a larger proportion of
Americans work. Between 1973 and 1998 the percentage of the American population in employment rose
from 41 percent to 49 percent. But in Germany and France the percentage fell, ending up at 44 and 39
percent. Unemployment rates in most Northern European countries are also markedly higher than in the
United States.
Then there are the strikes. Between 1992 and 2001, the Spanish economy lost, on average, 271 days per
1,000 employees as a result of strikes. For Denmark, Italy, Finland, Ireland and France, the figures range
between 80 and 120 days, compared with fewer than 50 for the United States.
All this is the real reason that the American economy has surged ahead of its European competitors in the
past two decades. It is not about efficiency. It is simply that Americans work more. Europeans take longer
holidays and retire earlier; and many more European workers are either unemployed or on strike.
How to explain this sharp divergence? Why have West Europeans opted for shorter working days, weeks,
months, years and lives? This is where Weber's thesis comes up trumps: the countries where the least
work is done in Europe turn out to be those that were once predominantly Protestant. While the
overwhelmingly Catholic French and Italians work about 15 to 20 percent fewer hours a year than
Americans, the more Protestant Germans and Dutch and the wholly Protestant Norwegians work 25 to 30
percent less.
What clinches the Weber thesis is that Northern Europe's declines in working hours coincide almost
exactly with steep declines in religious observance. In the Netherlands, Britain, Germany, Sweden and
Denmark, less than 10 percent of the population now attend church at least once a month, a dramatic
decline since the 1960's. (Only in Catholic Italy and Ireland do more than a third of the population go to
church on a monthly basis.) In the recent Gallup Millennium Survey of religious attitudes, 49 percent of
Danes, 52 percent of Norwegians and 55 percent of Swedes said God did not matter to them. In North
America, by comparison, 82 percent of respondents said God was "very important."
So the decline of work in Northern Europe has occurred more or less simultaneously with the decline of
Protestantism. Quod erat demonstrandum indeed!
Weber's vindication has profound implications for the next year's enlargement of the European Union,
when the Baltic States, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and the Czech and Slovak Republics will become full
European Union members.
A crucial feature of this enlargement, compared with those of the 1970's and 1980's, is that the material
gap between old and new members is far wider this time. In 1974, the richest old member (Luxembourg)
was twice as rich as the poorest new member (Ireland) in terms of per capita gross domestic product.
Today, the average Luxembourgeois is more than five times richer than the poorest new member
(Lithuania).
The impact of adopting the European Union's economic and social rules is bound to be far greater for this
generation of new Europeans. They should remember what happened in the 1990's to the East Germans,
who initially celebrated their accession to the vastly richer West German Federal Republic, only to
discover it meant unemployment for roughly a third of the work force.
This is where productivity statistics matter. Even after more than a decade of free-market reforms,
productivity levels in the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary are as low as one third of the
French level. What this means is that unless wages in those countries are set at around a third of French
levels, their workers will not be able to compete.
East Europeans are currently able to compensate for their low productivity by working longer hours. The
average Czech worker does more than 2,000 hours of work a year — a figure steadily rising since the
collapse of Communism, even as working hours in Western Europe were declining. Unfortunately, European
Union labor legislation will reverse this, to prevent what the West Europeans disingenuously call "social
dumping" — the competition from low-wage economies. Czechs will be obliged to work less by a combination
of legal entitlements to a shorter working week, longer holidays, higher minimum wages and generous
unemployment benefits when their employers go bust because of all this.
The question is how much the Czechs will care about the ensuing enforced leisure. Like nearly all the 10
new members of the European Union, the Czech Republic is a predominantly Catholic country. (The
exceptions are Protestant Estonia and Latvia.) But one striking consequence of 40-plus years of socialist
rule in Eastern Europe has been a decline of religious belief almost as marked as that in Northern Europe.
According to Gallup, 48 percent of Western Europeans almost never go to church, but the figure for
Eastern Europe is just a bit less, at 44 percent. Meanwhile, 64 percent of Czechs regard God as not
mattering at all — a higher rate than even in Sweden. In this respect the difference between "old" and
"new" Europe may turn out to be less than many Americans now believe. Enlargement of the European Union
may simply confirm the ea
Ray Franz
June 8, 2003 - 03:42 pm
The evil of religion continues to be concern about the beliefs (or non-belief) of others.
What makes a person fanatical and over zealous concerning the beliefs of others?
This seems to be the main reason for religious conflict and some of the "evil" of religion.
robert b. iadeluca
June 8, 2003 - 03:50 pm
In reference to Ray's concern that
"people are over zealous concerning the beliefs of others,"- -
Kimball (Page 32) says that people "go to great lengths to protect their religious institutions against perceived threats" and that "some religions cease to serve the purposes for which they were intended."
Robby
Justin
June 8, 2003 - 05:04 pm
"People are over-zealous concerning the beliefs of others and that is the cause of religious conflict." That's an interesting thesis. Let's look at some examples. Urban ll was over-zealous when he worried that Saracen Muslims were preventing Christians from reaching Jerusalem because the place contained the holy shrines of Islam.
The Spanish monk Torquemada and King Phillip of Spain were over-zealous when they requested Jews to convert or suffer the pain of auto da fe.
Queen Mary of England, the Catholic Bloody Mary, an over-zealous monarch, was concerned that Protestants were in error and killed thousands of them to cleanse her realm.
How about some recent Slavic examples, or the recalcitrance of Pious Xll, to bring this conflict up to date?
Conflicts in religions are caused as much by the content of the religious documents as by the people who implement policy. It is not difficult to find the many examples of evil causing phrases that fill the documents. Try the Old Testament, the Epistles of Paul, and Canon Law for starters. The seeds of hatred are well rooted in these documents. They led to the Holocaust as well as many other evils.
Think of the damage done by the vow of celibacy imposed on the priesthood.
Unfortunately, these evils will not be corrected by the faithful who seem to accept, excuse, and even venerate, the perpetrators.
BaBi
June 9, 2003 - 06:43 am
It has always seemed to me that those who "go to great lengths" to protect their religious institutions are demonstrating that either they don't believe their God is capable of protecting his own, or the 'institution' is theirs and not God's.
I am trying to think of some religion that has "ceased to serve the purpose for which it was intended", as Kimball states. I'm drawing a blank. Some have undoubtedly gone beyond what was originally intended, and others fall short of what was envisioned. Still, I can't think of one that wholly fits his description. Anyone have any ideas on that? ...Babi
Ann Alden
June 9, 2003 - 09:42 am
Again, Babi, I think that a motto of "Be Not Afraid" would certainly help us all in our faith quests. One must trust in his/her maker to carry one past these problems. Forcing someone to believe certain tenents, just can't be good idea for any religion. And, it certainly shouldn't have been the excuse that the Inquisition, the Crusades and other religious ill treatment of the population used. The Moors were not much better although they did increase the beauty of Spain's artistic endeavors.
What does "ceased to serve the purpose for which it was intended" mean? That is a hard question, Babi. Is he referring to any of the three faiths of Abraham? Or Hinduism or Buddism?? Give me a page number so that I can put it in context with whatever else is written there, will you?Thanks!
Jonathan
June 9, 2003 - 11:49 am
What's the point of reading my Bible if I'm not allowed to find truths in it to help me through the day? To help me recognize the enemies that surround me? The truth will set you free. Am I not permitted to take that literally? To look for and find many meanings may be a fine intellectual exercise in the academys and seminarys of the world; but here on the street, where a plan of action is needed, or a quick spiritual uplift, too much thought just weakens the resolve.
It may well be as Kimball says on page 59: 'Jews, on the other hand (that is, unlike Christians and Muslims), have had a long tradition of reflecting on and speculatively interpreting their sacred texts.' But that may be because they have had many more occasions to find answers to pressing problems. An idea of Robert Alter's, immediately following, has it that 'in the Jewish tradition meaning is not a property of a text but something that must always...(be) sought and redefined.'
'...the innovative techniques of fiction worked out by the ancient Hebrews', quoting Alter (60), certainly suggests an ineresting view of Scripture.
Even more interesting are Peter Gomes' observations about the dangers of literalism:
'First, it indulges the reader in the fanciful notion (!) that by virtue of natural intelligence the text is apprehensible and therefore sensible.'
'The second danger of literalism is that the power of private judgment may well obscure the meaning of a text by paying attention only to what it says.' (!)
'...literalism itself is hostage to the eighteenth-century illusion that truth and meaning are the same thing, and that they are fixed and discernible by the application of the faculties of reason and common sense.'
If I'm discouraged from using whatever natural intelligence I have, or advised not to use 'the faculties of reason and common sense', or denied the use of my private judgment, and to be warned of the dangers of taking the Holy Word at its word, then I think I would find the pews at Harvard's Memorial Church very uncomfortable.
It gets curiouser and curiouser. But now I remember me. It was conceded to the hard-to-convince that in order to discover the truth in Scripture one had to be moved by the spirit.
Raymond, what do you think? Is economics all about God? Is Europe's decline due to the words 'by the sweat of thy brow' no longer being taken literally by the working class?
georgehd
June 9, 2003 - 12:31 pm
Jonathan, I find your post 385 interesting but I am not sure that I understand what you are getting at.
While I know that the book The DaVinci Code will be discussed in September, I am reading it now and just read a section that is most apt for this discussion. While the book is a novel, it is based on historical information. I am sorry that the quote is so long but here goes-
"Nobody could deny the enormous good the modern Church did in today's troubled world, and yet the Church had a deceitful and violent history. Their brutal crusade to 'reeducate' the pagan and feminine-worshipping religions spanned three centuries, employing methods as inspired as they were horrific.
The Catholic Inquisition published the book that arguably could be called the most blood-soaked publication in human history. Malleus Maleficarum - or The Witches Hammer - indoctrinated the world to 'the dangers of freethinking women' and instructed the clergy how to locate, torture, and destroy them. Those deemed 'witches' by the Church included all female scholars, priestesses, gypsies, mystics, nature lovers, herb gatherers, and any women 'suspiciously attuned to the natural world'. Midwives also were killed for their heretical practice of using medical knowledge to ease the pain of childbirth - a suffering, the Church claimed, that was God's rightful punishment for Eve's partaking of the Apple of Knowledge, thus giving birth to the idea of Original Sin. During three hundred years of witch hunts, the Church burned at the stake an astounding five million women.
The propaganda and bloodshed had worked."
The book, written by Dan Brown, goes on to speak about how women were banished from the temples of the world. Natural sexual urges were the work of women and hence of the devil. The Western World was taken over by a male dominated clergy for two thousand years. This passage is certainly an indictment of the Catholic Church. It is interesting to note that the number of women burned (if true) approaches the horror of the holocaust.
Persian
June 9, 2003 - 02:53 pm
I wonder how God feels about so many cultures and religions being so afraid of women to the point where they are tortured and burned to death; mutilated and left to die in agony; or just mutilated, but not dead. I'm thinking here particularly of the Chinese dynasties, as well as those within Christiandom.
robert b. iadeluca
June 10, 2003 - 02:58 am
Religion is certainly in the news today. Once again
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE is in the news.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 10, 2003 - 03:00 am
This
ARTICLE relates to Kimball's remarks as to whether religion should be for something or against something.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 10, 2003 - 03:04 am
Can we invoke God in setting up our
STATE TAX PROCEDURES or do we keep Him out of the State Houses?
Robby
georgehd
June 10, 2003 - 04:06 am
The article about the removal of the Ten Commandments from the schools is particularly interesting to me. One could argue that these laws, though given to the Jews, are in fact laws for all mankind. I believe that some form of the Ten Commandments are a part of all religions. The problem of course is the reference to a belief in God. Does the belief in God imply the existence of a Church or religion? I believe that one could argue that it does not. If we remove God from the schools, what do we do about "In God We Trust"? While we are bound to protect the rights of minorities, is the US also bound to make no mention of God? Most Presidential speeches end with an appeal to God. I will be interested to see how others feel about this issue.
georgehd
June 10, 2003 - 04:10 am
As I read the DaVinci Code, I am appalled at the history of the Catholic church which I knew but had not really examined in any depth. How does the modern Church answer questions about its past? Again I would appreciate a Catholic's point of view. How does the Church answer many of Kimball's arguments about when a religion becomes evil?
For the record I do not want to introduce religious intolerance into this discussion; I am curious as to how the 'official' Church has reacted to Kimball's arguments.
Ann Alden
June 10, 2003 - 07:38 am
I think that as long as Kimball remains historically truthful about the Catholic Church, the church cannot say much about his statements. Truth is truth!!
I found this interesting paragraph on the Zoroastrian site:
"Surprisingly, many so-called Christian concepts actually were derived from Zoroastrian Aryan ideas which
thrived in Iran for thousands of years until the Arab invasion of Iran around 1300 years ago. Concepts such as
heaven and hell, God and the evil adversary ahriman, the coming of the Saviour or Saoshyant born of a virgin,
the end-time purge of the world by Fire followed by the resurrection of the dead (Ristakhiz), the making
fresh of the world (Frashogard) and the final battle between good and evil leading to the final defeat of evil.
These beliefs filtered down to Judaism during the reign of King Khushru (Cyrus) of Iran.
Although proud to be Aryans, Zoroastrians also believe that all races in the world are created by God and are
equal - a true sign of the real ancient Aryan's nobility and tolerance. Cyrus, King of Iran who was an Aryan
rebuilt the temple of the Jews after freeing the Jews from Babylon - for this, he is still remembered by the
Jews and called the "Anointed of the Lord" in the Bible. The Jews still celebrate that act of the true Aryans in
a festival. Many Jews then stayed in Iran under Cyrus and his successors such as Darayus, as equal subjects
under the King. Books of the Bible written after this stay have taken all these Zoroastrian concepts, from
there they came to Christianity and other religions. There are scholars who consider Zoroastrianism as such to
be the mother religion of the present day world's faiths."
What happened to Abraham in this story?
Persian, about your post yesterday regarding the mistreatment of women. I remember hearing about a book about the Japanese invasion of Nanking in China. The book was titled, "The Rape of Nanking". Pretty awful things were done there. I heard the author interviewed when the book was published. This is not an Amy Tan book, believe me!
HubertPaul
June 10, 2003 - 09:18 am
Ann Alden:”"Surprisingly, many so-called Christian concepts actually were derived from Zoroastrian Aryan ideas.....”
And:”There are scholars who consider Zoroastrianism as such to be the mother religion of the present day world's faiths."
Some scholars also claim that the Jews adopted the concept of one God for all people from Zoroastrianism. To this they added the concept:‘but we are His Chosen People’, a concept which may have caused some of the anti-Semitism over the following centuries.
BaBi
June 10, 2003 - 11:32 am
ANN, my earlier post was in response to Robby's quote in his Post #381. He said the quote was from Pg. 32, if you want to locate it.
I was aware of the parallels between Zoroastrianism and Christianity. In fact, I somewhat upset some of my fellow Christians at one time by asserting that there is no evidence of any Jewish concept of an 'adversary'to God, or devil, prior to the Babylonian captivity and the exposure to Zoroastrianism. Early references to "demons" were invariably referring to idols.
Jonathan, I read your quotes from Peter Gomes several times, and they still don't make sense to me. I agree that one can miss the point of a text by looking only at what it literally says. But how the "power of private judgment" is obscuring the text escapes me. The other quotes also seem to verge on nonsense, IMO. Who is Peter Gomes, if I may ask?
...Bobbie
georgehd
June 10, 2003 - 12:22 pm
BaBi
June 10, 2003 - 12:23 pm
Thanks, George. ..Babi
BaBi
June 10, 2003 - 12:29 pm
Interesting combination for Mr. Gomes: Baptist Ministry and Harvard College, nourisher of the political Left. Most Baptists, I believe, tend to support literalism in Biblical interpretation. The Harvard education may be why I found some of his wording obscure and puzzling. :<( I am open to any interpretations anyone cares to offer of Mr. Gomes statements. ...Babi
Lou2
June 10, 2003 - 12:42 pm
There is a letter to President Bush in the USA Today in section D... printed by Jerusalem Prayer Team, PO Box 910, Euless, TX... These folks are encouraging everyone to send this letter to the President or sign this petition on the internet at
www.theroadmap.org
This is addressing the road map... and peace efforts between Isreal and.... well, is it Palastine?? or is it the terriorist??? Have you all seen this petition??? (I hope this hasn't been discussed already and I missed it... if so, just ignore this... but I'll love to know what you all think...)
They do not want Jerusalem divided. They say the reason USA has been such a successful world power is our friendship with Isreal... and much much more.
What say you all???
Lou
georgehd
June 10, 2003 - 04:38 pm
Lou, I fully support the state of Israel but I would never sign such a letter. It looks as if it is produced by a fundamentalist Christian organization. While they might mean well, I think that it would be better for the Israelis if they stayed out of Middle East politics which are already mixed up enough. I wonder what their stand on Islam is.
Lou2
June 10, 2003 - 05:12 pm
georgehd, The paper says...I am deeply troubled that Israel has received an eviction notice from the Quartet (Russia, the European Union, United Nations and the United States.) The plan demands that all Jewish refugees leave Judea and Samaria and that Jerusalem be divided (the so-called Road Map), and the PLO, an organization that has supported, harbored and financed terror, be given a state. Another terrorist state, Syria, that harbored and aided terrorists that attacked our troops in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom would be given the Golan Heights, and access to the Sea of Galilee, Israel's main source of water.
More there... nothing I see that specifically names Islam.
Lou
Justin
June 11, 2003 - 12:34 am
It seems desirable, today, to avoid intolerance but intolerance is necessary if one is to expose evil in organizations that are otherwise thought to be worthwhile. Prejudice is to be avoided. Critical judgement,on the other hand, should be encouraged.
What is intolerance? It is interference with the ways and opinions of others. It is a lack of forebearing.
However, a policy of live and let live is irresponsible when the object of that policy is an organization espousing good but breeding evil. One must be intolerant to expose such social problems. Intolerance is good. Prejudice is bad. Responsible people should recognize the diference and be willing to call attention to wrongful acts when they appear, no matter the source.
Sexual abuse of children by the clergy is clearly wrong. The root cause, it seems to me is the celibacy vow that priests are required to accept. The problem is rooted in the failure of religious authorities to recognize that priests are human. I am intolerant of that aspect of their religion, and I think, properly so.
robert b. iadeluca
June 11, 2003 - 02:57 am
Kimball quotes Thomas Friedman (Pg 33) from the book, "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" in saying that the Lexus symbolizes global markets, financial institutions and computer technologies and that the Olive Tree represents everything that roots and anchors us.Kimball adds that "religion is the largest and deepest root, anchoring and sustaining the life of the tree."
This makes me wonder about the millions of people who profess no religion at all. Do they have nothing which roots and anchors them?
Robby
georgehd
June 11, 2003 - 05:23 am
Justin and others, here is another story about sex and the clergy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/11/nyregion/11PRIE.htmlAnn Alden
June 11, 2003 - 07:02 am
I will say only one more thing on the abuse of children by adults, pertaining to priests in the church. If that were you or me, we would be in jail! And, for me, that's where the abusers belong. Counseling can be administered anywhere so these men and women can be counseled while serving their terms. This only common sense!
What do we do with our need to interpret the Bible for ourselves? Can we do this without some kind of education in biblical studies? Who do we listen to when it comes to to interpreting the Bible besides our own minds?
Here is an article about a new book about the "Gulags of Russia" which weren't mentioned by President Bush in his recent visit. Millions died in the gulags, many of whom actually were quoted as saying, "If Joe Stalin knew what was going on here, he would end it immediately." He put them there and they still believed in him. Does this mean that the encarcerated Russians were totally unaware of what was really happening? Or were they fooled by a charismatic authority figure? Doesn't Kimball tell us about these dangerous leaders? Pge 75?
Gulags
Ann Alden
June 11, 2003 - 07:53 am
Here is an article on Wahhabiism in Saudi Arabia where there is no separation of church and state. They present themselves as the owners/controllers of the people morals and minds.
Wahhabism
The Saudi leaders in the 18th century effectively converted political loyalty into a religious obligation. If a Muslim doesn't present an oath of allegiance to a Muslim ruler during his lifetime to ensure his redemption after death, he goes to hell.
Jonathan
June 11, 2003 - 08:30 am
insolence, audacity, gall, brazen nerve, presumption-plus-arrogance
It's interesting that Truth is the first villain to be considered as a danger signal in recognizing the evil in religion. More accurately, Truth Claims, or Absolute Truth Claims. Kimball makes a good case, with his dire examples and their consequences brought on by an insistence on truth. What a relief to get to the last section of Chapter 2: A Human View of Truth. Peter Gomes' congregation coule be expected to agree. As we all would, of course.
For those, however, who take their religion very seriously, reality comes with imperatives, and is too stark to allow for compromises. Life is a gift of God. Destroying it wilfully is a sin worse than crime. It must be a terrible truth crisis for the Believer to see it happening. Kimball doesn't do justice to the issue, imo. The horror of the murder of the abortionist is shared by all of us without further questions. I'm just cynical enough, however, to believe that the male ego may also be involved in this. To believe that public religion is just politics by another name. Was it religion or politics that drove those nineteen to their terrible deed on 9/11.
But the Word of God, or Allah, is the Believer's Truth. And there for everyone, regardless of his/her epistemological equipment. No one can doubt the profundity of scripture; but it seems to me that the informed literalist is also a welcome guest at this spiritual banquet. Even with his lack of hesitatiion in choosing literalism as his bedrock option in studying the word of God/Allah. Literalists are among the finest Christians.
Remarkable discoveries can be made by a close examination of the plain, literal Scripture. As an example, I would like to mention the case of Dr Zvi Saks, PhD. In an address to the B'OR HA'TORAH Conference (Channukah, 5748) he claimed the following:
'Mathematics for me was always a spiritual area and I always wondered what potential application there might be for my complex and abstract PhD thesis, which had no known relation with the physical world... When I began studying Torah, it really amazed me to discover that the creation of the world by G-d as described in Chassidut was the actual application of the mathematical work that I did... I have a tremendous love and respect for mathematics and appreciation of it, but mathematics is only relative...I became aware that the mathematical work that I had done could be a preparation for understanding the ultimate objective reality they (rabbis and Jewish mystics) were talking about. This was truly awesome and inspiring...'
Don't you have to admire this guy. Move over, Einstein.
BaBi
June 11, 2003 - 09:30 am
Jonathan, I was greatly intrigued by Dr. Saks statement that the creation of the world by God was an application of his mathematical work. I would love to know how, but I would certainly be immediately lost in any discussion of abstract math.
Robby, you ask a good question about the 'roots' and 'anchors' for non-religionists. Maybe our agnostic (we do have an agnostic, don't we?) could give us some thoughts on the subject. Family would be one, I suppose.
The subject of Truth...ah, me. Obviously we each hold our beliefs to be true. It's when we claim sole possession of all Truth that we get into trouble. You know, a thing can be true, yet not be the TRUTH. It can be true that such-and-such a thing was said, or thought, but it does not necessarily follow that what was said or thought was TRUTH. I bear that in mind in reading historical portions of scripture.
..Babi
robert b. iadeluca
June 11, 2003 - 01:06 pm
Bobbie:--I'm not so sure that "agnostic" and "non-religionist" is the same thing. One can profess a particular religion yet simultaneously have doubts. Or is that not so?Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 11, 2003 - 02:18 pm
This is such a fantastic story I just had to figure out some excuse to post it here. So because he posted on a Christian singles internet, I found the excuse. Please read about HELL HATH NO FURY LIKE 50 WOMEN SCORNED. Robby
Justin
June 11, 2003 - 02:43 pm
I rely upon the golden rule, obedience of the law, personal honor, honesty, and family and social responsibilities to guide my actions. I use self-reliance and a sense of self-worth to give me courage and confidence in facing each day. What is important in life is the love of one's family and having a sense that one has tried to do the right thing. Neither God nor an intercessor plays any part in my life.
I am interested in the way other people cope with life and how they respond to its realities.
Justin
June 11, 2003 - 04:26 pm
Happy Day. The book has arrived. Now I will know what you are talking about... enough of the random comments. I am just lucky so much time has been spent on chapter two.
ALF
June 11, 2003 - 06:44 pm
The last paragraph would make one pause, would it not?
"We are not a group of stupid, naïve women," she said. Really? "We are bright, intellectual, professional women. It doesn't sound very intelligent to me.
I can't tell you how much he wooed us with his words. He made us feel like goddesses, fairy princesses, Cinderellas. We had all found our Superman, our knight in shining armor." It's hard to believe that adults still believe in Cinderella and Superheroes.
Malryn (Mal)
June 11, 2003 - 08:31 pm
I have read the posts in this discussion with interest, but have deliberately refrained from posting because of my feelings about religion and God. ROBBY has asked a provocative question, though, and I want to respond.
I'll ask this in return:- What rooted and sustained some Ancient Greeks who did not believe in the gods and religion of the time? The answer is Philosophy.
I have a personal philosophy that guides me, anchors me and sustains me. It has nothing to do with God or religion, though its foundation is partially based on the religion in which I was raised, and to which I once belonged, a religion that is considered by some not to be a religion at all.
My doubts about God and religion began when I was twelve years old. At that time my mother had suddenly died, and there was no indication that all the earnest praying to God I did would ever bring her back. I realized then, too, that no amount of praying I did or belief in God I had would ever give me complete recovery from the poliomyelitis I had suffered five years before when I was seven years old. I wasn't able to believe in magic and miracles any more.
I began the development of a philosophy based on reason which I still have today. It is unwavering; it is enduring, and I feel no need in my life for religion.
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
June 12, 2003 - 03:48 am
Kimball says that the concept of "evil" is an ever-present reality (Pg 37) and that
"nonreligious people also seek to understand the propensity toward evil."That statement brings me to a halt. I'm not so sure that there is a specific thing called "evil." One man's meat is another man's poison. Are wars evil? Was the Allied conquering of the Nazis evil? Is the forced sterilization of sexual predators evil? And I don't suppose we want to get into a prolonged discussion of abortion here. Was the use of the atom bomb on Japan evil? Doesn't the "fact" of something being evil depend upon which side you are on?
And then there is that term "propensity." If I take one of the above actions, is it because I believe in the cause for which I am fighting or is it because I have a propensity toward evil.
Kimball says that "people who simply shrug and say, 'stuff happens' -- are generally not so casual when 'stuff' happens to them or their loved ones."
They may not be casual but I have never completely believed that term that "there are no atheists in foxholes." I have seen dying soldiers wave away chaplains. I have seen dying patients wave away clergymen.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 12, 2003 - 04:28 am
After writing the above post, I read this morning's news about the Palestine-Israel conflicts and I wonder even further --
Is one side good and the other side evil? Or are both sides evil? Or are both sides good? Or are the concepts of good and evil meaningless?
Robby
Bubble
June 12, 2003 - 05:44 am
Meaningless, hopeless, nighmarish cycle kept alive by the hands and whims of fanatics with their own vision.
Love, and thus life, I want to share. Death I would want to be alone and experience unworried.
robert b. iadeluca
June 12, 2003 - 06:37 am
Whether we are religious or not, our Prayers are for Bubble who is living right in the heart of this Israel-Palestine conflict.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 12, 2003 - 06:49 am
Yes, BUBBLE. You are so courageous and strong. I wonder how some of us would be living under the same conditions that you are? Do any of you know that BUBBLE called me on the telephone from Israel to see how I was when there was an ice storm here in North Carolina this past winter and I had no electricity for 7 1/2 days? That's the kind of woman she is, kind, loving and good.
BUBBLE, I do hope you'll get to Europe this summer to visit your friends and have a chance to be away from the stress that's on you and your family seven days a week every week.
Mal
Bubble
June 12, 2003 - 06:59 am
Thanks! Not exactly what I intended... I myself will be OK. I am used to it already.
robert b. iadeluca
June 12, 2003 - 07:10 am
Bubble:--Forgive me for saying this but I don't believe you. I don't believe that anyone EVER gets used to that. I was in combat for almost two years and never got USED to it.Robby
georgehd
June 12, 2003 - 07:18 am
Mal, you have hit a responsive chord; you may recall that I am pursuing my Jewish heritage and studying Jewish intellectual history. A particular Jewish thinker comes to mind after reading your post. Jewish intellectuals in the 19th century were trying to define Judaism in light of the advancement of science and Western Civilization and the growth of anti-semitism in Europe. One man, Ahad Ha Am, or man of the people, lived in western Russia. He did not believe in God but he did believe in Judaism as a cultural force for good. Judaism for him was not a religion, it was a philosophy of living. Judaism for Ha Am was an intellectual quest and he did not believe in Jewish nationalism. He was a Zionist however, and firmly felt that Jewish intellectuals should move to Palestine in order to work together to establish a model society. Many early Zionists adopted part of this philosophy when they moved to Palestine in the 1920's and 30's. The kibbutz movement traces its origins to his thoughts.
I am most disheartened by the news from the Middle East. The extremeists on both sides can get the upper hand so easily. The events of the past two days will do much to support the role of Arafat, whom I had hoped had been eliminated as a leader.
It is difficult for me to understand how the average Israeli is reacting to the strong force shown by Sharon. Bubble might want to comment. To this TV viewer, the helicopter attacks did far more harm than good to the cause of Israel. I do remember, however, a lengthy discussion I had with a number of Israelis in the early 1970's. They were all Sabras and felt that the use of force was absolutely necessary in dealing with the Arabs. At that time the Palestinians were not a force to be reconned with .
georgehd
June 12, 2003 - 07:23 am
Robby, does a person get used to constant terror? I do not know - but I can imagine that in order to survive day to day, one must literally tune out the horrors that occur unless they directly involve you. We Americans have watched our recent wars on television and I think that that has made us more detached from the reality of war. Even though the war is right there in our living rooms. We see it but does it become part of us? I do not think so.
Ann Alden
June 12, 2003 - 07:26 am
Is anyone familiar with a group who publicises in my magazines with claims that Palenstine wasn't even a country until Israel bacame a country. What is now the Gaza strip belonged to Syria? And some other part of Palenstine belonged Jordan? This group supposedly finances their own ads and I think, go by the name of the Flame.
Here is its site for the net.
The Flame
robert b. iadeluca
June 12, 2003 - 07:33 am
"claims that Palenstine wasn't even a country until Israel bacame a country."Palestine isn't a nation-state now.
Robby
Bubble
June 12, 2003 - 07:38 am
Robby, every new loss of life hurts, but I have come to expect if not this week, then next week there will be some painful act from one side or the other. That is what I meant by getting used to it: not expecting much change.
I started with the Independance war in Congo in 1960, then the Katanga secession war and the further small tribal wars which caused us to move here. Then I was here for the Cold War, the 6-days war, the Kipur war, the Lebanon war, the intifada, and it goes on. Getting used to it!
George, I never liked Sharon, I don't trust him. But I think he is the one needed at this moment now. The bombing in Jerusalem yesterday had nothing to do with the helicopter attack that happened the day before. An act like that takes months of training and preparation so it would have happened anyway. Also you have no idea of the number of attempts caught in the nick of time before they are successful. There are quite a few every week. The Jerusalem one, for the statistics, was one that succeeded.
When you hear the calls for liberation in the mosques, when you have in your hand schoolbooks used in palestinian schools and see how they incite to nationalism and debase the Jewish people, It is no wonder the children get the message to hate undiscriminatingly.
I wish I lived here at the time of Ehad Ha-am. Both sides were moderate and sane then.
My last comment on this because we are far from religion. Bubble
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 12, 2003 - 08:47 am
Bubble, my heart goes out to you.
The force that inhabits my mind which different people call by different names, is as part of me as my gender. It directs me even when I am not aware of it. It is a force that graces my daily life. It has been implanted in me several generations ago. I don't feel a need any more to question whether it is good or bad. For me it is good.
The standards I have lived by have proven their worth as I see the effect it has had in my progeny even and if they don't all have the same beliefs, we all follow the same path without denying the force that is within us.
Eloïse
HubertPaul
June 12, 2003 - 08:53 am
Robby
re. your post #415 & #416,
Victory is the only virtue, defeat the cardinal sin.....seems that way.
Jonathan
June 12, 2003 - 09:12 am
You're right, Sea Bubble. But the sheer horror of it. And both sides no doubt feel they have good cause for their barbaric actions. What a tragedy. I'm hopeful. This may be the darkness before the dawn of justice for all.
It makes the ridiculous 'hell hath no fury' story seem little more than entertaining. What the NY Times had in mind no doubt. But the Times has made so much seem doubtful lately. What a character this Kassem Saleh. Thankfully the women seem to be suffering from nothing more than bruised egos, broken hearts, and having promiscuity rubbed off on them.
If it is true that 'he wrote better than Yeats', 'better than Shakespeare' then the letters should make quite a stir in literary circles. He may well have immortalized each one of them!! But it was reprehensible behavior. Considering the action in the context of the discussion, it was a relief to feel that at least it wasn't a Christian who was guilty of such a despicable act.
BaBi, I'm glad that the strange case of Dr Saks caught your attention. Can you imagine? Sharing a cosmic secret with God!!
robert b. iadeluca
June 12, 2003 - 09:50 am
Jonathan, you say:--
"It was a relief to feel that at least it wasn't a Christian who was guilty of such a despicable act."I don't get the connection between a person's religion and his taking part in a "despicable act."
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 12, 2003 - 10:04 am
Col. Kassem Saleh of the United States Army is not the only man to do what he did. I know of at least two senior men who Cyber-wooed several different women in SeniorNet at the same time and led them to think marriage to these Romeos was in the offing. One of these women is a good friend of mine, a very intelligent, lonely widow. "Stuff happens."
Jonathan, surely you were joking about relief that "it wasn't a Christian who was guilty of such a despicable act", my friend?
Mal
georgehd
June 12, 2003 - 12:28 pm
Ann re your post 424 and the history of Palestine. There are a number of sites on the web. This is one sponsored by the UN. Click on OVERVIEW>
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/index.htmlgeorgehd
June 12, 2003 - 12:51 pm
Remember Abraham, where this discussion began some months ago. There is a new book I just discovered on Abraham and Monotheism. The following amazon.com web site has a discussion of the book.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385499736/friendsofaishhat/102-9292392-4738510georgehd
June 12, 2003 - 12:56 pm
From Booklist
A convert to Orthodox Judaism, Klinghoffer finds the key to his acquired faith in the story of its ancient founder, the patriarch Abraham. Skeptical of the skeptics who treat Abraham's story as a pious myth, Klinghoffer recognizes in Abraham a real historical figure who effected a revolution in the world's religious beliefs. To make his case, Klinghoffer supplements the scriptural account of Abraham's life with centuries of Talmudic commentary. Readers who know Abraham only from the Bible will find many surprises in these ancient commentaries, including the fact that Abram received the new name of Abraham to annul the divine punishment apportioned to a sinner. Because he writes as a well-versed amateur, Klinghoffer well anticipates the interests of general readers, although he avoids a simple-minded literalism that would deny the ambiguities surrounding Abraham's life--ambiguities that have long alienated Christian from Jew, Jew from Muslim, despite their shared allegiance to Abraham as the Father of the Faithful. Hope that the adherents of the three Abrahamic faiths will ever resolve their differences grows stronger with a book like this--lucid, profound, reflective. Bryce Christensen
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved
Book Description
Fifty-three percent of the world’s population practices Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, religions that all trace their lineage to the towering, quasi-mythological figure of Abraham. In this reverent biography of the man who invented–or discovered–God, David Klinghoffer disentangles history from myth and uncovers the profound impact of Abraham’s message on his time and on the development of the modern world.
The Discovery of God chronicles Abraham’s life from his birth in Mesopotamia through his travels as preacher and missionary throughout the Middle East. Many of the primary sites of Abraham’s life and career still exist, and Klinghoffer describes what they were like in ancient times and how they appear today. The tangible details of the polytheistic culture are re-created, showing how Abraham challenged the most basic beliefs of his contemporaries. He did not set out to establish the Jewish religion, but rather to spread the message of ethical monotheism as it was revealed to him–a powerful message that deepened over time, as did his faith and relationship with God.
In contrast to many scholars who, troubled by its contradictions and apparent errors, see the Bible as the work of a series of scribes and editors, Klinghoffer argues that the Bible should be viewed as an esoteric text that an only be comprehended in light of the oral tradition from which it emanated. Combining rigorous scholarship and interpretive ingenuity, he draws on biblical commentary and the Jewish oral tradition as preserved by sages from the Talmudic scholars to Maimonidies to explore and explain the miraculous origins of monotheism.
At a time when the world seems to moving toward a renewed confrontation between the three great Abrahamic faiths, The Discovery of God is a potent reminder of the history and beliefs that unite them.
About the Author
David Klinghoffer is the author of the spiritual memoir The Lord Will Gather Me In, a finalist for the National Jewish Book Award. Formerly the literary editor of National Review, he has contributed articles to the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Commentary, and other publications. He lives on Mercer Island, Washington.
BaBi
June 12, 2003 - 02:48 pm
Robby, on your post as follows:Jonathan, you say:--"It was a relief to feel that at least it wasn't a Christian who was guilty of such a despicable act.
I don't get the connection between a person's religion and his taking part in a "despicable act."
Speaking for myself, I can empathize with Jonathan's statement. That is precisely because so many people are blaming the religion for the act of the person. Nowadays, when someone commits an act of violence I find myself, like Jonathan, hoping this particular screwball doesn't claim to be of my faith, because I really am tired of hearing it. I figure if a person's actions are contrary to the teaching of Christ, then calling himself a Christian doesn't make it so. The same applies to those who call themselves Muslim, or whatever religion they claim.
It seems to me, listening to some of these people, that they have made up a religion of their own, that suits their mental make-up, loosely based on a recognized religion. It's a sort of cafeteria style adherence; 'I'll take this, and this, but I don't want that.'
And if they are fervent enough and vocal enough, they can find others who like their particular assortment.
I agree that we need to be on guard against the development of this sort of outlook and behavior in our various religions...but what do we do about it when we find it? Look at the "White Supremacists". We can see the ugliness there, but what is the best way to combat it? I hope Kimball is going to go into this.
Robby, you asked a question about 'evil'. I don't see this kind of evil as an issue of the right or wrong side in a war. To me, it is a much more personal and individual thing. Great evil has been done, as we all recognize and has Kimball has identifed. There were people capable of perpetrating these horrors, and other people capable of looking the other way and pretending they don't see. Horrible things have been done, and are being done, by human beings every day. So yes, I believe there is evil in the world. ..Babi
Persian
June 12, 2003 - 06:07 pm
JONATHAN - "Considering the action in the context of the discussion, it was a relief to feel that at least it wasn't a Christian who was guilty of such a despicable act."
I've been catching up with the recent posts and thought I missed something, so I went back and re-read the link Robby provided to the NYT article about Col. Kasem Saleh. Sorry, but I don't see anything that indicates what his religion is. In fact, according to the article, he posted on a Christian site, as well as on the one for Tall People. Have you read something else to indicate what Saleh's religious beliefs are or that he is NOT Christian?
Persian
June 12, 2003 - 08:19 pm
A little off-topic of this discussion . . . it is intereting to note in today's Letters to the Editor in the Washington Post that a resident of Yemen notes that he "has been following the court proceedings in Florida regarding the right of a veiled woman to wear her niqab (face veil) for her driver's license photograph ("Florida Judge: Veil Not Allowed in ID Photo, news story, June 7). I live and work in the Republic of Yemen, a conservative, traditional, Islamic country. Even here women may not wear the niqab if they wish to obtain a driver's license or passport - for many of the same reasons for which theplaintiff in the Florida case lost her appeal."
The writer notes that in "the neighboring case of Saudi Arabia, the case is moot, since women are forbidden to drive."
This is a good example of how one Islamic custom can be legitimately set aside for a specific reason (especially in the case of security) by an otherwise conservative traditional Arab country without the issue ending up as the focus of a judicial proceeding.
On the other hand, of course, the Florida woman (who is an American-born citizen and a convert to Islam) had every right to take her case to court to try and justify her belief.
Justin
June 12, 2003 - 11:15 pm
Jonathon seems to be saying that she is glad the Colonel is not a member of her particular brand of religion because her religion is essentially good and guys like the Colonel will only give it a bad reputation. (I assume that the Colonel's religion is known). The response seems to me to be off target because it is probable that whatever Jonathon's brand of religion, it has some of the ingredients that Kimball calls "signs of corruption". If we are to learn anything from Kimball's thesis, it should be that both the kettle and the pot are black and that both need cleansing.
robert b. iadeluca
June 13, 2003 - 03:05 am
Following up on Justin's remark, Kimball says (on Pg 39)
"At the heart of all authentic, healthy, life-sustaining religions, one always finds this clear requirement. Whatever religious people may say about their love of God or the mandates of their religion, when their behavior toward others is violent and destructive, when it causes suffering among their neighbors, you can be sure the religion has been corrupted."This Army Colonel posted on a Christian site and, by his actions, caused suffering.
Robby
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 13, 2003 - 06:20 am
Babi, you say: "It's a sort of cafeteria style adherence; 'I'll take this, and this, but I don't want that."
Granted there is a lot of that around, but when a specific religion has for a long time been responsible of actions that are against normal decency, it can trigger a radical change in beliefs, either a conversion to another faith, a rejection of a specific divinity while still believing that there is a higher power, atheism and can even be responsible for subsequent violent behavior.
What triggers that change in beliefs can be an emotional event in one's life, a severe illness, psychological or sexual abuse, advanced studies. I have personally seen those changes occur in people I am in close contact with.
This man who promised marriage to several gullible ladies, commits evil in any religion. A woman's heart is not a toy to play with because it caused them great distress.
Eloïse
georgehd
June 13, 2003 - 09:06 am
I am not sure why the army colonel's behavior came up in this discussion. I do not see it as relevent unless there was some religious connection in what he did. I did not read any in the one article I read.
This is also not really applicable to this discussion but I have found an interesting history of Zionism written by a Jew that is critical of the Israeli government behavior on a number of issues. I have not read the entire book but plan to do so. I turned to it because of my interest in Achad Ha Am. The book is The Tragedy of Zionism by Bernard Avishai. The reviews were excellent.
HubertPaul
June 13, 2003 - 09:50 am
Eloise, post # 440 :"...What triggers that change in beliefs can be an emotional event in one's life, a severe illness, psychological or sexual abuse, advanced studies. "
You are correct in including "advanced studies", advanced knowledge!
Religions have to evolve, unfortunately, they refuse to do so. And that not only triggers a change in beliefs, but also leads to much confusion.
Persian
June 13, 2003 - 10:41 am
Here is a link to a Washington Post article describing how Christian Evangelicals have
"evolved" in their beliefs about HIV/AIDS, moving from a long-held belief that it is "a Gay disease only" to an understanding of a world-wide epidemic. For some it just takes more time!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52817-2003Jun12.htmlBaBi
June 13, 2003 - 11:48 am
Eloise, I pondered your statement about specific religions being 'responsible' for actions against human decency. Kimball speaks of religion becoming corrupted. Again, we are speaking of the actions of people who have fallen away from or twisted and manipulated a set of beliefs that were in themselves quite different. If one considers the distorted versions to also be "religion", then yes, a specific 'religion' can be responsible for crimes, as you have said. As one who believes faith grows out of a search for God, I always try to make the distinction between what God designed, and what man sometimes does with it.
Hubert, it is undeniable that religion, like most entrenched entities, resists change. Nevertheless, change does take place. Look at the enormous changes that have taken place in the extremely conservative Roman Catholic church in the past 50 years. And Mahlia just posted another example of change in former viewpoints by religionists. Maybe, with Kimball's help, we can introduce some more needed changes. ..Babi
robert b. iadeluca
June 13, 2003 - 05:31 pm
We are talking about religions but Kimball asks us (Pg 39) not to forget the individual.
"The ability to resist evil resides with individuals and individuals make up religious groups. Human responsibility . . . is the vital component in any effort to alter destructive attitudes and actions."
Robby
Persian
June 13, 2003 - 06:16 pm
"Human responsibility . . . is the vital component in any effort to alter destructive attitudes and actions."
Hasn't this always been the case throughout history? The unknown factor seems to be whether we humans will actually assume that responsibility and move forward in a positive fashion or stand by and let evil components (whether individuals, skewed religious interpretations or negative cultural traditions) derail us.
When our Veterans of past wars speak of "just doing my duty - no big hero, just doing my job like all the other guys," we have a sucessful model to look up to. How come we humans are so often hesitant (afraid?) to do our duty to reduce "destructive attitudes and actions."
Justin
June 13, 2003 - 07:24 pm
Even though one tends to look at literalists as automatoms, they are in many cases socially responsible people. The ordinary human follower will eventually recognize a need for change. It may be necessary, however, to wait until great damage has been done as in the aids issue before one recognizes errors in judgement.
President Reagan, who could have weighed in early in the fight against aids did not do so because he also thought it was a homosexual disease. Reagan and the evangelicals Mahlia has referred to seem to be saying it's ok for homosexuals to have the disease. After all they are all sinners, are they not. Since we are not homosexuals, we are not likely to catch the disease. So let the queers get sick. It's their own fault.
Why do evangelicals and other religious groups attack homosexuals?
The cause is in the Old Testament. It is in Leviticus, chapter 18, verse 22. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with woman kind: It is an abomination."
In order to do something about this injustice one must purge the Old Testament which is not a very likely occurance. In this case the evil is rooted in the essential documentation of the religion.
georgehd
June 13, 2003 - 09:09 pm
Justin, "evil is rooted in the essential documentation of the religion". The Bible contains many statements and rituals that we no longer believe or practice. These writings were not, IMO, evil at the time they were written. I do not think that the authors of these words meant evil. The problem arises long after these authors are dead and their decendents believe the Bible literally and selectively. I have often wondered why fundamentalists do not kill a sheep or goat as a sacrifice as is written in the Bible. The discrimination against homosexuals probably came about at the same time that the church became male dominated and anti woman and anti sex. Sexual activity was seen as a sin. Priests were denied sexual activity. I remember growing up being very confused about sex, that is was it 'right' or 'wrong'. The message I clearly got was that sex was something to be hidden, something slightly dirty. I suspect that many people our age had somewhat the same feelings. Homosexuality in the United States has only recently been accepted in some circles. Old beliefs, like old habits, are hard to shed.
Justin
June 13, 2003 - 10:01 pm
George: How do sensitive, rational, people address problems of discrimination when the practice is made a matter of law? One is commanded in the laws of Moses to condemn homosexuality. If one follows the ways of God one may lawfully seek revenge, attack one's neighbor and degrade women. We may think that rational people do not do these things but fundmentalists and many others look to this document for guidance.
The corruptive elements that Kimball recognizes in religions are not present because people have corrupted the basic message. These evil elements are present because the seminal documents contain commandments directing the faithful to promote claims of absolute truth, blind obedience, Holy war. I think we must stop blaming the messenger and focus on the message.
robert b. iadeluca
June 14, 2003 - 03:49 am
I believe that participants here will find this ARTICLE from this morning's NY Times relevant to our topic.Robby
Persian
June 14, 2003 - 06:29 am
Thanks, Robby, for the above link. It is indeed most pertinent to remember - and vocalize - Christianity's historical influence in Europe. Not doing so would be like disregarding our own Founding Fathers and their beliefs in the current environment as the USA's diverse population continues to absorb individuals and famlies of many different origins and religous backgrounds.
This morning, I received a 6:30 a.m. phone call from my son in Iraq, who commented that although he was standing in Iraq, he was looking east towards Iran and was reminded of the rich history of the Persians and their powerful dynasties (which at several periods was inclusive of multiple religions) while realizing that today's Iranian clerical leadership is once again at odds with its citizens, especially the young generation of students.
Ann Alden
June 14, 2003 - 07:07 am
Doesn't it seem to anyone that "common sense" would make us stop and consider what the different religious texts are asking of the population and to remember that that was a long time ago. For instance, the dietetic rules in the Old Testament? Or the holy wars? One has to adapt to the times of now and certainly consider that some of the biblical passages can only pertain to the past. How about the "handling of snakes" that still goes on in Tennesee and Georgia backwater towns? I do believe that I was given the capability to decide for myself what is best for me as a human being. In other words, I do believe that God gave us all brains for reason.
georgehd
June 14, 2003 - 07:13 am
Justin, I have no answer for you because the documents say what they say. I would like to know what Kimball says about this and wish that he were part of this discussion. My background tells me not to accept much that is written in the Bible and that background is the result of 2000 years of intense study of Biblical sources by men and women of all faiths. The question comes down to whether we see religion in general as a source of evil in the world and as we are reading, a good case can be made for that point of view. Yet do we condemn all religions and all religious practice? I do not see man, in general, as renouncing religion. While we might argue and ultimately agree that it is faith that really matters, religion is a major component of most people's lives.
I want to look further into the Biblical references to homosexuality but this may take some time.
Robby, ditto Mahlia thanks for the article in the Times. I had not realized that this controversy was going on. I wonder what Mr. Woodward says about the legacy of the Inquisition, Witch Hunting, Book Burning, pogroms and other evils that are also part of the Christian legacy in Europe. Our own Founding Fathers embraced slavery and the after effects of that are still with us.
these links are to web sites on the Bible and Homosexuality and there are more that I may post.
http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htmgeorgehd
June 14, 2003 - 07:13 am
I am going to Baltimore for ten days and will probably not be posting too much. In looking over my last post, I wondered if it would be possible to ask some clergy or religious scholars to join in our discussion.
Malryn (Mal)
June 14, 2003 - 07:32 am
John Murphree, who posts in the Michigan and some other SeniorNet discussions, is a retired Protestant minister and missionary. He might be interested in joining this discussion. His email address is:
papajohntn@comcast.net
Mal
BaBi
June 14, 2003 - 09:56 am
I think the reason I have always liked Nevil Shute's books is that he shows everyday sorts of individuals accepting responsibility, doing what needs to be done,...and making a difference.
In the quotes from scripture re. homosexuality, we seem to be making a jump in logic here. Quotes in both the O.T. and the N.T. command those who follow their respective faiths (Judaism and Christianity) not to practice homosexuality. "Thou shalt not" do such and such does not translate to 'thou shalt hate, oppress, abuse, batter and malign' those who do. I know of no scripture in either text that justifies violent or oppressive actions toward homosexuals.
Again, it seems to me that there is an attitude found among many people that makes anyone identified, in their eyes, as "the bad guys" fair targets for hostility. Does their religion really tell them that?
I know there are scriptural texts, esp. from the more fiery of the O.T. prophets, that prescribe such things. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", for example. Yet no one today is going about denouncing witches. Where, in the religious texts, are the scriptures that command the evils we see practiced by extremists today?
I recognize that religious beliefs are used as a pretext for terrible actions. I just fail to see that the religion itself actually condones these actions. We should be learning how to identify aberrations, not condemning Christianity, or Islam, et al. ...Babi
georgehd
June 15, 2003 - 02:03 pm
I came across this site while looking for something else. It is the site of an Interfaith program in Baltimore, Md. and looks most interesting. There are a number of articles that would probably be helpful in our discussion.
http://www.icjs.org/who/index.htmlrobert b. iadeluca
June 16, 2003 - 04:21 am
This ARTICLE refers to different attitudes toward the same religion in the same nation.Robby
MaryZ
June 16, 2003 - 08:37 am
I've just finished The DaVinci Code, and decided to read an earlier book, Angels & Demons, by Dan Brown. I'd like to share an interesting conversation by the characters in this book about what they think of religion.
" 'Religion is like language or dress. We gravitate toward the practices with which we were raised. In the end, though, we are all proclaiming the same thing. That life has meaning. That we are grateful for the power that created us.'
"...'So you're saying that whether you are a Christian or a Muslim simply depends on where you were born?'
" 'Isn't it obvious? Look at the diffusion of religion around the globe.'
" 'So faith is random?'
" 'Hardly. Faith is universal. Our specific methods for understanding it are arbitrary. Some of us pray to Jesus, some of us go to Mecca, some of us study subatomic particles. In the end we are all just searching for truth, that which is greater than ourselves.' "
I consider myself basically a-religious, but I thought this was an interesting take on why we believe what we believe, and thought it appropriate to share on this forum. (Even though I usually lurk.)
robert b. iadeluca
June 16, 2003 - 08:44 am
Good to see you, Mary Z! -- I would go along with that bit about our religion depending on where we were born and with whom we were born -- with, however, some modifications.As a child I grew up in the religion of my parents and they, in turn, were similar in religion to those about us. The change occurred as I grew up. I began a period of searching and no longer have the same belief as my parents.
So my beliefs now no longer are related to where I was born but related to some profound thinking on my part.
Robby
MaryZ
June 16, 2003 - 09:00 am
This was the same with me, too, Robby. I experienced my initial "epiphany" and began to move away from my "birth religion" about the time I graduated from high school. Not exactly a unique experience, but certainly life-changing for me, when I didn't know anyone else who was going through the same thing. Fortunately, my husband and I have pretty much the same belief (or non-belief) system.
I guess I saw the conversation as general thoughts about why most of us believe as we do - at least somewhere along our life's passage.
georgehd
June 16, 2003 - 09:36 am
I would like to get some reactions as to whether the group would like some scholars, priests, rabbis, etc to joint our discussion. I have contacted one rabbi and I plan to be talking to a few other people when I am in Baltimore. I believe that there are ways of getting some input from outside resources.
Here is an interesting site on Jesus and Anti Judaism.
http://www.icjs.org/info/anti-Judaism.htmlrobert b. iadeluca
June 16, 2003 - 09:41 am
I have mixed emotions on that. My experience has been that each priest, rabbi, minister, etc. has his own point of view and that we would all be finding ourselves discussing his opinion and not that of Kimball. Granted, Kimball, also has a point of view but he is discussing "religion" per se and not any specific religion.And one more point, if I may -- if this list of clergymen did not include an Imman, we would not be having a complete discussion.
Robby
Jonathan
June 16, 2003 - 09:44 am
I've started reading A Beautiful Mind. Everyone must have heard of it, or seen the movie. It seems to me the author, Sylvia Naser, is doing with mind, what Dr Kimball is doing with religion. How can the same mind earn its possessor a Noble Prize, and also plague him for thiry years with schitzophrenia?
Religion is a beautiful thing. The dark side we're reading about in Kimball's book. I wish the author had been as fair with Religion, at least in the title, as Nasar is with Mind. There is a SeniorNetter who has been reminding his readers for years that god-things are mental constructs. The seems to be the truth for him. For many others there's too much ecstasy and agony to allow for such a simple answer. It occurred to me that perhaps religion is a function of mind. I shouldn't have used the expression 'simple answer'. It may be a very tight control of mind...something of which others are not capable.
After the onset of John Nash Jr's disease, he was visited by a Harvard colleague, who asked Nash:
'How could you, a mathematitian, a man devoted to reason and logical proof...how could you believe that extraterrestrials are sending you messages? How could you believe that you are being recruited by aliens from outer space to save the world? How could you?
To which Nash answered: 'Because the ideas I had about supernatural beings came to me in the same way that my mathematical ideas did. So I took them seriously.'
Strangely enough, he found the 'messages' encrypted on the front page of the New York Times. That's what he told a common room of academics at Princeton, on a winter day in 1959.
Ray Franz
June 16, 2003 - 10:37 am
Perhaps it is to those individuals who have faith, belief and an emotional relationship with a personal god.
For each person finding his religion a beautiful thing, we probably can find many who see other beliefs as evil.
Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, among others, see religions (Islam in particular) other than theirs an "evil" thing.
Persian
June 16, 2003 - 01:28 pm
I, too, have reservations about inviting comments from religious scholars, teachers or clergy outside of SN posters (excluding the author of the book now under discussion, of course, since he could field specific questions about his own statements) for the general reason Robby has already stated. Let me be clear: I do NOT mean to imply that they would not be welcome, only that asking for commentary from professionals in any religion would tend to guide this discsusion in a totally different direction.
RAY - Excellent point! Thanks for reminding us.
Ann Alden
June 16, 2003 - 01:34 pm
MaryZ, thanks for the quote from Dan Brown's book. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Remember that hymn title? About simple gifts? Oh, I remember!
'Tis a gift to be simple'Tis a gift to be free
'Tis a gift to come down
Where one ought to be
Those aren't the absolutely correct words, but close counts!
Georgehd, I would like for anyone to bring their opinions here of the book and topic that we are discussing. I am not too sure that we need specific leaders or ministers of the many religions available in the world, since we can look up almost questions we have on the net.
Justin
June 16, 2003 - 01:36 pm
I concur with Robbie on the question of "experts". I think we would stop focusing on Kimball and direct our attention to the ideas of the experts. Further, too many "experts" would be needed to round things out. I fear the conversation would take a different turn.
I would enjoy a discussion with "experts" on a topic such as " a defense of religious documentation". But on this topic with Kimball, I vote no.
Ann Alden
June 16, 2003 - 01:37 pm
MaryZ, thanks for the quote from Dan Brown's book. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Remember that hymn title? About simple gifts? Oh, I remember!
Simple GiftsA Shaker Hymn
'Tis a gift to be simple
'Tis a gift to be free
'Tis a gift to come down
Where one ought to be
Those aren't the absolutely correct words, but close counts!
Georgehd, I would like for anyone to bring their opinions here of the book and topic that we are discussing. I am not too sure that we need specific leaders or ministers of the many religions available in the world, since we can look up almost questions we have on the net.
Justin
June 16, 2003 - 05:40 pm
I understand your message Babi, but the Lev texts and Romans and Gen are all interpreted too often as applying not only to the faithful but to all, therefore homosexuals are condemned in the minds of the faithful. Perhaps the solution to the problem is
one of training ministers and other specialists to be aware of the damage caused by their documents and to charge them with responsibility for alerting their adherents. It is not enough to admonish their followers for sin. One must also keep them from causing additional pain in the world.
robert b. iadeluca
June 16, 2003 - 06:01 pm
THIS IS A TEST.
THIS IS A TEST.As you read this ARTICLE do you find yourself concentrating more on the man as an individual or on his religion?
Robby
Justin
June 16, 2003 - 10:38 pm
I tend to focus more on the man than on his religion in cases like this. However, his prior action regarding priests guilty of sexual misconduct has been a common response among Catholic bishops. That I consider religious misconduct. The Bishops tend to say one thing in Conference and do something contradictory in their diocese. I don't know why these guys think they can get away with such behavior. Cardinal Law also thought he could beat the rap. Parishioners must be very embarassed by the actions of their leaders.
robert b. iadeluca
June 17, 2003 - 03:20 am
Justin:--As I listen to your words, I seem to hear that you are concentrating more on the religion.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 17, 2003 - 04:32 am
Kimball tells us (Pg 41) that "In every religion, truth claims constitute the foundation on which the entire structure rests. However, when particular interpretations of these claims are treated as rigid doctrines, the likelihood of corruption in that tradition rises exponentially."Are we asking that all religions -- and Catholic religion here -- become less rigid? That their doctrines be bent so as to punish certain clergymen?
Robby
georgehd
June 17, 2003 - 08:03 am
I think that I understand the group's reluctance to invite "experts" but I did have an interesting discussion with a Rabbi over the phone about homosexuality and religion. He pointed out that there are numerous articles on this subject and that people were highly selective in their reading of the Bible and the acceptance of certain rules and regulations.
I am busy in a Photoshop course so will not be able to post too much.
BaBi
June 17, 2003 - 11:36 am
ROBBY, on your TEST, I focused on the man. His religion was not pertinent to the hit-and-run.
What doctrine did you have in mind,ROBBY, when you wrote: "Are we asking that all religions -- and Catholic religion here -- become less rigid? That their doctrines be bent so as to punish certain clergymen?"
How is the punishment of clergy for crimes of which they are guilty a bending of doctrine? You lost me here. ..Babi
Justin
June 17, 2003 - 01:30 pm
Robby; The "hit and run" is a separate event. It is not at all related to religion. The Bishop is a man with a weak character. He runs from responsibilities, on the highway and in his religious life. I think his character flaw caused his defection on both fronts.
Persian
June 17, 2003 - 01:49 pm
ROBBY - in the specific TEST you arranged with the pertinent article about a hit/run accident, I focused on the stress which the Bishop has been under recently; his driving at night after a Mass (although I did not understand clearly whether he officiated or just attended); and whether his age might have any relevance to the accident. Being a Catholic Bishop had nothing to do with the accident; it was the man driving (and perhaps not paying as close attention or not seeing as clearly as one might hope)who had the accident.
At this point, I'm sure the Catholic hierarchy in the USA and Rome are thinking more or less "I/we never thought we'd see the day . . ."
Well, the day is here when folks must be accountable - even for actions (abuses) done many years ago. And it's shocking to those in the hierarchy.
Throughout my life, I've had many, many conversations (arguments even)with the French/Irish Catholics in my family about "what the Priest said/did/didn't do," and NEVER was able to understand (let alone accept) the elevation of a Priest's words and actions to the point where common sense was lost. And for that, especially as a child in an American Catholic elementary school, I was chastised by American Catholics.
One punishment kept me at a lonely desk in the corner doing my "homework" for one week because I had dared to ask the Priest what he had done that was bad and needed God's forgiveness. The Sister was absolutely shocked; the Mother Superior of our school turned bright red. However, I spent my time writing a children's story about THE BAD PRIEST MICHAEL. I showed the finished few pages to the Priest, he read them, gave me an A on the top of the first page and promised that he would try to do better. I gave him the story and explained that he could send it to his Mum so that she would be comforted to know that he would improve his behavior.
Consequently, in the case of the Bishop involved in an accident, I would suggest that authorities investigate, punish the man if he is at fault, and pray for the Bishop.
robert b. iadeluca
June 17, 2003 - 02:34 pm
There is no doubt that the hit-and-run incident was done by a man who could have been of any religion but the article told considerable about his profession. While most of us might concentrate on the man, per se, I can see some people saying: "Oh there go those Muslims (those Jews, those Catholics) - always thinking they can do whatever they want.Robby
Jonathan
June 17, 2003 - 07:18 pm
And the posts just keep getting better. So many wise posts, on a difficult subject. Kimball offers plenty of well-chosen evidence and illustrative material. But it never ceases to amaze how much supporting evidence can be gleaned from the newspapers. He saves himself a lot of trouble by confining himself to Christians, with an occasional remark that parallels could be found among Muslims. As I said earlier that's likely because Christians are far and away the worst offenders. Perhaps it's that that makes them the greatest forgivers. And who can match the achievments of the Christian West, in the last thousand years.
As an example of the beautiful in religion I would choose a High Requiem Mass. Like the one celebrated in Notre Dame Basilca in Montreal, when our Prime Minister was caught up in the arms of the Church and carried to heaven. One does not have to 'believe' to enjoy it. In this case it was Faure's Requiem which proved so moving that even...I saw it myself. As the choir sang the lovely IN Paradisium, welcoming the soul to paradise, I looked over to where Fidel Castro was sitting, just as he was wiping a tear from his eye.
I have wonderful Muslim neighbors. We feel no need to know how the other feels about religious tenets. On the one side a middle-aged ex-journalist recently from Iran. Called to me over the hedge and extended his delicious iced drink for me to enjoy. And then the strangest thing. When he saw what I was reading (Beautiful Mind), he informed me that his female cousin was also suffering from schizophrenia, after beginning a brilliant career as a nuclear physicist.
On the other side of me an elderly widow. Russian Orthodox. She collapsed in her garden yesterday. We must have both heard her call for help at the same time. Soon she had two neighbors hovering over her rendering her all the assistance we could. Me, a christian. By heritage. And him, a very gentlemanly Muslim. about my age, living on the other side of her, He seemed just as impressed as I, by the moving Orthodox liturgical chants when my neighbor passed away two years ago
I see it's a month since I started posting. I determined then that a month was about as much time as I could devote to the book. I've been through it twice, so I'll lurk for as long as it remains on the board.
Persian
June 17, 2003 - 09:10 pm
JOnathan - #1 - I'd like to live in your neighborhood. And #2 - I'm glad your participating with us in this discussion.
Justin
June 17, 2003 - 09:50 pm
Jomathon: Me too.
Justin
June 17, 2003 - 09:53 pm
Mahlia: Your compassion and understanding of the Bishop's problem are what I have come to expect from you. You tend to see gray areas where others see only black and white. That is commendable.
Justin
June 17, 2003 - 11:38 pm
I'd like to take you all back to Chapter one for a moment. Kimball refers us to Stephen Carter and his suggestion that we hear the religious convictions of Martin Luther King in the "I Have A Dream" speech. I have read that speech and do not find King's religious convictions included. His social convictions and desires are however, quite evident.
Carter argues that religious voices must be included in the political debates about euthanasia, abortion, and capital punishment. Kimball concurs that reflections on the boundaries of life involve an irreducibly religious dimension.
I would argue that religious spokesmen and their followers are entitled to no more than an expression of their views and the power of the ballot box. Further, that so long as their intent is to dictate policy through legislation and thereby impose their view on all, their voice should be heard but ignored by legislators.Unless opposing voices are heard in the public arena the theocrats will have their way. The right to die as one chooses, the right of choice in abortion, and concern for the fallibility of the criminal justice system will be superceded by death when God decides it's time, abortion by nonprofessionals, and death by the state as punishment for crime.
Ann Alden
June 18, 2003 - 07:54 am
Justin, IMO, it depends on whether one has secular moral convictions or religious moral convictions when describing what religion describes as 'sin'. What happened to 'natural law'? Common sense?
Yes, Persian, watching that bishop on the telly, I found myself responding to his humanity more than his religion. He did appear befuddled, didn't he?
Robby, doctrine??, what doctrine is involved here?
Ray Franz
June 18, 2003 - 08:14 am
Tolerance and acceptance would solve some of the "evil" problem with regards to religious belief.
However, that seems to destroy the religious "truth" of those who are beset with the beliefs of other.
BaBi
June 18, 2003 - 08:51 am
MAHLIA, I enjoyed your story of the "bad priest". I seems apparent that the priest himself was handling the situation just fine. It was the sisters who got bent out of shape. Your point about the "elevation of a priest's words and actions" is a good one. It applies to other clergy as well. It seems that many people have a problem distinguishing between the man and his office.
JUSTIN, you gave us a wonderful example of the way we should be able to live with one another. I like your neighbors already.
JUSTIN, you said, if I understood you correctly, that people engaging in political debate in behalf of their faith (or religion)-based views of right and wrong, should be heard but ignored. Surely everyone has a right to be heard and their views given equal consideration in a supposedly representative government. Why should the origin of one persons views of right and wrong mean he/she should be ignored, while a different origin means that person should be heard? I hope you will reconsider that statement. ..Babi
robert b. iadeluca
June 18, 2003 - 12:04 pm
Ann:--I was referring to the doctrine of any religion.
Robby
Ann Alden
June 18, 2003 - 04:43 pm
Robby, do you mean the rules and regulations that each denomination makes? I was always taught to remember that doctrines were written by another human being and therefore should be suspect. On the other hand, one is not supposed to question the good book of that faith, the Bible, the Qar'an, the old testament, so many others. But, to me, again, handed down by word of mouth coming from another human being.
Justin
June 18, 2003 - 11:55 pm
Babi: All voices are heard through the ballot. But efforts to overthrow the government or to take over the government in order to form a theocracy should be ignored. It's clearly possible to do that (form a theocracy) in a democratic republic. Some folks today might think of the United States as a Christian country. It is not, but efforts are made every day to make it so. Little by little theocratic gains are made. If those folks are strong enough we will have a theocracy.
robert b. iadeluca
June 19, 2003 - 04:32 am
According to Kimball,
"the most heinous sin in Islam is shirk (associating something with God). God is one. God is alone. There is no God but God. People must be careful in their pursuit of such things as wealth, fame, power, sex, self, or national aggrandizement. God stands alone as the object of one's piety, honor, loyalty, and worship."This sounds to me as an almost impossible task just as reaching such a goal in other religions with similar goals would be out of the question. Inasmuch as human beings of the varying religions are not that different, are we really seeing the pitting of the doctrine of one religion against the doctrine of another? Neither one being attainable?
Robby
georgehd
June 19, 2003 - 05:10 am
I was having trouble getting this discussion to come up on the computer and when it did there was no place for me to post. I gather that that problem is now solved.
I am still in Baltimore and will try to read all posts and get caught up this evening. I was with two groups of people yesterday and told them of SeniorNet and in particular this discussion. They showed some interest.
Ann Alden
June 19, 2003 - 06:17 am
In another book, fiction, that I am reading is this little paragraph.
When religious faith becomes hard to understand "maybe mystery is the whole point. Maybe mystery has to remain because we are looking at the infinite through finite eyes. Maybe what God really wants is not blind acceptance of dogma but a lifetime of searching....discarding what is obviously false, testing the rest."
Ann Alden
June 19, 2003 - 08:09 am
And from Ramakrishna, the greatest Hindu saint of the 19th century:
"God has made different religions to suit different aspirations, times, and countries. All doctrines are only so many paths; but a path is by no means God Himself. Indeed, one can reach God if one follows any of the paths with wholehearted devotion. One may eat a cake with icing either straight or sidewise. It will tast sweet either way."
Justin
June 19, 2003 - 01:48 pm
Babi: Here is an example of the US ignoring the power of religious groups. The Mormons in Utah attempted to form a state called Deseret out of what is now Utah and Nevada. The government of that state was to be that of the church leaders. Brigham Young was to be governor. The Congress ignored that voice although it represented a substantial majority of the citizens of that area. When a secular government appeared possible Utah became a State.
The Scopes trial is an example of a secular loss to theocratic power. Scopes paid a small fine and Bryan went home riding his cross of gold.
There is always a danger of extremist groups acquiring sufficient power to take over the government of a democratic republic. The Huey Long effort in Louisiana is a good example.
The First Amendment forbids Congress to make laws respecting the establishment of religion or to prohibit the free exercise thereof. I think that means religious voices may be heard within the religious sphere but not in the government. The government is a secular voice. As a result, prayer in the schools is inappropriate. Creches on city owned lawns are inappropriate. Blue laws ordering merchant closures on Sunday are inappropriate. Scope's fine was inappropriate. All of these are examples of what I meant by ignoring the voice of religion in government. Congress is opened by a prayer- a religious voice. Then the Congress goes about its merry way ignoring the voice and doing its usual secular duties. This is one of several anacronisms in the American system that eventually will disappear.
BaBi
June 19, 2003 - 02:20 pm
JUSTIN, just a brief reply, as I am rather tired this afternoon. I would say Utah must be considered a predominantly Mormon stronghold. However, no State law can supercede a Federal law, so no "Mormon" laws are permitted that infringe on any rights guaranteed under Federal law.
I doubt very much if any extremist group could gain enough power to 'take over' the government of a democratic republic, at least one the size of the U.S. Where extremist groups, of any type, have taken control of a government it has been, so far as I am aware, by force of arms. The very fact that we have so great a variety of faiths and opinions, and an 'extremist' is, by definition, a member of a minority, I would say your fears in this respect are groundless.
...Babi
Justin
June 19, 2003 - 06:23 pm
Babi: I am not an expert on constitutional law so I am on thin ice here. I think what you say about state law not superceding Federal law is correct.
I think Iran is a democratic republic in which an extremist religious group acquired power.
Germany in the 1920's and 30's was a democratic republic when the Nazi's came to power.
Our own Know Nothing party achieved some significant power in the US.
In Utah the effort to create a theocratic state failed because the Congress ignored their efforts to form a government.
I am not saying these things to create a new line of discussion. I am trying to explain what I meant by use of the word "ignore" in an earlier post.
Ann Alden
June 20, 2003 - 08:39 am
Babi and Justin, there are accusations being made at this time by ??????????, about the Religious Right telling Bush how to run this country. That's quite a claim, isn't it!?
Religious Right and President Bush
Persian
June 20, 2003 - 09:44 am
ANN - this is NOT a new phenomena in Washington DC, although it may be news to readers in other parts of the country. Rev. Billy Graham was a close advisor to several Presidents - I think of him especially in relation to Nixon and his anti-semitic remarks (heard on the Nixon tapes). Think of Franklin Graham's presentation at Bush's Inauguration and his comments recently at the Pentagon.
I heard a brief segment by Jerry Falwell recently on a news program and wished at the time that when he said he'd "made a thorough study of Islam and its evilness" that it had been in concert with Islamic scholars who could have addressed his concerns and answered questions as they arose.
Ann Alden
June 20, 2003 - 11:45 am
Yes, I saw all these news stories and heard the accusations,too, Perisan, and wondered if any of these so called "Christians" have listened to themselves when they spout such garbage. When Falwell was calling Islam "evil", I thought to myself that he looked evil while he was saying it. And, Franklin G. needs to reined in or they need to shorten his leash! That these leaders can speak as they do and then call themselves conservative is beyond my ken. Their claims are preposterous and certainly not peace promoting! We do need calm hearts and minds these days!
BaBi
June 20, 2003 - 12:09 pm
Falwell, IMO, has always suffered extremely from foot-in-mouth disease. I automatically discount anything he says.
I recall reading an article a year or two ago, about the differences between Billy Graham and his only 'heir apparent', Franklin Graham. They are very different in their outlook, and the article made it clear that the prospect of Franklin assuming the mantle, so to speak, made a great many people uncomfortable...including his father.
As for the rumors that some group or another is 'controlling' the President, I have come to believe that goes with the territory. Remember how horrified many people were at the idea that a Roman Catholic (Kennedy) would be president? Obviously, a Roman Catholic president would be controlled by the Pope! Someone with a better knowledge of presidential history than I could probably tell us more, but I have the impression that groups who differ with a president's views always tend to complain that opposing groups are dominating him.
JUSTIN, I must plead ignorance about the politics of the 'Know Nothing' party. I've heard of them, and that's about it. As for the Nazis, at the time they came into power they were identified, I think, only as a sort of super-nationalist party, boosting the German ego after the embarassment of losing WWI. I don't think they were seen then as an extremist group; certainly not religious extremists. Again, my history may be hazy here.
The important factor, to me, in the points you are raising is the need to examine the agenda of any growing political power group, and try to see just where their policies would take us. And how many of us really pay that much attention to politics? "I don't", she confessed.
Babi
Diane Church
June 20, 2003 - 12:10 pm
I haven't heard anything in a while about Franklin's proposed "do-gooding" trip to Iraq. Has he, perhaps, had a change of heart?
Persian
June 20, 2003 - 01:02 pm
IMO, it would be enormously foolhardy for the State Dept. or any humanitarian organization to allow Franklin Graham (or his Samaritan Purse colleagues) to travel to Iraq. Perhaps his close allies in the Pentagon have been encouraging him to do so, but from what I hear from my son (who is on the ground in Iraq), the situation is still so dangerous that David wonders why "any civilians are here."
The other point is that there is such STRONG anti-American feelings throughout the country now - based primarily on Iraqi frustration about the lack of basic services, food, employment, etc. - that it would simply add to that negative feeling. Few average Iraqis are familiar enough with American-style Christianity to understand from what standpoint Graham is coming from and to realize that all Christians are not in his camp. It would be a disaster to the efforts of the Americans in country right now (both military and State Dept.)to have Graham there.
Diane Church
June 20, 2003 - 04:32 pm
Mahlia, that's why I was wondering if F. Graham, and his organization, had changed their plans. Or if someone had changed their plans FOR them! I hope so.
This has to be so rough on David now - not just the whole war thing but the hostility against America - and the fact that in many ways it is justified. I continue to pray for him (and his mother!).
robert b. iadeluca
June 20, 2003 - 04:41 pm
Are we beginning to ignore Kimball's book and turning toward becoming a forum similar to various religious discussion groups on SN, or am I imagining this?Robby
Persian
June 20, 2003 - 05:48 pm
No, Robby, I don't think that we are ignoring Kimball's book at all, but there are parallel thoughts that come to mind or current events discussed in the news which certainly come under the rubric of WHEN RELIGION BECOMES EVIL. Sometimes its interesting to move along by pages or chapters, but there has also been the freedom in this discussion (and the previous one on ABRAHAM) to comment on issues of mutual interest.
HubertPaul
June 20, 2003 - 09:02 pm
Mahlia said:”........Few average Iraqis are familiar enough with American-style Christianity to understand from what standpoint Graham is coming from and to realize that all Christians are not in his camp. .....”
In turn, can we say..Few average Americans are familiar enough with Iranian- or- Iraqi or Afghanistan-style of Islam to understand from what standpoint Hussein and the other leaders are coming from to realize that all Moslems are not in their camp..........”
If we understand each others style would that lead to better understanding and eliminate conflict??
Justin
June 20, 2003 - 09:49 pm
I don't think it's so much a question of "style" of Christianity that is not needed in Afghanistan and Iraq at the moment,as it is that Christian missionaries have done enough damage in the world in the past by telling prospects that their religion is not true and that the Christian religion is the only true religion. We are not in Iraq to convert Muslims to any religion other than Islam. We wish to assure Muslims that their brand of religion is ok and that it can be practiced without the need to hurt others. If we were to send missionaries we would be breaching one of Kimball's cardinal prohibitions and at the same time promoting continued warfare.
Justin
June 20, 2003 - 10:35 pm
Because Christians think their God is the only God they make the mistake of thinking The God of Islam is the same God. Similarly, they think the God of Abraham is the same God. But that is not the case. The God of Islam is God. There is no more of him. The God of Christianity is a Trinity. That to the Muslim is the ultimate sin. the God of Abraham is vengeful and jealous and partial to one group. The Christian God is said to be one of Love for all mankind, except Jews, Muslims, Hindus, homosexuals and sinners. Is there any similarity in these Gods?
GingerWright
June 20, 2003 - 11:34 pm
In my opion Agape Love which is the Love of God for All is the answer to all the problems as Gods children are always fighting each other be it his christen children fight among them selves or other religions fighting among there selves or All the Religions fighting each other thinking that there way is the only way but you see we humans are not God even tho most think they are. My God says that there will be some from All the religions that love God shall be with him and some from All religions will Not be with him for some reason. To me it maybe that Hate and Greed stands in the way of his Love for All of us. What say you? I do not have the book nor have I read it but I do Love your posts as it does show that we are All searching for Peace on earth, as for me Let peace on earth begin with me and each of us in our own little corner of the Whole Wide World.
Know this that I love each and every one of you and any one who is truly searching.
For anyone who is new and is obsevering my name is Ginger and I love you to so please post and let us know how you feel as you will get a Warm Welcome here.
HubertPaul
June 20, 2003 - 11:38 pm
Justin, I would call it the Christian concept of God, and the Islamic concept of God. And there are other concepts. Man has been creating concepts of God since the beginning of time. The idea my God is God, or how you put it, 'the God of Islam is God'(and believe in another God is the ultimate sin), is probably at the base of religious conflict.
GingerWright
June 20, 2003 - 11:54 pm
Religion Becomes Evil because religions are man made. God is Love and he knows us better than we know are selves.
robert b. iadeluca
June 21, 2003 - 03:59 am
Is it so, as Justin says, that
"the Christian God is said to be one of Love for all mankind, except Jews, Muslims, Hindus, homosexuals and sinners" or, as indicated by others here, that this is merely an interpretation by certain extremists?
Kimball adds that "Muslims have often differed in their interpretations of the Qur'an, the hadith (authoritative sayings and actions of Muhammed), and the opinions of legal scholars."(Page 44).
Whenever discussing religion, that word "opinion" always seems to come up.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 21, 2003 - 04:21 am
In a related
ARTICLE in this morning's NY Times, a meeting of clergymen is discussing how "a church can stray from its ideals" and "how culture affects the church."
Robby
HubertPaul
June 21, 2003 - 07:51 am
Kimball adds that "Muslims have often differed in their interpretations of the Qur'an..............."
Robby, that applies to all religions, and even Buddhism. It wasn't long after Buddha's death that his followers begun to quarrel amongst themselves as to what their Master meant by many of his teachings.....
That is why I like the expression: concept of God.
A man's god (concept of God), is himself at his highest.
"Man insist upon giving their gods their own attributes, qualities and feelings; and if one knows a man's idea of God, he may form a very idea of the man himself; and if he knows the man himself, he may form a very idea of his God.
PS interpret man as mankind.
BaBi
June 21, 2003 - 08:52 am
I'm with Hubert! It is everyone's concept of God that differs; God remains the same. As a Christian, Justin, I can affirm that Christianity teaches God's love for all, including "Jews, Muslims, Hindus, homosexuals and sinners". Any Christian who acts otherwise has missed the mark. (Which, by the way, as I'm sure you know, is the definition of 'sin'.)
Robby, I really thought we had gotten past Ch. Two, so we are progressing slowly. But that's okay by me. I think this is a topic that needs some thorough chewing to be properly digested. ..Babi
Justin
June 21, 2003 - 11:33 am
I agree with Hubert, everyone's concept of God is a little different but that's all there is. God is just a concept. God's image and being is what people think of God. If one thinks there is an entity beyond that, such does not exist in the human consciousness. God is one. God is a Trinity. God is full of wrath. God is full of love with exceptions. God is full of love. These are the concepts. The differences have always been a source of conflict.
What do we do about that problem? Do we excise it as one would the bomb or do we all sit down together and try to decide that God is Love, no matter his number, his attitudes, his discriminants. Do we excise instead his priests, his bishops, his immans, his rabbis, his holy interlocutors and all the litany that goes with them? Do we excise the holy documents? These are the sources of conflict. I fear the troublesome ones are too entrenched, too dependent to be dislodged.
Jonathan
June 21, 2003 - 12:40 pm
Robby
No, you're not imagining it (505). The discussion is becoming a platform for a lot of curious private political, religious, and theological opinions. It does make for liveliness.
Justin would seem to be taking us back to square one. I think that's a little more than Kimball intended.
It's not surprising. The book lacks balance.
georgehd
June 21, 2003 - 12:47 pm
I am in Baltimore and have been looking at some books that relate to our topic. I particularly want to call everyone's attentioin to Man Is Not Alone by Abraham Joshua Heschel. He has a very long discussion on the topic of what he believes religion to be. And of course the entire book is about Man and God, both needing each other. I am finding this a fascinating read - very slow and somewhat difficult. The approach is by a Jewish author and Rabbi who has a mystical view of Judaism. However, given the nature of our group, this book would be of interest to most of you. If anyone has read Heschel, let me know.
Some time ago, I believe I posted some of my views of God and Heschel discusses these ideas far better than I.
Persian
June 21, 2003 - 01:13 pm
Here's a link from the Religion section of today's Washington Post about Adm. Barry Black, Navy's Chief of Chaplains, taking over responsibilities as the Senate Chaplain when he retires from the military. It will certainly be interesting to see what "interpretation" is formed by Members of the Senate, their staff and other govt. personnel when a career military Chaplain takes his place among them. What I applaud is Black's willingness to use "inclusive language" in his ministry and public prayers, thus avoiding alienating some believers. F. Graham and J. Falwell could certainly learn from this highly respected pastor.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15123-2003Jun20.htmlJustin
June 21, 2003 - 02:17 pm
I guess the problem is that I was late getting the book and coming on board. I was reading on page 43 about the heinous sin of "shirk" when Hubert's idea of God concepts came up. I'm in chapter two, Jonathon, but will rush through to chapter three, if you are anxious to move ahead. Every once in a while I hear Robby say," Kimball said" and I know he wants to stay closer to the book. I don't want to hold anyone up. What do the leaders say? They seem to have given us ample room to move about in the topic.
robert b. iadeluca
June 21, 2003 - 02:44 pm
t's not that I want stay closer to the book. I have nothing against related or semi-related topics arising (as my friends in Story of Civilization know). It's that I see words and phrases which are (to me) most powerful and relevant and yet seem to be bypassed. In this process of "rushing through" I see many what I would consider "important" items ignored. Maybe I am just slower in reading and absorbing.
Robby
Persian
June 21, 2003 - 05:54 pm
Justin & Robby - one of the nice aspects of this discussion is that we as posters can follow Kimball's comments, introduce our own thoughts and perceptions of what is especially interesting, confusing or just outright irrelevant (to us individually); pose questions, contemplate answers and move along with the thoughts and interpretations of other posters; continue to enjoy the book as we read and share our own thoughts in our posts; insert links when they are helpful or interesting, and swing half-circle or full-circle back to Kimball's words again. IMO, this has been a very fluid discussion, which is one of the attractive qualities about it for me.
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 22, 2003 - 05:32 am
MONTREAL'S CHURCHES I counted close to 200 Christian churches on this site. Montreal used to be called the "City of a Hundred Bell Towers" (bad translation of 'La Ville aux 100 clochers'). I think those were Catholic churches.
Bubble
June 22, 2003 - 05:36 am
Belfries, Eloise.
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 22, 2003 - 05:40 am
Oh! yes, Bubble, thanks
. I knew there was something wrong, but could put my finger on it.
BaBi
June 22, 2003 - 09:52 am
Kimball points out that many of the sects/cults and their charismatic leaders start out with good goals and needed reforms. Lack of accountability and too much power are heady, and it's a rare person who can escape being corrupted by it. Perhaps one of the strong points of an established religion is that it's ministers are always accountable to someone for their actions and their teaching. If they refuse to be held accountable to others, then a break-away group is formed with a seed of trouble already planted.
Most religions, I believe, teach respect for and submission to authority. It is the basis of civilization, of law and order. But if that authority becomes arbitrary or attempts to exceed it's limitations, then people need to get out from under it. In order to know when authority is acting improperly, one needs to know what the proper limits are. In religion, this would mean that one should know the teachings of one's faith, and not rely on the ministry to tell one what to think. We cannot know that a religious leader is getting out of line unless we know where the line is.
It seems to me that a lazy approach to understanding one's own religion is an open invitation to error. Perhaps this would be one basic step in preventing religion from becoming evil. I am thinking in particular, just now, of those deluded young people who are wrongfully persuaded to become human bombs. ...Babi
robert b. iadeluca
June 22, 2003 - 10:05 am
"We cannot know that a religious leader is getting out of line unless we know where the line is."And to me, knowing where the line is, is reading the holy book of that particular religion. I am coming to the understanding that the majority of Muslims are strongly urged, if not required, to read the Qur'an. Christians, on the other hand, are urged but not necessarily strongly depending on their particular religion and their particular church, to read the Bible.
It would be harder then, I assume, for an Imman to get out of line than a Christian clergyman.
Robby
HubertPaul
June 22, 2003 - 10:17 am
Robby :".......are urged but not necessarily strongly depending on their particular religion and their particular church, to read the Bible............"
Don't know about that. Is taking the Bible too literally and missing the meaning of parables and symbols a result of reading too much of the Bible, or not often enough.
Robby,what do you think?
Bert
BaBi
June 22, 2003 - 10:20 am
There was a time, Robby, when the RC church strongly discouraged their people from reading the Bible. They figured it would just lead to all sorts of confusion, and that it was better that they should just let the priests tell them what they needed to know.
In the Jewish faith, young people attending the shivas are taught little about their Bible. Instead, they learn what Jewish Rabbis/scholars have determined is the way to live a life in accord with God's commands. (Sorry, but the name of the book escapes me just now. I was to say Midrash, but I don't think that is correct. Senior moment here.)
As you said, Christians are encouraged to read the Bible mildly, or strongly, depending largely on the church to which they belong.
...Babi
robert b. iadeluca
June 22, 2003 - 10:28 am
BaBi:--Your stating that the RC Church has at time discouraged people from reading the Bible illustrates my point. Many congregants "did not know where the line was" and therefore did not know if their pastor was acting out of line. I know little about the Jewish faith and can't comment on that.
Hubert:--I don't know what you mean by reading the Bible "too much."
Robby
HubertPaul
June 22, 2003 - 11:16 am
Robby, when I listen to J W's or other proselytizers, people who read the Bible on a daily basis, they seem to get “bogged down” in the Bible to a point where they disregard any form of other thought, knowledge, or reason. That is too much.
That goes for any religion or sect within a religion.
Bert
georgehd
June 22, 2003 - 11:52 am
Babi, your post 530 made me laugh as a shiva is a service for a person who has just died and shiva services are held for mourners for a week in the home of the deceased.
A Yeshiva, on the other hand, is a school for study.
The prophets, and one could call Jesus a prophet, were men of great faith who often rebelled against the teachings of the rabbis. Rabbis are not authority figures in Judaism except in matters of Jewish law and even then many if not most modern Jews do not accept all the tenents of Jewish law.
Robby, you say that you do not know much about the Jewish faith and that is one of the reasons I suggested Heschel as he speaks to all religious people including Muslims in a most interesting way.
an article on Shiva and mourning
http://www.aish.com/literacy/lifecycle/The_Stages_of_Jewish_Mourning.asprobert b. iadeluca
June 22, 2003 - 12:25 pm
George:--Maybe some day I'll spend some time getting to know a bit more about the Jewish faith but for the moment a full-time profession plus being a SN discussion leader plus my community responsibilities are about all I can handle.
Robby
Persian
June 22, 2003 - 01:14 pm
Just as a point of information about the Qur'an and Muslims: It is customary for Muslims to read the entire Qur'an during the Holy Month of Ramadan; to reflect on the various Suras and discuss their reading within the family - especially with youth, who are also encouraged to read the entire Qur'an. Thus by the time a Muslim has reached adulthood he/she has read and studied the Qur'an many times. In our family, which included Muslims, Jews and Christians, we were encouraged to read scripture pertinent to each faith and to actively participate in interfaith discussions, beginning in our pre-teen years. Younger children were present, but they simply listened.
Knowing when an Imam "crosses the line" is not difficult. Since an Imam is NOT an ordained spiritual leader, but a Muslim well versed in Qur'an, leader of prayers and coordinator of education within an Islamic community, he (NEVER she)is not responsible to an official governing body as in Christian denominations. But he is responsible to the congregation. And if his community service work (which includes education) is not well received or he has in some way broken the trust of the community, he will not remain an Imam for long. In the large mosques, there are Administrative governing committees, which would be the individuals keeping an eye on the Imam and his work with the members of the congregation. In smaller mosques (especially in rural areas), the people themselves will either encourage an Imam to remain as their teacher or oust him.
The role of women in Qur'anic studies is strong and has a long history, regardless of what the West considers the "submissiveness" of women. Just as women gather in Christian communities to study the Bible, Muslimas gather regularly to study Qur'an, pass along their knowledge and teaching to their friends and family members, especially youth, and try to coordinate their own actions according to Qur'anic instructions. Women of multi-faith backgrounds (like mine) often incorporate scriptural lessons from each faith in their own development and their teaching to others.
robert b. iadeluca
June 22, 2003 - 01:33 pm
Mahlia:--That says to me that most of us in the Western World better be careful about commenting on Islam vs our own religion as citizens of those nations know a great deal more about their faith than most of us do about ours.
Robby
Persian
June 22, 2003 - 02:47 pm
No, I don't think so, Robby. Sharing information about one's own faith and learning about that of others is how people become more accustomed to each other, broaden their own knowledge (about themselves and others), and in so doing come to find out that the bottom line is that we are all human - Sons and Daughters of Abraham, if you will, with "cousins" of other faiths or none at all. It's an opportunity to respect others, while maintaining our own faith traditions. My own personal experience has shown me that when I'm questioned about an aspect of faith or my own personal acts of devotion, it is an opportunity to not only answer the questioner, but also learn from him/her about another's belief.
Professor Abdul Aziz Said, a Syrian-born faculty member at Washington DC's American University (and a core member of the faculty who developed the School of International Studies)remarked in an article recently that he was a man "of all faiths." Since there is a large population of foreign students at AU (many Arabs and Muslims), Said is well known and respected among those groups. But he is also highly regarded by the Chrsitian and Jewish student community (in fact a Jewish fraternity named a scholarship after him). Said encourages the students to use the international community at AU as "a learning opportunity," a ready-made, in your front-yard classroom to learn about each other.
IMO, whether one knows their own scripture well or only sparsely, it is more important to communicate with others of different faith backgrounds - in a direct, respectful and questioning manner - so that one learns. To me, cultural ignorance is more problematic than whether one studies scripture.
robert b. iadeluca
June 22, 2003 - 03:11 pm
"Cultural ignorance is more problematic than whether one studies scripture."Do you think, Mahlia, that those in the Eastern civilizations know and understand more about their own cultures than we do about ours.
Robby
Persian
June 22, 2003 - 04:19 pm
That's a pretty general question, Robby. I would reply that just like in any society, SOME folks know their own cultures, traditions, religions, etc. and others do not.
When I think of the educated individuals, who have had the benefits of advanced studies, travel abroad, and are multilingual, I would speculate that THEY might know more details than others. But then there are lots of folks in this category, who have little interest in issues outside their immediate vicinity or profession or neighborhood. So they would probably know less and nor really care to learn more.
Through my personal experience in China years ago, I learned that govt. bureaucrats could almost without hesitation quote chapter and verse about the Chinese Communist Party, Chairman Mao and his Great Leap Forward, and often many of the govt sponsored efforts undertaken since Mao's death. But they knew little about the history of their own birthplace, let alone anything of historical significance about the previous dynasties. To these folks, the world began with Mao.
But then a more concentrated knowledge and focus on contemporary events is true among Americans as well. Throughout my youth and professional adulthood, I have always found it curious that so many college-educated and professional Americans know so little about other countries and their citizens. (Years ago I gave up asking why Americans are not intersted in other languages!)
When one considers the relative youth of our country and way of life, it amazes me that our citizens are not more intersted in where they and their forebears came from.
In the Middle East, it is NOT unusual for individuals, families, clans and tribes to be able to recount orally the history of their family heritage for centuries. (It used to be that our Native Americans could do the same for hundreds of years. Not any longer.)
Public figures like the late King Hussein of Jordan, could recall his ancestory all the way back to the Prophet Mohamed. The Heads of the Saudi Royal Family knew their contemporary family history, as well as their ancient tribal history. Persians know ancient Persian history as though it happened yesterday and are quite comfortable discsusing events that happened hundreds of years ago in such a manner that a listener would think they were talking about this week's news. Of course, individuals who are educated speak in much more relevant detail, while those in the rural areas without the benefit of formal education, discuss history in a context passed generation to generation for hundreds of years. What Americans call Oral History or Folklore.
Although there has been a developing interest in geneology in the USA during the past decades (especially with public access to the extensive geneological database in the Mormon Church), it is nowhere near as wide spread as in the countries of the Middle East.
robert b. iadeluca
June 22, 2003 - 04:46 pm
Most interesting, Mahlia. Thank you!
Robby
Justin
June 22, 2003 - 10:56 pm
The "line" that limits the actions of clerics is not in their holy books. It is in the civil law. The view that the limiting line is in the holy books is what gives clerics the idea that they can act with impugnity in society. Very often the collar is a license to act irresponsibly in society. When clerics act like Abraham's God they are very often disobeying civil laws.
robert b. iadeluca
June 23, 2003 - 06:04 am
Kimball (along with other authors he quotes) asks:
"What do we mean when we say 'God?'"The 12-step program uses the term "God as we understand Him" or the term "higher power." I wonder about those who describe themselves as agnostics or atheists. Are they saying they do not believe there is any sort of power whatsoever higher than they -- be it evolution, DNA, nature, or you name it? I wonder if we are trapped by semantics -- Jehovah, Allah, God.
Robby
georgehd
June 23, 2003 - 06:19 am
Something still seems to be wrong with the site. As I was posting my post suddenly disappeared for no reason?? So here goes again.
Justin - "when clerics act like Abraham's God they are very often disobeying civil law". This idea poses an interesting point for discussion. What happens when civil and religious law conflict? My understanding of Jewish law (which is weak), is that it applies to religious questions only and at least in the US, civil law is the overall applicable law.
Some nations are religious nations such as Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. In these countries clerics play an enormous role in the interpretation of law and religious law can be higher than civil law.
I am curious in what way the clerics are acting like Abraham's God?
BaBi
June 23, 2003 - 07:50 am
Shucks, George, I was close! Just add a "Ye" and it will be fine. Seriously, thanks for the correction. When I'm pulling a word up out of memory, I sometimes get the wrong one. Now that you have given us the correct word, I can remember reading of family "sitting shiva" for a deceased member.
On civil vs. religious law, we can see an example of the civil law prevailing in the banning of polygamy among Mormons. (There are still occasional 'lawbreakers', as I noted recently.) I don't believe there are many religious laws practiced today that would violate any civil law. If a law is enacted that violates religious law, then individuals will have to examine their conscience and decide what course to pursue. IMO, based on my understanding of the strictures of my own faith, one has the options of passive disobedience, with acceptance of the consequences; legal and political measures attempting to change that law; leaving the State/Country; or accepting the curtailing of one's religious liberties. None of these are very pleasant choices.
Has it occurred to anyone that laws curtailing the rights of any faith are also "laws respecting an establishment of religion", and therefore unconstitutional? ..Babi
Ann Alden
June 23, 2003 - 08:43 am
IMO, since we are discussing Religion, Evil, and mostly in the context of the three Abrahamic faiths, deciding what's constitutional and what's not, is somewhat off the topic. Although it does come to mind often when one studies religion in all the world's countries that each has a different approach to the impact that religion will have on the making of the country's laws.
The mention of the Iranian(Perisan) knowledge of their history as though it happened yesterday, reminds me of when I spent a great deal of time with some German citizens. One of the first things that I noticed was that they discussed Charlemagne the same way we discuss Lincoln. As though it were yesterday.
When one is raising a child, the thing that always impresses me is that children are actually happier when they know the guidelines or the acceptable parameters of their actions and also, the consequences of not staying in those guidelines. Somewhere someone said that religion is for adults. So, does that mean that after growing into adulthood knowing the guidelines of behavoir and then coming into a religious sphere, that adults still need parameters spelled out for them?
Ray Franz
June 23, 2003 - 08:44 am
If so, the addition of "under God" to our pledge of allegiance violates our Constitution and freedom of religion.
The addition of Jesus and "Christ" when public prayers are said in governmental meetings is also a violation as other religions do not recognize a god in human form.
Laws against abortion, homosexuality, etc. because of religious beliefs is also a violation of the rights of others. I have no concern with those who oppose abortion and homosexuality on moral grounds, but they do not have the right to curtail the freedom of others on this and other personal actions.
Ann Alden
June 23, 2003 - 09:06 am
Raymond, to that I say "AMEN" to most of what you say in your last paragraph, but, concerning abortion, doesn't that mean deciding when life begins? I have said since the legalizing of abortion came about with Roe vs. Wade, that I believe that the decision should be between the parents(of the fetus) and the doctor. But,to many people, there is the question of legalizing murder when allowing abortion. Its a difficul problem. Now, the lady who was the primary defendant in the Roe vs. Wake decision is fighting the right to abort as she says that it is very hard on women, physically and psychologically. I am just glad that I don't have the decision to make concerning myself. Age has its benefits!!
Ray Franz
June 23, 2003 - 10:50 am
Ann, you are correct about the decision to abort. It is a tough call, but so is bringing a severely handicapped child into the life of a married couple.
I know from experience as my son and DIL have a Down syndrome child and I have seen what burden it places upon a marriage.
My DIL said that even if she had known, she would have had a tough time making the decision to abort.
Life is full of decisions and personal ones which injure no one else do not belong in the pervue of government or the religious.
We live in the NOW and not the HEREAFTER.
Justin
June 23, 2003 - 01:24 pm
George: It is such a frustrating nuisance when a posting disappears. I have found that my fingers have struck "escape" or perhaps "alt" when that happens. I don't know what the function of these keys does to the text but they do cause loss of data for me.
The God of Abraham was wrathful. He punished by inciting others to kill and enslave his chosen people. In the past, the Franciscans, the Augustinians, the Benedictines, the Jesuits, have tortured and killed in the name of God. Pope Urban ll invaded lands, killed and maimed Saracens just as Abraham's God directed Moses and Joshua to invade and destroy Canaanites. I suppose there are modern examples although none come immediately to mind.
Justin
June 23, 2003 - 01:34 pm
Ray: I agree. Unfortunately, the fight to keep late term abortion decisions in the hands of doctors and parents is just about lost. Our fat bottomed male legislators have decided they have the right to decide these issues rather than the mother. If the state insists these handicapped children should live, then the state should provide a means to care for them from cradle to grave. It is wrong to impose these responsibilities on the parents. If congressmen thought in terms of responsibilities they might try a differnt tack.
georgehd
June 23, 2003 - 03:29 pm
I am not sure that abortion rights is a topic for this discussion, though it certainly is and will be a hot topic particularly if Mr. Bush appoints a few Supremes.
And this takes me to my main point. President Bush is a born again Christian I think and it is well known that his approach to religion borders on fundamentalism. As he pushes the country more to the right, will we in the US (our policies) become more evil because our government believes that God is on our side. This may be poorly phrased but you should get my drift. I do think that Mr. Bush is on a crusade in the Middle East and we do not know how this is going to turn out.
Justin
June 23, 2003 - 06:08 pm
If the right wing conservative religions did not fight so hard to deprive women of the right to choose, I would agree with you, George. But they do fight and so abortion is a religious issue.
Ann Alden
June 24, 2003 - 06:48 pm
Well, we are going to start on the next chapter tomorrow. I believe the title is "Blind Obedience" but my book is downstairs and I will have to double check.
One of the points that Kimball makes is that when by following a certain religion and its mandates causes your neighbors pain and suffering, the religion has been corrupted. Lets see what he has to say about the different happenings worldwide that have been accredited to religious beliefs with followers who do not question their beliefs.
Ann Alden
June 26, 2003 - 03:51 am
I keep reading this book but at the same time wondering about the "corruption" of the religion. I have always considered the "church"(any church) to be the people. We are the church! So, when one blindly follows the church, is the religion corrupted? We look at Jonestown and we see people blindly following Jim Jones and I wonder what these people were smoking! There were children in that group. Can you imagine offering your children poison kool aid?? How completely desparate and depressed a person must be to do something like that. And, then call it religion?? Or, the group of men out in California, who were found dead in their "monastery" after all killed themselves. For what? Religion? God??
robert b. iadeluca
June 26, 2003 - 04:06 am
"We" are the church in the same sense that "we" are the government. But many (if not most) of us forget that. We tend to say: "the government says -- the government in Washington does this or that" and completely forget, or ignore, or never knew that the people in Washington are not the government, they are the government's representatives. As Lincoln reminded us "government of the people."So it is (in my opinion) with the church. We are the church but most of us forget that. We tend to say "the church says - the church does" and completely forget, or ignore, or never knew that the clergy (depending on the specific denomination) are our representatives.
This is exactly what is going on in the Roman Catholic church at this period in history. Many congregants are saying: "We are taking back our church."
After having spent many many months with fellow participants in The Story of Civilization, I am doubtful whether the mass of people care enough to grab the reins of any church or to hold on. Strong belief is not that easy to come by.
It was held by Socrates who we are discussing this very day. Said he in front of a panel of judges: "If you kill me, you will not easily find another like me. I am a sort of gadfly." His "crime?" He urged the youth of Athens to think for themselves and not to automatically believe or accept what the state or church leaders told them. He had an opportunity to escape the death sentence if he would change or modify his beliefs. He refused and accordingly was put to death.
How many church members do we have in these days who say "we are the church" and urge critical thinking?
Robby
Ann Alden
June 26, 2003 - 06:46 am
Good question, Robby!! Do most of us stick our heads in the sand and just go on our merry way, ignoring the problems in our churches?? Unfortuneately, that is what seems to be happening.
And, "critical thinking", heaven forbid that someone would think for themselves. We are "judgemental" animals but "critical"??? HMMMMMM????
Ann Alden
June 26, 2003 - 07:30 am
I did go to the Civilization discussion and read the last 25 posts and had to check the header to see which discussion I was reading. This one or that one??? Tee hee!
robert b. iadeluca
June 26, 2003 - 07:36 am
Ann:--I guess you have no choice but to become a regular participant in The Story of Civilization. And, of course, I will never allow you to forget that you got me involved in opening up the discussion of de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" during our conversation at the Book Bash in Chicago in 1998 -- and then it all moved on from there.My gosh, was it that long ago?
Robby
Persian
June 26, 2003 - 12:21 pm
But, Robby, you've just given a perfect illustration of what people can do when they agree to serve as DIL in SN or in any other venture where they lead (or share) their thoughts and beliefs with others, while willingly listen to the differences.
Certainly The Story of Civilization (and other discussions) is NOT taking over a denomination or an individual church, but what we've all learned as we've moved along with discussions (some of us reading more than posting)has been invaluable. The Civilization discussion and this one has shown that when people do come together in a common interest there can be a substantial amount of learning. And we all know that from learning comes a better appreciation of differences. Not necessarily accepting them for oneself, but understanding other people's choices.
As I talk about these discussions with people who are unfamiliar with SN, I often hear "and you're all different? Amazing!" But why should it be amazing that a group of mature, articulate adults can't continue to learn from each other and about regions and people on the other side of the world or in ancient civilizations. Like the advertisement with all those kids singing indicates - WE ARE THE WORLD. And if not us, then who?
Justin
June 26, 2003 - 03:53 pm
There is a difference between US Government's relation to it's citizens and Roman Catholicism's relation to it's parishioners. We are the Government. We are not the Church. The Church is an independent entity. It is an independent ruling body. Here in the US, the parishioners would like to have women priests, birth control and a few other things but the parishioners have no power. They can have what they want only if the Pope is willing to allow it. Parishioners are asked to support a church building but have little or no say once they have contributed.
I am not certain but I think muslims and muslima have no influence on the religion. They may have some control over the operation of a mosque. I don't know how that works. Mahlia might know.
There are other religious organizations which are less independent. The parishioners can express an opinion about sermons and even throw the rascals out. The parishioners and their representatives run the physical plant. But few lay folks can influence a minister in religious matters.
I am not certain how a Synagogue operates. I suppose, it varies depending upon degree of orthodoxy. But I don't really know.
Persian
June 26, 2003 - 04:34 pm
JUSTIN - our experiences have been somewhat different. Throughout my life, I have lived and worshipped in several regions. Coming from a multicultural background, I am as familiar with Christian churches as I am with Islamic mosques. For example, several yeaers ago, colleagues of mine were quite instrumental in taking aside their Pastor and explaining to him that he was inserting too much of his personal political feelings into his sermons, misquoting scripture and trying to force his beliefs on those congregants who were less sophisticated and/or mature in God's Word. The outcome: the Pastor was removed from the church. Two similar situations occurred many years ago when I lived in other states.
Within Islam, there is no Word, but God. The cultural traditions of a community of Muslims (whether Persian, Iraqi, Pakistani or Indonesians) come into play often in the general community of the local mosques. But never BETWEEN Muslims and God. This is greatly misunderstood in the West, especially about the role of women in the family and in the Islamic community. The Qur'an (which Muslims believe is God's word spoken to the Prophet Mohamed, NOT revealed or edited by others)is a guide for daily life, as well as one's religion.
Islamic is not just a religion, but a way of life. Thus, there are laws for almost every conceivable circumstance. If a community of Muslims is unhappy with their Imam, then they tell him so, explain why and try to find a consensus about how he can adapt his manner, his type of communication to the community, his teaching or whatever.
If a point of reconciliation cannot be found which satisfies the community, then the Imam is asked to leave the mosque.
Muslims do not CHANGE Islam. Islam (the religion) remains the same throughout the centuries. But being only human, Muslims' INTERPRETATION of God's Word (the Qur'an)changes according to their educational level, their understanding of the circumstances of a specific Sura, their willingness to listen to those more versed in Islamic studies, etc. The political and economic factor comes into play also. This is where the different branches of Islam came into being: Sufi, Shi'a, Ahmadi, Sunni (especially Wahhabi). For a more precise explanation, consult your local Imam!
Justin
June 26, 2003 - 07:23 pm
Mahlia: Your experience comes under paragraph three in 560. Many Christian churchs are run by the parishioners, who not only support the physical plant but also hire the pastor and correct him when he strays from scripture. If he does not conform he may be discharged. None of this is true for Roman Catholics. However, an R.C. pastor who strays too far from religion may be the recipient of complaints lodged with his Bishop.
Bubble
June 27, 2003 - 12:47 am
Read this morning:
It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he needs not exist in order
to save us.
-Peter De Vries, novelist (1910-1993)
Persian
June 27, 2003 - 07:54 am
I've always wondered why there has been so much hesitancy in the RC church about speaking out about behaviors that were unacceptable. What has kept the parishoners quiet? Why has there been so much continued abuse of the children and youth (even when parents were notified)without reporting to the police officials?
Many years ago when I was a teenager, I visited cousins in Missouri. My blond, blue eyed female cousin was always attractive to the boys, but also to some of the young men as well. One evening we were attending a Youth Bible Study. Afterwards, one of the young Pastors (new to the Parish)eagerly encouraged her to walk with him along a path into the woods. My uncle overheard the comments and saw the two begin to walk towards the woods. He reached into the trunk of his car, pulled out a hunting rife and calmly told my aunt, "I'm going to shoot a skunk." He returned in a few minutes with my cousin by the arm, followed by the Youth Pastor with a bright red face. No shots were heard, but my Uncle certainly made his point.
Lightening
June 27, 2003 - 09:08 am
Are You hearing much over there of our beautiful Anglican Church....Many of us are not happy with the ideas of the new Archbishop.....now there is talk of with-holding subscriptions....I state subscriptions not tithes...folk who tithe will still tithe to Christian organisations but not directly to the Church....Members of my own church, while not judging gay folk in general are not in agreement with the choice of a Homosexual bishop. Rowan Williams was not the majority choice as Archbishop of Canterbury.
The Anglican Church has a number of problems and there is a strong wish among many, to disestablish, which would mean that the state would not be able to decide bishops......Mr. Blair made the final choice on the Present Archbishop of Canterbury.
Lightening
June 27, 2003 - 09:32 am
Jesus said "Let the wheat and the chaff grow together until the harvest and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers Gather ye together first the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into My barn. Matthew 13:24-30. Food for thought!
Ann Alden
June 27, 2003 - 01:49 pm
There are other Christian churches, the Greek Orthodox, the Coptic, the Lutheran???, who are ruled by an upper group. I am not sure but I believe that they have just bishops. Seems to me that the bishops rule the Greek and Russian Orthodox.
The only thing that the pope has absolute authority over is the Nicene Creed. And, if something that I read last week is true, there is a reason for that. I will go look it up!
The American Catholic Church threatens to break off with Rome frequently but something always hold them back. Blind obedience???? Could be! But that's changing!!
Jennifer, did you say that Tony Blair actually chose the Bishop of Cantebury? I had forgotten that the head of your country is also the head of the Anglican or Episcopal Church.
Justin
June 27, 2003 - 03:07 pm
This is a week of glad tydings for gays. The US Supreme Court ruled that what people do in private beds is no concern of the Government. Thus they removed laws prohibiting sodomy and other practices common in the marriage bed. The Roman Church objected. The laws governing children still hold.
That advance is followed by news that Tony Blair chose a homosexual as Archbishop of Canterbury, thus ending a six hundred year reign of straight white males in the precincts of Canterbury. The next goal for Episcopalians should be one of a woman Archbishop.
robert b. iadeluca
June 27, 2003 - 03:11 pm
I didn't know that the Prime Minister was the "head" of the United Kingdom.Robby
Justin
June 27, 2003 - 03:46 pm
Ann; The Pope has no authority over the Nicene Creed. The creed, composed in 325 CE stresses the divinity of Christ. The Pope is the apostoloc head of the Church. Changes occur only through papal bulls or through ecumenical councils endorsed by the Pope.
I doubt very much that the American Bishops have ever seriously considered breaking away from Rome and the Church members have no say at all in that kind of issue. That would be heresy. The last one to do that was Martin Luther and he was an Augustinian cleric not a lay person. So you can see that one does not consider breaking away from Rome from time to time. The members may come and go but the church
goes on tied to Rome and it's papal bulls.
Justin
June 27, 2003 - 03:49 pm
The Prime Minister says yea or nay and the Queen says, thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. I think they worked that all out with Charles ll.
georgehd
June 27, 2003 - 04:02 pm
I just rented an old movie, Khartoum starring Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier. I was struck by a lot of similarities between the history of North Africa in the 1880's and the current unrest in the Middle East. A British (Imperialists)general, Charles Gordon, was sent to put down a revolt led by the Mahdi, a Muslim fanatic who believed he was descended from Mohammed and was born to save the Muslim religion from the infedels. The movie is a super duper spectacular made in the 60's - for those who like that sort of thing.
It was interesting to see how this movie tied in with the three discussions that I participate in, this one, Greece, and The Piano Tuner (which starts in a week).
BaBi
June 28, 2003 - 08:36 am
Kimball wrote:
"Religious communities inevitably define themselves over against or in some kind of tension with the wider society."
It got me to thinking about other groups that do much the same. Military and police forces always differentiate strongly between themselves and "civilians". Individuals in those groups also feel, and I'm sure it's true, that only another member of their group can really understand what their job and their life is like.
"The more the power and authority are focused in one or a few people, the higher the likelihood of abuse."
That fact has been illustrated more than once in military take-overs, as surely as in religious abuses.
There used to be social barriers that tended to isolate groups into an "us and them" situation, though there is less of that with today's increased social mobility. Are there any other such groups that some of you recognize?
More and more in Kimball's exposition it is stressed that we make a huge mistake when we attempt to abdicate our personal responsibility in any situation touching on our lives and actions. I can only agree 100% with that. The argument that "I was just following orders" carries little more weight in my mind than the old shaggy, "the Devil made me do it!" ...Babi
georgehd
June 28, 2003 - 09:38 am
We are reading the chapter Blind Obedience and I am wondering how each of us see and understand the leaders of our own religions. I see this as a very sticky issue because in some cases we might get to topics that undermine one's faith. As a Jew I wonder how do Catholics view the Pope. How do fundamentalist Christians view their ministers. What is the role of the Dahli Lama?
While the Rabbi does have legal authority in matters of Jewish law (mainly for the Orthodox), the Rabbi is viewed as a teacher and not really as an authority figure.
Persian
June 28, 2003 - 09:44 am
BABI - your post above brought to mind the Irish Catholic "inner culture" prevalent in the FBI for many decades. Many years ago, an agent came to my former home university to talk to graduating seniors about prospective careers in the FBI. He handled most questions well, took the names of several students who wanted to receive more printed information and then closed his remarks by asking "How many Irish Catholics in the group." No one raised their hand. The agent was obviously disappointed. I introduced myself to him later and asked why he had inquired about Irish Catholics. The agent just smiled and said "they're our top recruiting priority." When I inquired about students from Middle Eastern backgrounds who might have valuable language skills to bring to a career with the FBI, the agent just shook his head and said "Nah!"
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 28, 2003 - 06:00 pm
I am a regular member of a non-denominational evangelical church called People's Church. Our Senior Paster came to our church as a Junior Pastor 25 years ago. He is now in his 50's and received a Ph.D in Theology about 5 years ago. This church sits 320 people and most Sundays it is packed even when students from McGill University, located across the street go home for the summer. I don't understand what George means by Fundamentalist Christian church. There are none listed under that name in the phone book in Montreal. Christian churches are either Catholic or Protestent which takes in all denominations.
What we see on the news reveals almost everything there is to know about pastors, parrish priests, rabbis, immams as nothing can be hidden any more from the public. Because of television, we should all be familiar with how people live their faith and I am surprised that George would ask how Catholics view the Pope. Just the fact that half a million people come to see him wherever he travels is an indication of the strength of their beliefs.
I have noticed a shift world wide in people's beliefs in the past 50 years. They are becoming more and more critical and vocal. I know for a fact that if our pastor, or a member of his family did not practice what he preaches, he would be asked to resign, or he would not even wait to be asked, he would resign his post. I cannot say that the 320 people in our church just obey blindly because that would imply that they do not have the intelligence to think critically for themselves. Church member are NOT ignorent. A large proportion have a university degree and several have beyond that. The median age of our church's attendents is around 40 years of age and come from 22 different nationalities.
Eloïse
SpringCreekFarm
June 28, 2003 - 06:52 pm
I am a Presbyterian. Our pastors are required to have college and advanced degrees. I live in a small community with few other Presbyterians. We have a problem keeping a pastor because the church and community are small and younger pastors with families don't stay long. For the past 4 years we have had a wonderful commissioned lay pastor who is an associate dean of the school of business of a nearby university. Needless to say we appreciate him and his teaching sermons. I've learned a lot since he's been here.
Eloise, my understanding of Fundamentalism is this: churches which are known as Fundamental are conservative with a very literal view of the Bible with no room for interpretation. Some are mainline conservative churches and others are non-denominational. Presbyterians for the most part tend to be more liberal in many matters including scriptural interpretation, although we do have a great deal of dissent about modern lifestyles in our Presbyteries and Synods. Sue
Persian
June 28, 2003 - 08:35 pm
Eloise - here is a fundamentalist churche in Montreal:
L'Eglise Baptiste de la Rive - Nord www.ibnet.org/LBRNmqc.htm
Montreal - 9910 Gouin Est. #306, Montreal H1C 2H2. 514-494-7452 [Pastor Yvon Geoffrion]
In the USA, many of our fundamentalist churches are of the Baptist denomination (particularly in the Southern Baptist Confederation).
SUE - I live in the metropolitan Washington DC area and many of the Presbyterians in this area are very excited that a female Pastor of a local church has been elected to serve as Moderator. A few days ago, a historical Black Baptist church in Washington called a female Pastor from New Orleans to serve as their Senior Pastor - the first time in the Baptist Confederation. Female pastors are not new in some mainline churches, but certainly this is a giant step forward for the Baptists.
Justin
June 28, 2003 - 10:34 pm
George: The strength of the Papacy can be seen in the Pope's reponse today, on the question of celibacy. Celibacy is generally thought to be the cause of sexual activity between priests and children. This good man says that celibacy will remain in force. The issue is a clerical one. The laity have no voice in it's resolution other than to put the culprits in jail. They can't do anything about the cause.
I don't think this is an example of "Blind obedience". The laity objects strongly. They just can't do anything about it. They can leave but that won't change anything. When the Pope dies the laity will have no voice in his replacement. Blind obedience it is not. Obedience it is.
robert b. iadeluca
June 29, 2003 - 03:47 am
Similar to what occurs in the military?Robby
Ann Alden
June 29, 2003 - 06:44 am
I mispoke about the pope's power on the Nicene Creed so went looking for articles about the pope's infallibility which is the word that I meant to us in my post. Here is one short explanation of Infallibility.
Infallibility
General Information
Infallibility, in Christian theology, is the doctrine that in matters of faith and morals the church, both in
teaching and in believing, is protected from substantive error by divine dispensation. The doctrine is
generally associated with the Roman Catholic church, but it is also applied by the Orthodox church to
decisions of ecumenical councils. The doctrine is widely rejected by Protestants on the grounds that only
God can be described as infallible.
Roman Catholic theology asserts that the entire church is infallible (and therefore cannot err in matters
of faith) when, from bishops to laity, it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. Only
the following persons in the church - those who hold its highest teaching office - are believed to
proclaim Christian doctrine infallibly:
(1) the entire body of bishops in union with the pope, the bishop of Rome, when it teaches with moral
unanimity;
(2) an ecumenical council that receives papal approval; and
(3) under certain conditions, the pope alone.
According to the definition promulgated in 1870 by the First Vatican Council the pope exercises an
infallible teaching office only when
(1) he speaks ex cathedra, that is, in his official capacity as pastor and teacher;
(2) he speaks with the manifest intention of binding the entire church to acceptance; and
(3) the matter pertains to faith or morals taught as a part of divine revelation handed down from
apostolic times.
The pope is never considered infallible in his personal or private views. Since the middle of the 19th
century, only two ex cathedra pronouncements have been made in the Roman Catholic church: the
definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 by Pope Pius IX, and the definition of the
Assumption of the Virgin in 1950 by Pope Pius XII.
Infallibility is not regarded by its adherents as something miraculous or as a kind of clairvoyance. Rather,
it is considered a grace, or divine gift, that is biblically and theologically grounded. Proponents point to
many scriptural passages, such as the farewell discourses in John, especially the promise of the Spirit of
truth (see John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13). They hold that the church derives this gift from God, who alone is
the ultimate source of infallibility. The matters subject to infallibility are doctrines rooted in Scripture
and in the ancient traditions of the church, neither of which can be contradicted; thus, novel doctrines
and other innovations are believed to be excluded. Infallibility is therefore seen as a gift that is to be
exercised with the utmost care in the service of the gospel.
robert b. iadeluca
June 29, 2003 - 06:52 am
When people use the term "Catholic," they usually mean Roman Catholic. It is my understanding, however, that there are many Catholic creeds -- Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox Catholic, Russian Orthodox Catholic, and the Anglican church in England which broke away from the Pope but is still Catholic.Robby
Persian
June 29, 2003 - 08:05 am
Here is an intersting link about the Eastern Orthodox churches (often called Byzantine). A particularly intersting point (at least to me) is that the Indian Orthodox Church is under the administrative guidance of the Syrian Orthodox Church. And of course the Copitic (mostly Egyptians) and Ethiopian Orthodox churches are quite different than those in the South Asian countries. Westerners (especially Americans) are more familiar with Roman Catholicism, but as the demographics constantly change in the USA, the congregations of the Orthodox churches in America will increase.
http://www.angelfire.com/realm/directory/georgehd
June 29, 2003 - 09:09 am
The reason I asked about how the public views its religious leaders has to do with what I perceive as a very real difference in the views of people in the US and Canada and much of the rest of the world. A number of us are familiar with the more liberal priests, rabbis, ministers, etc who would not call for blind obedience. Yet in other areas of the world, obedience is probably expected. I also sense that the level of obedience depends a lot on the education of the people and their economic well being. For the poor and down trodden religion provides hope and a way of life that has meaning. But IMO religion in these situations takes on an aura of infallibility and expects blind obedience.
On a different topic, some might be interested in the movie Stolen Summer, which is now on video and DVD. (It was also on HBO) It is the story of a young Catholic boy who is on a quest to help others get into heaven. He chooses to try to fulfill his quest at the nearby snyagogue where he befriends the Rabbi's son. The film is very well done - and the messages it contains are important.
robert b. iadeluca
June 29, 2003 - 09:17 am
According to Kimball
"authentic religion engages the intellect as people wrestle with the mystery of existence. Blind obedience is a sure sign of corrupt religion. Beware of any religious movement that seeks to limit the intellectual freedom and individual integrity of its adherents."This is bothers me about certain Christian religions which encourage the congregants to pay less attention to the holy books and to lean more on what the clergymen say.
It is my understand, on the other hand, that Islam encourages (mandates?) Muslims to read the Qur'an in its entirety and regularly.
Robby
Persian
June 29, 2003 - 09:44 am
ROBBY - Muslims are ecnouraged to read the Holy Qur'an regularly; to turn to it for lessons in every aspect of life from child rearing to overcoming marital discord. During the month of Ramadam, many (although not all) Muslims read the entire Qur'an as a "refresher" for themselves and to study even more deeply during this holy month the words of God. There is no "mandate" about reading the entire Qur'an. Just like any other book of scripture, when one is intimately familair with the Word of God, it affects their entire life. Islam is not only a religion, is it is a way of life 24/7 (if adherents choose to make it so). And in many cases, it is a great comfort to say to unruly children, to a spouse in the midst of a marital argument, or when one confronts temptation of any kind "let's see what God instructs us in Qur'an."
Muslims listen to Imams (who are teachers, not priests, and thus NOT intercessors with God), reflect on what they have to say and continue to seek answers from God (directly) in the Qur'an. Certainly there are corrupt Imams and Muslims in any community - afterall, they are humans and we all know that humans are weak and can be tempted), but basically Muslims have the feeling that everyone who adheres to Islam has a direct connection to God. A Muslim deals with God directly - not through ministers or priests. One speaks to God directly and does not really even think about what others will say/think about his/her relationship to God in the process of worship, except that they are good Muslims, true believers, who will help those less fortunate, provide and protect for their families, turn to God in prayer and thanksgiving and be upright members of their community.
Certainly there are the Muslim Jerry Falwells and Franklin Grahams, and those Muslin "criers" (radicals who "cry" out their insults on others)are listened to by some, but certainly NOT the majority of true believers within Islam.
And, indeed, there are "ruptures" within Islam, just like what we've seen recently within the Church of England and its newly appointed gay cleryman. Within Islam, homosexuality is NOT tolerated well, it is punished severely if brought to public attention. As with any other community of humans, there are gay and lesbian Muslims, but they keep their private intimate lives low-key. They are nowhere near as easily or openly accepted as in the West and entire families are often ostrasized if a member is known to be gay.
robert b. iadeluca
June 29, 2003 - 09:47 am
I know I am about to over-simplify but, generally speaking, Muslims know more about Islam than Christians know about Christianity.Robby
Persian
June 29, 2003 - 11:01 am
I would respond that SOME Muslims do and others do not. Muslims are just like anyone else in the sense that they are human and will/will not plunge into the study of their religion - whether for personal enrichment and knowledge or as part of a study program or to find an asnwer to life's riddles (and there sure seem to be more of them).
From any large group of diverse ethnicities and religions, take one Rabbi, one Imam, one Protestant Christian Minister, one Roman Catholic Priest (and one each from the Eastern Orthodox denominations),one Buddhist Monk and a Hindu Priest. Among them, they have different levels of knowledge of their own religion (and others) depending on their circumstances and desires to learn.
I don't think Muslims per se know more about Islam than Christians do about Christianity. Some are more inclined to search, seek out specialists, read more widely, question and demand answers.
For example, I am an American born woman of multi-religious background, including Christianity, Judiasm and Islam. I happen to know more about Islam than my husband, an Egyptian Muslim, simply because I have been exposed to different facets of Islam, read more widely about the early years of Islam, delved deeper into the various branches of Islam, and have had the opportunity to question and learn from my own family heritage (Persian), as well as knowledgeable Arab, Central and South Asian colleagues. My husband, although a strong believer, is a professor of American and British literature, and not particularly interested in Islamic scholarship.
Nor is my son, an ordained Christian minister, now serving as a Chaplain In Iraq. At the moment, my son is deeply touched that he is "walking the land of Abraham" and has passed through Babylon and Nur on his way North. I, of course, am more concerned that he remain safe!
Persian
June 29, 2003 - 11:12 am
On another topic of bizarre religious-related issues - here is a link to a Washington Post article in today's edition, which describes how American military families are being referred by the Dept. of Defense and the Office of the Chiefs of the Navy and Air Force Chaplains to an Islamic web site, which advocates the radical Wahhabi sect of Islam.
Fortunately, after numerous complaints, the AF had the sense to withdraw its recommendation, while the Navy has simply added a disclaimer. To American military families - many in a state of high emotion while loved one are still in Iraq and Afghanistan - the material on the web site is bound to frighten and confuse them. I sent copies to my son and a couple of other Army Chaplains and will add my voice to those who have already complained.
The recommended site was obviously chosen out of sheer ignorance about Islam and a lack of careful research - even the first-appointed Muslim military chaplain admitted that in the article - and shows a tremendous lack of regard for the sensitivities of military families.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45822-2003Jun28.htmlrobert b. iadeluca
June 29, 2003 - 11:16 am
Sometimes when I see what the various branches of our Federal government are doing, I throw up my hands in desperation.
Please don't advise me to contact some governmental representative as I have already done that on numerous occasions.
Robby
Ann Alden
June 29, 2003 - 11:27 am
In contrast, I know of an Ohio Army Reserve Unit which will spend two weeks this summer going to Ecudor to help shore up the medical community. They have done this regularly for years. It seems that all Army Reserves are known for this. So, there's good and bad, in all things, aren't there? Even in the American behemoth that we call government!
BaBi
June 29, 2003 - 12:23 pm
ROBBY, could you amplify on your phrase?:"certain Christian religions which encourage the congregants to pay less attention to the holy books and to lean more on what the clergymen say."
I'm not aware of any Christian denominations/groups which do this. In my own church, a clergyman is much more likely to say, "If you believe me to be in error, show me my error from the scriptures and I will apologize and retract my statement." We are encouraged to read and study our Bibles daily. Anyone suggesting we should pay 'less attention to the holy books'would be an object of immediate suspicion!
I would be very interested to know of any group whose clergyman follow the practice you describe. Early warning sign a la Kimball, perhaps? ...Babi
Persian
June 29, 2003 - 01:15 pm
ROBBY - I had to laugh at your Post #590. Living near Washington DC for 3 decades, I certainly understand your frustration with the govt.
However, in this case, the ignorance CAN be corrected. Trust me, when a Chaplain's Mom (with a strong knowledge of the Middle East and Islam) contacts the Chiefs of Chaplains of Navy and Air Force with follow-up to the Sec. Def., White House, new Senate Chaplain (who is a former Navy Admiral) and Chaplains Corps Training Program HQ, as well as the appropriate civilian Govt. Representatives and the national media, the Pentagon folks will know without any question of a doubt that they have made a mistake that needs to be corrected ASAP.
robert b. iadeluca
June 29, 2003 - 01:16 pm
Babi;--I may be corrected here but I have been told by more than one person who is Roman Catholic that while their Bible (which is different from the Protestant Bible) is important that they are urged to spend more time reading the various Catholic books and to look for answers from their priests. Many years ago I spoke to a French woman who had never read the Bible until a copy (in French) was gotten for her here.
Robby
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 29, 2003 - 06:40 pm
Robby, regarding the Roman Catholic bible being different from the Protestant Bible is a very broad statement. I have not examined the two in every detail to compare, but some parts have been adapted to suit the Catholic dogma I have noticed.
Catholics in Quebec not only did not read the bible, but none could be purchased in French until after the war. It WAS forbidden to read the bible. Most priests that I have come in contact with had a very scant knowledge of the Bible here except some parts of the New Testament. Catholics read the ‘missel’ during mass and priests read the ‘brévière’ every day, a devotional book.
Mahlia, are Baptist churches all Fundamentalist? I am under the impression that ANY Protestant can be viewed as ‘fundamentalist’ if they live by some/any precept of the bible, am I wrong?
Eloïse
SpringCreekFarm
June 29, 2003 - 07:21 pm
I would say that the majority of Southern Baptist Churches tend to be Fundamental, although each church is a self governing entity and may be more liberal. The American Baptist Convention seems to be a more liberal mainline body, but has its Conservative Fundamental congregations, also. I think denominations like Assemblies of God are also considered Fundamentalist, but I'm not sure. Two denominations that seem to have their own way of looking at things and not accepting other Christian churches beliefs are the Church of Christ and Jehovah's Witnesses. My understanding is that they feel their way is the only way. I am not sure of this as I am not really informed on these 2 groups. Sue
Persian
June 29, 2003 - 08:54 pm
SUE - interesting that you mention the American Baptists. Recently, an AB minister explained to me that "we are quite different than the Southern Baptists, since we are the Northern intellectuals." I'm sure he meant well, but that explanation seemed quite arrogant to me.
I appreciate your statement that you are not sure about some of the denominations. However, I found it interesting in one web site that the United Church of Christ (UCC) merged with the Evangelical Synod some years ago. There seems to be a strong affiliation between UCC and PC(USA)also, since I know two pastors (both from UCC backgrounds) who serve in Presbyterian congregations.
ELOISE - my maternal grandmother was a French Catholic from Aviogne. When she came to the USA and married my Texas-born grandfather, she brought one of her family's Bibles with her. It was well-read even in those days (early 1900's). I remember her remarking many times how surprised she was that American Catholics "did not know the Bible well." As a child, I attended Catholic school and found that I was often the only student in a class who was familiar with the Bible and could refer to specific scriptures. In my family, we knew our Bible!
SpringCreekFarm
June 29, 2003 - 09:30 pm
Mahlia, I had an American Baptist grandmother and her church was as different as night and day to the Southern Baptist churches down here in Alabama. I am a member of a PCUS church here, but we have joined UCC churches when PCUS was not available in the communities where my husband was stationed. They are very similar. Here there are also PCA and Cumberland Presbyterian Churches which broke off when the Northern and Southern Presbyterian Churches reunited. They have more conservative congregations.
Congregational (UCC) churches and Presbyterian churches have similar forms of congregational government, although the UCC don't have the same hierarchical structure of the Presbytery, Synod, and General Assembly. There is something higher, but I can't remember what it is. Sue
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 29, 2003 - 09:45 pm
Mahlia, how my mother would have loved to read the Bible.
French Canadians Catholics lived their faith differently from the French from France. I found out later that there was a political reason for this. Both the religion and the language of the French Canadians took on a life of their own as no more contact was made with France for quite a long time after the conquest and they could not keep up with the changes in culture that occurred in the mother country.
Justin
June 30, 2003 - 12:17 am
Some years ago, while visiting Montreal, I found and carried away a hotel copy of the New Testament in French. I will probably fry in hell for the deed. But I have it still and have used it to learn both the language and the book's contents. I will leave a codicil in my will to have it returned.
As a child in parochial school, we studied something called "Bible History" as well as the Baltimore Catechism but never the Bible. My mother had a Bible with family dates but I don't ever recall reading any of it. We read a missal which enabled us to follow the Mass in Latin and in English. The missal contained prayers for sacrament preparation, devotional prayers and selected gospels. I received a Missal as a gift at Confirmation. My missal was one inch thick. Some people had missals that were three inches thick. I always thought they were more pious than I. I first read both the Old and New Testaments as part of a college Lit. course.
robert b. iadeluca
June 30, 2003 - 03:45 am
Hotel Bibles are "meant" to be taken away. Rest easy, Justin!Robby
BaBi
June 30, 2003 - 09:18 am
ELOISE, I fear most fundamentalists would be quite shocked at the idea of following only "some/any" of the Biblical precepts. Fundamentalists believe in abiding by ALL Biblical precepts.
SUE, you could add the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" (Mormons) to your list of Protestant Christian churches that "do things their own way" and are quite different from other denominations.
I did a quick study of scriptues in the Old and New Testaments and the Qu'ran on the subject of identifying 'false shepherds' and 'false teachers'. There was no problem at all finding a number of Biblical scriptures identifying some of the characteristics to watch out for. The Qu'ran had several verses advising Believers to avoid those who spoke "without knowledge". It follows, of course, that the Believer must know the teachings of the Qu'ran, in order to recognize those who spoke falsely or ignorantly. It still boils down to a personal responsibility to KNOW what your faith actually teaches; what your scriptures actually say. ...Babi
Persian
June 30, 2003 - 09:32 am
BABI - you've certainly made a good point about reading, studying and remaining familiar with scriptures. In Islam, adherents are encouraged to read and study the Suras, applying the examples to their own lives, teaching their children in an ongoing, life-long process of becoming familiar with the Qur'anic teachings. I remember reading a child's comment that "Qur'an is my friend," which shows that even at early ages, Muslim children are encouraged to listen (if they can't yet read), read and contemplate the text. A few years ago, I devised a way for young Muslims and Christians to sit down together, read from their respective holy books, discuss their readings and give examples of how the scriptures could be integrated into their own lives. The kids took the opportunity even further, continuing their collegial sessions after school began in the Fall and subsequently turning their get-togethers into a more formalized Bible/Qur'an after-school study session. Several of the kids are in college now and have introduced the sessions to their college friends in order to continue their studies and conversations. One of the students sent a postcard recently, mentioning that a faculty member inquired about the sessions, asking if he could join. The students voted and decided "Nope, it's for students only. But we'll be happy to show you how to start a faculty session."
BaBi
June 30, 2003 - 09:42 am
Mahlia, "truly excellent", as some of the young people would say. ..Babi
Persian
June 30, 2003 - 10:57 am
Although Islam (and the Middle East region which gave birth to many of its followers) may be generally unfamiliar to Americans, there was one distinguished American, Frank Lloyd Wright, who recognized the beauty, highly developed culture and enormous pride with which one of the ancient Islamic cities - Baghdad - was regarded. Here's a wonderful article from the Washington Post, detailing the work of two Middle Eastern scholars at the Library of Congress who've undertaken a study of Wright's 1957 Plan for Baghdad.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34088-2003Jun26.htmlAnn Alden
July 1, 2003 - 06:24 am
Mahlia, the article is so uplifting that I wanted to send it to our President for consideration. Its such a foreward looking idea that we(the US) should be thinking of doing something like this and getting all those without work preparing for it. We could loan them the money and take payback in oil and it would go on forever in their lives and hopefully spawn some Iraqi architects to consider the wonderful ideas of Wright.
Ann Alden
July 1, 2003 - 07:23 am
I, too, remember the old church orders about reading the bible and that their explanations of not reading or learning about it were countered by a Bible Study class in my first grade. But, we were discouraged in the reading and interpretation. Heaven forbid that we had an opinion of our own.
The mention of your missal brought many fond memories and I, too, remember thinking about which missal was better to have. I can't remember the names of the two that were most popular back then, one being quit a bit smaller than the other. They did have separate names, as I recall. Late in the 50's, our dog was left alone while we went skiing. Among the many books and tapes he destroyed was my BIG new missal. We found a dog sitter for him after that.
Justin
July 1, 2003 - 03:38 pm
FLW's designs might be just the thing to bring back some of "old Bagdad". Certainly, what the Iraqis now have in Bagdad is not traditional. If Iraqi architects were used to rebuild the city, I fear their models would come from existing buildings. But if FLW's designs are used they might spark a full return to ancient Islamic forms. Iraq is only 75 or so years old but Bagdad goes back 5000 years to Sumeria and Babylonia. That ancient history as well as Islamic history rooted in architectural design could reinspire pride in the capitol.
Persian
July 1, 2003 - 05:21 pm
JUSTIN - That ancient history as well as Islamic history rooted in architectural design could reinspire pride in the capitol.
I couldn't agree more! I sent copies of the article to my son and two of his senior Chaplains in Iraq, asking them if they could pass the article along the Administrative chain to the Americans who are working with the Iraqis in the Ministry of Reconstruction. There is great reverance in the Arab world for the ancient splendors of Baghdad and the multicultural sophistication that the city once offered.
I was heartened to see a segment on a TV news program recently that showed the Iraqi National Symphony playing their country's National Anthem for the first time in 30 years! People in the audience were crying and as they filed out of the auditorium, they continued to weep. One elderly man was so overcome that he began to speak and then just shook his head. A younger man (perhaps his son) accompanying him said "he hasn't heard that son since before I was born." The commentator said "Sadaam didn't like it because it did not focus on him!"
georgehd
July 1, 2003 - 07:40 pm
An article on separation of church and state from today's Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/02/national/02COMM.htmlJustin
July 1, 2003 - 10:39 pm
I am getting a little away from our topic in this posting. Bear with me. I watched CSPAN cover the Bechtel team on the reconstruction of Iraq. The camera showed the streets of Bagdad, several ministry buildings and the University Hospital. The architectural style of the buildings I saw is eclectic. There were lots of nondescript matchboxes in concrete. Lots of arches in roman style. No arches in the eastern style. There were a few Muzzin towers but they looked little different than the Seattle Needle. The hospital provided a thousand beds. Water and electricity are linked and absent. The reconstruction folks said they repaired one pumping station four times. It was destroyed each time. Now they are putting security guards on repaired stations. Four large generators have been imported and will replace some 30 year old generators that are not functioning. When the power comes on, water will appear with it. One Iraqi said the Saddam released all prisoners. He killed the political prisoners and released all criminals into the general population. That accounts for the general looting which was quite severe from what I could see.
Back to architecture- There is no indication in the architecture that one is in an ancient Middle East capital. Downtown Des Moines looks little different.
We were given a tour of one of Saddam's palaces. The interior columns and pilasters were in the style of ancient Egypt. Capitals were of palm leaves and papyrus leaves. They were much like the columns at Karnak. The palaces were sumptious with many bathrooms, none of which are in working order.
There is little question in my mind that FLW's designs would do us a world of good. Bechtel's people are nuts and bolts kind of people. They will reconstruct with more of same. I am sure of it. After water and power their next task is to bring current building up to operational levels. An FLW design is a foreign thing in the eyes of these reconstructors.
robert b. iadeluca
July 2, 2003 - 03:34 am
This link takes us to an ARTICLE which not only speaks of separation of church and state but also the relationship of the Federal government to the State government.Robby
Ann Alden
July 3, 2003 - 03:51 am
Robby,
Good article! Thanks for putting it here. I am getting ready to go into the 4th chapter and will have a techie put it in the header. Here's a link to a page about defining good and evil in most religions. You might want to Bookmark it for this discussion
Defining good and evil
georgehd
July 3, 2003 - 06:34 am
I just picked up the June 30 issue of Time magazine which has a fist holding a cross referring to the lead article, Should Christians Convert Muslims? Just reading the title made me extremely angry because I could easily substitue the word Jews for Muslims. I said in a very early post in this discussion that prosylitizing by two of the major religions, Christianity and Islam, is possibly the greatest force for evil in the world at this moment in time. The implication is clear - my religion is better - my religion is the only true religion - I know what is correct for you.
Unfortunately I have to stop this post now but will get back tomorrow.
robert b. iadeluca
July 3, 2003 - 09:17 am
George:--The magazine Time publishes what is "timely." Sure there are Christians in the world who try to convert Jews but there is no Jewish nation which has just been "conquered" in war and is now ripe for the pickings by certain Christian faiths.
I read that long detailed article in its entirety. It was well written and thought-provoking.
Robby
BaBi
July 3, 2003 - 12:01 pm
A good study of the definitions of good and evil, Ann. Most of humanity, thru' it's various religions, does seem to agree on those things that are basically good or evil, or lead to good and evil.
I have always found Time Magazine's articles to be generally well-done and thoughtful. I try to go to them when I want to understand some situation better. I used to subscribe, but found keeping up with a weekly (and finding space to pile weeklies) was too much.
The chapter on Blind Obedience did a good job, I think, on identifying those characteristics in a leader that must be considered dangerous. All things considered, tho', I doubt very much if anyone in this discussion group is in any danger whatsoever of being drawn into 'blind obedience'. The problem for most of us is that today's 'evil' religious activities, such as terrorism and those poor deluded suicide bombers, are not within the reach of anything we personally can do. We all know such things are evil, but I have yet to see what we can do about it. ...Babi
georgehd
July 3, 2003 - 12:43 pm
I have no problem with Time reporting what is going on. I am not sure what Robby means in his post. Just because Time or any other publication reports something, does not mean the news cannot be evil. The fact that you say "ripe for the pickings" is most disturbing because it means that conquering nations have the right to change the culture of the conquered peoples. The Muslims in Iraq have every right to continue to practice their religion (as long as terrorism is not involved) without Christian missionaries trying to convince them that their faith is wrong.
Justin
July 3, 2003 - 02:12 pm
Well said, George. I wish the other George had said it, but I have little confidence he will not think that a faith based recovery is just what is needed in Irag. I have nightmares about Franklin and Patterson, and the one with foot in mouth disease, telling Iraqis they are doing it all wrong. I am not at all sure we will ever learn.
Persian
July 3, 2003 - 05:46 pm
I have already been contacted by several people who are "inquring for their churches" (Christian) whether "it is time to travel to Iraq to bring the Word of God to the Iraqis." The first call surprised me, but as several others came in, I became indignant.
Finally, I called the Mission Chairs and the Senior Pastors of each church and explained that this was absolute nonsense. The Christian and Jewish communities in Iraq (as elsewhere throughout the Middle East), although in the minority, have been there for centuries. They have lived beside the Muslims on a daily basis and often thrived. The Christians and Jews of the Middle Eastern countries (and NOT just Israel) have contributed significantly over the centuries to the administrative and commercial infrastructure of the countries in which they reside.
In one conversation, a Youth Director came on the line and said that he had 17 and 18 year olds "lined up and ready to serve their first Mission in Iraq this summer." I completely lost my Irish temper - forget religion, this was pure Irish!
I carefully explained that there were plenty of 17 and 18 year old Americans in Iraq already - in the military. Many soldiers had died; several before my son reached their side, so it was a personal loss for him as well.
I ended my comments with the message "The soldiers on the ground do NOT need additional American teenagers to protect; they have enough of their own. Keep your teenage Mission team OUT OF IRAQ!" How can people be so damned ignorant!
Another point of contention for me this week was a statement I read on a Christian mega church's web site referring to the Iranian community in Southern California as "being unreachable (meaning ripe for proselytizing)due to their language differences." What nonsense!
The Persian community in Southern Calif. is one of the most educated, multi-lingual, professionally successful and wealthy outside of Iran, including hundreds of professionals in the fields of law, medicine, education, theatre, arts and music. Many senior level military officers made their homes there after the late Shah left Iran, as well as former govt. ministers and university officials from institutions throughout Iran. Many of these individuals (men AND women) were educated in the USA and are familiar with American culture and speak English fluently. They include Persian Jews, Christians and Muslims.
Diane Church
July 3, 2003 - 06:54 pm
HooRAY for you, Mahlia! I don't understand either how some people, who certainly should know better, don't. I become increasingly ashamed how, as an American, I am so ill-informed on the ways of other nationalities, cultures, and faiths. Two recent books, "Searching for Hassan" and now, "Leap of Faith" go a long way to filling in some pretty big gaps. And the discussions here on Senior Net, like this one.
Not too long ago my husband and I were attending a church service during which the pastor asked each of us to pray for thirty days that a Muslim would "find Christ". I certainly knew a lot less then than I do now but even so, my husband and I both found this terribly offensive. I regret that we didn't speak up. No need to point out this particular denomination but that was not the only message from that pulpit that was absolutely off track. Trouble is, people believe that! Especially if it comes from their pastor.
Mahlia, you are certainly a one-woman fountain of knowledge and inspiration. I am so grateful that you are here, sharing your wisdom. And, of course, continued prayers for David and Mohamad (who will be home soon?).
robert b. iadeluca
July 3, 2003 - 06:56 pm
"The fact that you say "ripe for the pickings" is most disturbing because it means that conquering nations have the right to change the culture of the conquered peoples."That is your inference, George. Just because a nation or an individual is "ripe" for a particular action does not automatically mean that the right to pick exists.
Robby
Bobbiecee
July 3, 2003 - 07:15 pm
I'm still waiting for the reserve I have on the book through my library to become available, but have been reading the posts.
GEORGE......I agree with what you have said.....you said it well. I actually see the fundamentalists in all three major religions, including the Christian evangelicals are radical and evil. Throughout history, the majority of wars have been fought with religion as the excuse for killing, destruction and maiming. The same is true today. Radical Islamics, Jews and Christians are all proclaiming their right to attack, invade, kill and destroy, and all three are claiming that their 'God' has given them the message. They are also saying that their God is the true God. If one has studied various religions and their dogma and weren't taking various phrases out of the Bible, Koran or Torah as an excuse for killing (and incidently hegemony) they would see that each of these three major religions, plus Hindu and Buddhism, preach peace, just as spiritual people do. I find it difficult to see how 'Christians' who push war and killing can call themselves Christian since they are going against what Jesus preached, and His new commandment. The same is true of Mohammed.
DIANE.......As an ex-American, I am continually aghast at the lack of knowledge and understanding Americans have of other cultures, religions, international issues, etc. I blame it on the schools. The only reason I gained that knowledge was through my parents, who were international people and who travelled extensively. Of course, my Dad never climbed up the corporate ladder because he'd take time off without pay in order to extend his fortnight vacations in order to travel internationally. As far as what your pastor said, I find that extremely disturbing and offensive.
Bobbie
Persian
July 3, 2003 - 08:41 pm
DIANE - it is certainly not too late to let your reaction to the Pastor's comments be known. Privately - through a letter to him - and without any awkwardness in public. I can appreciate your hesitancy to speak out at the time you heard his comments. I would hope that others in the congregation were also as uncomfortable as you were. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to send a cc of your letter (if you decide to write) to the Chairman of the Elders or the Moderator (or whomever the Pastor reports to). It might also be worthwhile to send a cc to the denomination's central office. (Since I don't know the denomination, I may not be using the correct titles, but I hope you know whom I mean.)
Certainly the Pastor had a right to make his request and the congregation had an equal right to comply, refuse or call to his attention that his request was inappropriate and they were uncomfortable. If this is a church you attend regularly, you might request that the Pastor invite innerfaith dialogue with Muslims; host a meal and/or meeting of Muslims and Christians in the church so folks could get to know each other better; arrange with the Womens' and Mens' church groups to host similar (perhaps smaller) sessions. And for the children and youth groups to have a chance to visit with Muslims of their own age -perhaps during one of their Sunday educational sessions. Whoever is responsible for the educational classes in the church should be able to arrange such a visitation. And if there is enough interest, invite a Muslim as a guest speaker for a series of presentations.
For your own comfort, please understand that although Muslims do NOT accept Jesus as the Son of God, they certainly do KNOW Jesus as a prophet; respect Him and the Virgin Mary; and there is a plethora of references about Jesus and Mary in Islam. The reason why Jesus is not accepted as part of a Trinity is that Muslims believe that there is One God-indivisible. The concept that IF Jesus were indeed God's son, He would never have allowed His son to be so brutally tortured and killed on the Cross for the sins of man. This idea is simply incomprehensible to Muslims. The reason: because God is all forgiving and He does NOT need human sacrifices. He can forgive sins Himself without human sacrifices.
For myself, I've always wished I could have listened in on a conversation between Moses, Jesus and the Prophet Mohamed.
Justin
July 3, 2003 - 11:02 pm
"God does not need a human sacrifice, particularly that of his own son, in order to forgive the sins of man. He can do that on his own." That is a very powerful observation, Mahlia. I had not thought of the concept quite that way before. Thank you for the insight.
Justin
July 3, 2003 - 11:25 pm
The advice of the dying Buddha is worthwhile. "Be ye lamps unto yourselves."
Lou2
July 4, 2003 - 05:08 am
For myself, I've always wished I could have listened in on a conversation between Moses, Jesus and the Prophet Mohamed.
Persian, THAT'S something to look forward to, isn't it???
Lou
Lou2
July 4, 2003 - 06:41 am
To me, chapter four is a disturbing one. Seeing “A Christian America” spelled out in black and white as it is here is as distressing as the author’s summary of the problems within Israel. What are we to do with the Christian Coalition and the Moral Majority? I suppose I have heard so much about the evils within Iran that I was surprised to see him praise that country’s organization.
I found the most encouraging statement in the chapter was this one:
Contrary to popular images in the West, Islam and democracy are compatible. Page 124.
I just hope the folks working in Iraq are able to find that compatibility. And of course, the quicker they find it the better.
Lou
Persian
July 4, 2003 - 07:38 am
LOU - Although as Americans, we often opt for "instant gratification," the balance of Islam and democracy in countries like Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan will NOT be achieved quickly. Certainly there is room for democracy in these countries, but not quite in the sense that Americans understand it. Islam is deeply rooted in the cultures of these countries and several aspects of what we consider part of our "democratic rights" and "freedom of expression" are just not plausible.
For example, openly gay relations/marriages; public expressions of sexuality; sexually explicit ways of dressing, language in films and music; TV shows (especially "reality"-types). I don't mean to imply that there are no gays or lesbians within the Muslim communities, but only that they keep their relations private. Expressions of sexual intimacy and sexually provocative styles of clothing, music and film are also private. There is a traditionally rich genre of Persian erotica (NOT pornography, but artwork and literature), as there is in the Arab world, but again, it is not openly displayed. In this context, think of the culturally rich diversity of the Kama Sutra with its roots in South East Asian culture.
Politically, there is certainly a role for democracy, but it will not be achieved overnight. An extremely interesting book entitled WOMEN FOR AFGHAN WOMEN: Shattering Myths and Claiming the Future, edited by Sunita Mehta (Palgrave-McMillan, 2002) includes a wealth of information for the Western reader about the previous levels of advanced education and the voice of women in political and economic issues in pre-Taliban Afghanistan. Although the editor is Indian, the female authors of the essays are primarily Afghans. They speak eloquently to the possibilities of "freedom for ALL Afghans" in the decades ahead and caution - several times - that the pace of their world is NOT the pace of the West. These are highly educated Afghan women who experienced the privileges of distinguished families, but remain strong advocates for the rural women "who have no voice or presence."
In line with this discussion, the above book also clarifies additional information about how evil-doers can turn religion to their own benefits, while abusing and persecuting a major segment of their societies - the women.
Lou2
July 4, 2003 - 08:59 am
A book that I have been working my way through for several years is Hitler's Pope, The Secret History of Pius XII by John Cornwell. I can only read a few pages and get so angry I have to quit and calm down... which can take a long while... before I can read again. This from "God on earth"????
Kendall really does make you stop, rethink, and consider carefully, doesn't he?? I keep thinking, that's not MY Christianity... and then I have to think carefully... or is it???
Persian, I agree with so many of the things not acceptable to Muslims... they're not acceptable to me either. A fine line between loosing freedoms and having police in the bedroom, huh?
Lou
Persian
July 4, 2003 - 10:22 am
Here's a link to an interesting article detailing the responsibilities of choice in a free society like the USA. It's well balanced. Although the author calls on "one of the leading theoreticians of Islamic fundamentalism, Sayyid Qutb," who "argues that the West is a society based on freedom while the Islamic world is based on virtue," he also applauds "the millions of Americans who live decent, praiseworthy lives desrving our highest admiration because they have opted for the good when the good is not the only available option."
I appreciate the author's inclusion that "a free society does not guarantee virtue, any more than it guarantees happiness - but it allows for the pursuit of both."
This is a good article to read on the American National Holiday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7422-2003Jul3.htmlgeorgehd
July 4, 2003 - 10:49 am
Lou and Mahlia, I found your posts most interesting. As I read Kimball, listen to George Bush, read Time magazine, I find myself getting angrier and angrier at the church and Christianity. I am saying this openly and hope that I would say it if we were all face to face. The history of the Church is rife with anti semitism (both Jews and Muslims). It has been going on for two thousand years. And unfortunately IMO, the basis for anti semitism comes out of the New Testament. Hitler would not have succeeded in his quest to kill all Jews, Gypsies, etc. etc, if the churches of Germany had not gone along with him. The Pope in Rome did nothing. Hitler also would not have succeeded if the hatreds did not already exist among the German people and much of Europe which was almost entirely Christian.
As you may be able to tell I do get upset by this; but I also recognize that Christianity, as Jesus preached, can be a force for good. I hope that Popes, ministers, preachers, pastors, etc will, at some point in the future, look at the history of Christianity and discuss openly with their parishioners the evil done in the name of Christ. I hope too that Rabbis will openly discuss those instances where evil was done in the name of a Jewish God.
I also find it interesting and I have noted this before to Mahlia, that there are many similarities between Judaism and Islam. The animosity that exists today is not IMO religiously based but rather nationalistically based. A famous Jewish thinker, Mordechai Kaplan, saw Judaism as a civilization and not only as a religion. Judaism relates to all matters of one's existance. As Mahlia pointed out above, Islam is also seen as a civilzation relating to all matter of life.
One would hope that all religions of the world will come to see women as equal to men in matters of faith, religion, law, politics. This too will require adjustment in our reading of sacred texts. Note that historically religion has been a conservative force and change came very slowly. Modern communication will probably force all religions to accept change more rapidly.
BaBi
July 4, 2003 - 11:20 am
MAHLIA, I have printed out a copy of that great Washington Post article. I was most pleased to see a point made that I have tried to make more than once in my own church. That is that doing the right thing has no merit if there are no options in the matter. This has come up in connection with proposals to boycott some business or other for selling pornography, or some similar situation.
I feel it is necessary that one choose to do right, or it is meaningless. No one can claim to be good who has never had an opportunity to be otherwise. Every generation must make that choice for themselves, and the choice must be there to be made.
Bobbiecee, my dear, please don't assume that 'Fundamentalist' and 'radical' are synonymous. They really aren't. I will freely admit that the Fundamentalist is more likely to be vulnerable to radical tirades, but by no means do all Fundamentalists cross that line.
I am very glad that Mahlia had an opportunity to warn some pastors not to be so foolish as to send proselytizing teams into Iraq. Groups like World Vision are already there, providing necessities like food, clothing, blankets and medicine, and helping to rebuild schools, etc. This is the kind of help 'Christians' should be offering.
Someone expressed the fear that Pres. Bush would also see this as an opportunity to try to advance Christianity in Iraq. (I'm paraphrasing, of course, for convenience.) Since he has invariably, in his speeches, supported our Muslim citizens and encouraged understanding and respect, I would not think he is likely to pursue a different course in Iraq. ...Babi
Lou2
July 4, 2003 - 01:31 pm
Like so many other folks, I read East of Eden when Oprah announced it. I found one particular part very interesting: The characters read Genesis 4, the story of Cain and Abel and their offerings to God. The King James version: “And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” And the character says this is a promise that Cain would conquer sin. The American Standard Bible said: “Do thou rule over him” And the character says This is not a promise it is an order. So he studies and goes to the Hebrew… the word is timshel, that means Thou mayest…. That gives a choice. It might be the most important word in the world. We chose to be good or not.
I am no Hebrew scholar and have no idea if this is correct or not, the readers’ guides say it is correct, but I loved the quest because of the different translations.
When I read the Washington Post article Persian posted I thought of this dialogue and wanted to share it.
Lou
Persian
July 4, 2003 - 02:46 pm
One of the core values I learned as a child (born in the USA of a multicultural family)was that even though I was a youngster, I had a choice in many things: how I treated my family, friends, school chums, teachers, etc. And how my choices should be thoughtful and based on the thorough understanding that the freedom of choice bore with it individual responsibility.
My son, now 39, learned similar lessons as a teenager, when he and a friend were on holiday from school, but threw rocks towards the school building as a prank. The school's janitor caught them, called the police and the boys were taken to the local police station. I was called, told what had happened and asked to come to pick up my son. I didn't go to fetch him for 5 hours! During that time, the other boy's parents had come for him, but David sat alone, hearing and seeing all that went on around him. (It was a very busy station with lots of commotion, people coming and going.) By the time I arrived, David was convinced that throwing rocks was NOT a good choice.
georgehd
July 4, 2003 - 08:33 pm
A NYTimes article on Saudi influence on Islamic education in Indonedsia.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/05/international/asia/05INDO.html?hpAnn Alden
July 5, 2003 - 07:56 am
I've just finished that article and wondered which comes first---the chicken(good) or the egg(evil???). Its almost as though the Saudis are raising their own army. What is their aim, I wonder? Its colonialism in the sneakiest form--supporting a nation's schools while you teach your form of religion. (Little soldiers all in a row, sounds more like the old(back in the olden days) Catholic schools or really, most religioun connected schools). Making Indoneisia dependent on Saudi Arabia for what reason??? To create seat of terrorism halfway around the world, now that Palenstine may be forced to become peaceful??? Are the Saudis preparing for the inevitibility of the ME not having so many terroist groups due to outside influences?? Like the possibility of the West finally learning how not to depend on oil from outside their borders?? Its frightening and as is said at the end of the article, American had best not become complacent.
Bobbiecee
July 5, 2003 - 10:36 pm
LOU…………You wrote: What are we to do with the Christian Coalition and the Moral Majority? My concern exactly!
MAHLIA………Very pertinent article. I also agree with you that the democracy can not be easily achieved in the Islamic countries, and certainly not western democracy. IMO, that supposition is naïve and as you say, implausible.
GEORGE…….Like you, I get angrier and angrier at the church and Christianity, at least the evangelicals who are supporting the war in the US. I also agree that Hitler would not have succeeded if the churches had not gone along with him. It is really distressing to me that so many evangelicals in the US are supporting Bush & Co’s aggression, invasion and killing. IMO, they are being used as the real reason for the invasions are hegemonic and imperialistic but the evangelicals can’t seem to see that. As I stated previously, Christianity as Christ preached it would not support the invasion and occupation that is occurring now. Excellent article on the Saudi influence in Indonesia. Indonesia is our closest neighbour, on our northern doorstep, and the rise in fundamental Islam there is of great concern to us.
BABI……..Unfortunately, I do feel that much of the ‘fundamentalist’ evangelical’s in the US are radical. They are not following Christ’s teachings…..the new commandment, but are supporting imperialistic invasions, and are also using mostly the Old Testament and Revelations as their justification for invasions, rather than the body of the New Testament. I find it very worrying. To me, it seems that Bush & Co, supported by the evangelicals, and of course, the fundamentalist Israeli's, are encouraging a Judeo/Christian - Islamic world war......and Armageddon.
Bobbie
GingerWright
July 5, 2003 - 11:02 pm
You have said it All as I feel the same way. I am a Christian who cannot understand Bush as to me God is Love. as in Love thy neibor et al.
Persian
July 5, 2003 - 11:03 pm
Saudi funding of Islamic schools, community and medical centers, and other acts of charity in Indonesia is NOT new. It has been going on for many years, but only recently has the Western press delved deeply enough into the movement of Saudi funds around the world to understand the ramifications of what has been going on. There is nothing wrong with charity within any community, whether it is religious or secular. However, Saudi funds, coupled with the rigidity of the Wahabi sect of Islam taught in the madrassas (schools)creates budding opportunities for more trouble in Indonesia and neighboring non-Islamic neighbors.
The more the American press investigates, the more they will find that Saudi money is very much "alive and well" in the USA in support of the same institutions and charitable endeavors. As the native-born Islamic population in the USA is expanded, coupled with continued immigration from Islamic countries and conversion to Islam, there may be more attention paid to this issue by the media. At the moment, public commentary on Islam and its adherents seems to be focused primarily on the conflicts in the Middle East and the follow-up to Central Asia (Afghanistan).
There have been Middle East specialists in Washington for years who have tried to draw the media's attention to what is going on "right here within our North American continent (USA AND Canada)." But the press has not really paid too much attention. Until now. If the American leadership at the Federal, State and local levels, and the population at large, don't deveop a better understanding of Islam as practiced by the Saudis (and supported by their funds), there are bound to be more unpleasant experiences.
Muslims who look upon their religion as one of peace and generosity to others, who teach their children to value ALL human life, reach out to others in need, respect their elders and develop a direct relationship with God are mightily ashamed of the radical elements within Islam. But they, like other citizens, wonder what more they can do as individuals, families or communities to bring to the attention of this country and its leadership that they, too, would like to live their lives according to their beliefs, while working together with non-Muslims to curtail the radical elements within Islam. My suggestion: listen to them, talk with them, invite them into your homes, churches and synagogues; visit an Islamic mosque (call up and invite yourself!), contact an Islamic organization and state that you would like to learn more about Muslims in the USA. And then share with your family, friends, neighbors, church friends and others what you learn. Only through a better understanding of each other will people benefit and in turn help their country.
Whereas American Muslims (especially those who have converted) may not be shy, Muslims from abroad usually are hesitant about reaching out to non-Muslim Americans. My experience has shown that Americans are NOT shy, so reach out. Listen, ask questions, talk, specify your concerns and confusion. And then talk some more.
Bobbiecee
July 6, 2003 - 01:46 am
GINGER……..IMO, you are a true Christian, adhering to Christ’s teachings. If Bush was adhering to Christ’s teachings, he would not be waging war, IMO. However, I feel he and the Neo-Cons are only using ‘religion’ as a ploy to con the populace. Perhaps the true Christians should give him a red letter edition of the Bible and suggest he read only what Christ said, eh? IMO, Christ was saying……You lot got it wrong in the Old Testament. My Father is a God of Love, not of punishment and revenge.
MAHLIA……..Down under we’re aware that it isn’t new….it’s been a long-term concern. Prior to 9/11 we were working intensively with President Megawati Sukarno to root out the fanatical terrorist groups. Our Federal police and ASIO are still trying to do that, but unfortunately Bush is insisting on the ‘glory-filled’ bombings of ‘rogue’ nations, rather than the extensive covert counter-terrorism instead. We’re still trying to do that, in between having to send troops to Bush’s wars. The Wahabi sects in Indonesia, funded by Saudi Wahabi’s, have plans, as you say, to take over the majority of SE Asia……which is what we’re trying to fight. Not getting much support from Bush there, however. His only answer is to bomb Indonesia, which, IMO, would only make it worse.
I agree with you…..the real concern to the US is from within….the fanatical Islamic sects within the US. After all, the 9/11 bombers were all living in the US. So far, the majority of Muslims here adhere to the peaceful beliefs of Islam. Being a country with a relatively small population, it is easier here for ASIO to keep an eye of those who are not peaceful. BTW, I have 2 Muslim friends, those who adhere to peace. When I went on the anti-war marches, there were many Muslims who joined the marches. There isn’t the same level of animosity against Muslims here as there is in the US. This goes a long way toward assimilation.
Bobbie
robert b. iadeluca
July 6, 2003 - 05:10 am
Bobbie, you say:--
"The real reason for the invasions are hegemonic and imperialistic but the evangelicals can’t seem to see that."Isn't being evangelical almost by definition being imperialistic? So therefore they do see that.
Robby
Bobbiecee
July 6, 2003 - 07:56 am
Rob....yes, those who are doing the thought-control and manipulation (in other words, brainwashing) are aware of it, but I don't think many of the sheep do realise that they're being conned and their thoughts manipulated.
Bobbie
Persian
July 6, 2003 - 10:47 am
BOBBIE - There isn’t the same level of animosity against Muslims here as there is in the US. This goes a long way toward assimilation.
This is a real blessing, since so much time is wasted in the USA dealing with the stumbling blocks of cultural ignorance of Muslims and Islam, as well as a deep-seated xenophobia among the conservative elements. One could easily toss this off as coming from the less educated elements of American society, but that has not always been true. Even some of our public figures - highly educated, professionally successful and religiously devout - have shown their own cultural ignorance or unwillingness to understand Muslims or other people of non-Christian backgrounds.
Recently, while driving in traffic, I was listening to a radio news program on which I heard a fellow ask (quite seriously) "how can any red-blooded American not accept Jesus as his savior?" I almost hit the car in front of me!
I'm glad you have Muslim friends with whom you can talk, share ideas and learn about each other differences, while enjoying the similarities.
BaBi
July 6, 2003 - 11:39 am
Since we are using the words fundamental and fundamentalism a good deal just now, I decided to run a check on the definitions of these words. For the purposes of reference, I found the following:
FUNDAMENTAL: 1)Primary/ basic. 2) Radical, as "fundamental" change. 3) Of central importance / principal. 4)Deep-rooted.
FUNDAMENTALISM: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles. Capitalized: 1)a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing a literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching; 2) the beliefs of this movement; 3) adherence to such beliefs.
Justin
July 6, 2003 - 07:40 pm
Kimball tells us that traditionally, Muslims have seen Islam as more than a religion. It is seen as a comprehensive way of life, including spiritual, social, economic, political and military dimensions. I think Mohammud, himself had all those dimensions and so it is expected that his followers would expect no less. George Bush, in his comments following 9/11, encouraged the American people to be aware that the spiritual side of Islam is innocent of wrong doing. It is only the radicals of Islam who are the evil ones. Is George Bush blind siding us while he takes care of the military, political, and economic dimensions of Islam?
The history of Islam would seem to confirm that Islam consists of military and political dimensions. Muhammud, himself engaged in teritorial aggrandisment. He roamed across the Middle East attacking everything in his path including India. The spiritual dimension went with him and his followers. Is Islam differnt in this regard from other religions?
I don't think so. Christianity also has a military and a political dimension as well as an economic and spiritual dimension. Christians tend to blind side themselves when the evil side of their religion is quiescent. They conveniently forget the damage they have done in the world and focus on their spiritual dimension.
Mahlia is right, Islam is here in the US, and we must get to know it and it's dimemsions in the same way we think we know Christianity. Religions deserve careful watching. Too much of it is dangerous to a peaceful way of life. When folks came to these shores 400 years ago, they came to avoid religious persecution. Who was persecuting them? Other religions were persecuting them. Religion and the religious deserve to be watched carefully by an alert and fair minded citizenry.
Persian
July 6, 2003 - 08:47 pm
Isn't it amazing in a country (ours) where our forebears came to this continent to escape religious persecution, we see the continued persecution of those who are "different." I'm thinking here of "puritanism" - is it on the same level as the fundamentalism which we've been discussing? What prompted the burning of women at the stake as witches? The ostracism of women who were only thought to have committed a sin? A prominent scarlet letter, labeling the supposed offender, forcibly worn for all to see. Which is worse - burning or stoning a woman to death? IMO, the whole idea of one religion or ethnicity being better than another is just unacceptable.
Ray Franz
July 7, 2003 - 05:06 am
Why does not having a god belief rate a "not acceptable" tag? Seems as though that group is rated the lowest of low.
Guess it has to do with the feeling of insecurity a group has when there is dissension and disagreement.
My question continues to be, "are there GODS other than the mythological ones?"
Isn't "god" a philosophical and theological answer to the mystery of life and the universe?
Bobbiecee
July 7, 2003 - 07:03 am
MAHLIA………I think that the assimilation of Muslims here relates to cultural differences here, as well as our ecumenical councils and the work they do. In re ecumenical councils, rather than each religion here saying their religion is the ‘only’ way, all major religions are a part of the ecumenical councils in each city here. They all accept each other’s pathway to God, they cooperate in education, the similarities, as well as the differences and imparting this information to the populace, and each religion participates in RE in the schools. One example, which was televised nationally was having high school children, Catholic, United Church (Presbyterian, Congregational, Methodist), Islamic, Jewish, participate in an education program, questions and answers, etc, about the other religion’s beliefs. A cultural difference is that all migrants are anxious to be called Australian…..no hyphenated labels are used here. Instead, there are numerous multi-cultural days here, in which the different cultures display the culture of their country of origin.
Of course, we have a small percentage of what you call rednecks, the xenophobics, but it’s only about 5% of the population. Another difference here is that Aussies aren’t ‘in’ to fundamentalist religions. We do have a very small percentage of fundamentalists, from one American fundamentalist church, but most of their congregation are drug addicts and/or crims, newly clean, newly non-offending who have not yet gained a balanced spirituality in their lives. Most of them relapse. When they’re ready to attend NA instead, they usually need to be debriefed. I am one of the psychologists in Brisbane who does de-briefing, which is one of the reasons that I keep up to date on the current beliefs of the fundamentalist sect, plus JW’s.
I’m glad I have Muslim friends as well. Although I had a basic understanding of Islam from my study of comparative religions, I have been able to learn a lot more about the Koran and how Australian Muslims interpret their religion. One of my Muslim friends in my chemist (pharmacist), the other is a Doctor at the doctor’s surgery next door to the chemists. They’re both great people and good friends. When I did my knee and was on crutches prior to surgery, they went way out of their way to help me…meals, rides, walking my dog, etc, and well as just visiting. They both wear a scarf when out in public (not around the neck though) but not when they’re in my home. They wear slacks and a long blouse, not much different than what I wore when I was working full-time in men’s prisons actually, the rule there being to not wear anything you can see up, under, around or through.<g>
I do find it rather shocking that there is so much religious persecution in the US, especially when, as you say, your forebears went there to escape persecution. Like you, I think it’s the ‘puritanism’ which has come full circle, and to the forefront there. American’s tend to be more emotional than Australians or British, and this penchant lends itself to the emotional aspects of a fundamentalist religion, as well as the tendency to think and act as per one’s emotions. It also lends itself to the emotional display of patriotism which is not evident here…..our national pride is displayed at sporting events and on ANZAC day and Australia day only. I think this penchant also tends to breed fear of anything that is different, including different religions. Since evangelical Christian is ‘in’ now, all others are ‘out’ and to be feared. As you say, this ‘puritanism’…..the white male supremacy belief, also lead to ostracism of women and burning of spiritual women, whom they chose to call ‘witches.’ Fanatic Islamics do the same thing, but in this instance, it would IMO, be wise to say…..’Those who live in glass houses……..’
RAYMOND……..You ask <Isn't "god" a philosophical and theological answer to the mystery of life and the universe? The short answer is YES.
Bobbie
Malryn (Mal)
July 7, 2003 - 07:24 am
"Isn't "god" a philosophical and theological answer to the mystery of life and the universe?"
Aren't philosophers and theologians (and scientists and mathematicians and ordinary folks) supposed to be seeking the truth, not giving out answers? There aren't any answers to the mystery of life and the universe, are there? It seems to me that people who are so firmly entrenched in the idea that they have found the one, the only, the absolute truth and all the answers are the ones who cause problems and strife, aren't they? What does Kimball say about this?
Of course, I'm one of those wearing a "not acceptable" tag, so my words and questions aren't worth the Cyberspace paper they're written on.
Mal
georgehd
July 7, 2003 - 09:20 am
Ray, the quest for understanding of God seems to be built into human nature. In the studying I am doing of Judaism, I find it fascinating to read and try to understand what the great Jewish thinkers have had to say about God. And they say very different things. Martin Buber is probably the best know Jewish thinker in the Christian world and his understanding of God requires that one reads two or three books.
After the Nazi Holocaust, during the 1950's and 1960's, Jewish and Christian thinkers asked the question "Is God Dead". How theologians answered that question can be a study unto itself. And again the answers tended to be very individualistic.
My point is that each of us must find our own answer about questions regarding God. This is a life long search, one that probably becomes more important as we approach death. The more we read and learn about what great religious thinkers have written, and the difficulty that they have had in expressing their understanding of the nature of God, the better we can find our own answers - that is answers that are meaningful to us individually.
I would not say that the modern concepts of God involve mythology but they certainly involve mystery. It is almost like 'a who done it' where we never discover a final answer.
HubertPaul
July 7, 2003 - 10:01 am
Raymond, you say:”....Isn't "god" a philosophical and theological answer to the mystery of life and the universe?”
Answer?
Well, what is yours?
Ray Franz
July 7, 2003 - 11:02 am
has always depended upon the physical evidence and the scientists looking for the same answers.
The "big bang" and spontaneous formation of life seem much more plausable than any theological answer based upon ancient written work.
I think the mystery will exist for billions of years in spite of the searching by theologists and scientist. There will never be agreement between the two as their search is "worlds" apart.
BaBi
July 7, 2003 - 12:33 pm
Malryn, I appreciate your comment that we should be seeking the truth, not giving out answers....especially, IMO, dogmatic and oversimplified answers.
George's post seems very right to me. We all have to find our own answers, and it seems to be inherent in human nature to seek them.
Having said that, I would add that arguing one's theology is not precisely the point in Kimball's book, but rather, where various religious structures and teachings go astray. What about the current chapter's discussion of the appearance, in Christianity, Judaism and Islam of a sense that we have come into a time when major events are expected to take place? The primary danger here, from what I read, is that many people, in all three religions, have reached the conclusion that it's up to them to 'help' God bring his purposes to pass. ...Babi
SpringCreekFarm
July 7, 2003 - 01:20 pm
Raymond, I will have to say that the big bang theory meshes nicely with my own practice of Christianity. I'm not one of those who take the Creation story literally with the 7 days as time that we use now. Who is to say that the Creation/Adam/Eve story couldn't have happened over many millions of years--and started with the big bang? I don't find contradictions there. If one finds God all powerful and knowing, isn't it possible that HE/SHE could have done it many ways? The early writers of the Old Testament had only oral tradition to base their writings on. This is what they could understand at the time. Sue
georgehd
July 7, 2003 - 02:53 pm
Ray, this is not the place for a theological discussion but I tend to think that science and religion are much more akin than seperate quests. The scientist is looking for order in the universe. Religion is also. One can believe that God created the order or one can believe that the order 'just exists'. In either case, it seems to me, both religionists and scientists are seeking answers to questions of existance. Neither will ever finish their quest. There is something very appealing to me about not having all the answers.
I do also believe that there are conservative branches of many religions that must have problems reconciling their beliefs with the advance of scientific knowledge.
Justin
July 7, 2003 - 03:04 pm
Ray; The answer to your question is Yes, and No. Theologists provide answers to the eternal questions. They know the truth. Philosophers ask questions and seek the truth.
If one knows that God made the earth in seven days, there is little point in asking, How did earth come about. If one knows that God made man and woman, there is no point in postulating other hypotheses. Theologists know the answers. Philosophers postulate hypotheses. Theologists learn nothing. Philosophers acquire knowledge.
Jonathan
July 7, 2003 - 07:29 pm
Bert, give Raymond a chance to work on it. What's interesting for the moment is the fact that he concedes that life is a mystery. It seems to me that this is a new point of departure for Raymond. For heaven's sake be careful how you proceed with this notion Raymond. What convinced you of it? You're the last person in the world that I would expect to start talking of mysteries. Has George with his questing done this for you?
Or is it all a red herring in the discussion?
Justin, I wish you could be a little more generous where theologians are concerned. Couldn't you give our author, Kimball, some credit for his valiant effort to get at the truth, no matter the cost. Even if it meant making a whipping-boy out of Christianity. It seems to me theologians have been asking some pretty tough questions for the last hundred years and more. At least in the West, where they have the freedom. Wrong questions and wrong answers in a different milieu may have you running for your life. Like, say S Rushdie.
Philosophers certainly have always enjoyed the reputation of being truth-seekers. Perhaps modesty prevented them from claiming to have found it. But being human like the rest of us, no doubt many felt very satisfied with the metaphysical systems they created for the rest of us, adding greatly to the fund of human knowledge and self-understanding.
Justin
July 7, 2003 - 10:40 pm
Jonathan; Knowing the answer to life's eternal questions only prevents further inquiry and it is inquiry that promotes knowledge. Theologists have never, to my knowledge, conducted a quest. They seem to give lip service to the idea that they are searching for something but they are not searching. In most cases, their search consists of finding justification for what they already know in their hearts, that Jesus Christ is a Savior or that Allah is the one and only God. Kimball is a minister who is exposing the evils in religion but he is not questioning the basic notions in Christianity.
Justin
July 7, 2003 - 11:57 pm
Jonathan: You raise a good point about Kimball. I don't know where he is going with this thing. He is attacking the radicals in religion. No one to my knowledge has really done that very well before. The politicians lay off because they don't want to be seen as attacking religion. Gutsy prosecutors have not put in an appearance yet. The Christian coalition has probably violated their 501 C3 status with their voter guides. But no one to my knowledge has challenged them suficiently to take away their tax exempt status. Kimball brings it out in the daylight so we can look at it. He deserves credit. He tells us that some folks refer to Falwell and Patterson as the American Ayatollahs and to their movement as the American Taliban. That's gutsy.
Ray Franz
July 8, 2003 - 08:19 am
Christian Taliban is a good name for these guys. For Falwell in particular, religion is big business and the tax payers are taking a hit from his operation.
I live in Falwell country and he and his lawyer son are willing to violate zoning laws and put business property under the tax exemption of his religious BUSINESS.
BET ON IT--life and the universe are still mysteries in spite of the insistance of the theologians to have come up with the answers.
The only thing theologians can come up with are "spiritual answers" for a particular culture. The Bible is just another book of myths, legends and stories from the past.
I live in the NOW and insist upon using knowledge, logic and reason. Gods do not fit into mine.
I am willing to go along with the scientists and those who are seeking physical evidence for the answers. Others have the freedom to live in a fairy-tale, spiritual world
Lou2
June 27, 2003 - 09:31 am
I'm looking for a comparative religions book. I've found WC Smith's Patterns of Faith Around the World that Kimball talks about and lists in his bibliography.
Can anyone suggest another that you have read and consider "better" or more informative than this one?
I went to the When Religion Becomes Evil site above and listened to Kimball's interview for Fresh Air, NPR. It was an interesting listen. I recommend it, if you missed the interview.
Lou
MaryZ
July 8, 2003 - 11:57 am
We've just finished "The Search for God at Harvard", a 1991 book by Ari L. Goldman. It's quite an interesting read. Goldman is a young Orthodox Jew, a new religion reporter for the NY Times, who decides to go to the Harvard Divinity School to learn more about other religions. What he learns about other religions, Judaism, and himself makes for some good reading. He gives one great quote from a Professor who said "If you know one religion...you don't know any." Certainly food for thought here.
Ray Franz
July 8, 2003 - 12:46 pm
is it possible to support just one without doubts?
As one Hindu said when someone mentioned that his religion had more than one god: "We just use a different bucket and dip out of the same spiritual well as others use."
Is it more threatening to learn about other religions than to face those who have no god belief?
MaryZ
July 8, 2003 - 01:49 pm
"Is it more threatening to learn about other religions than to face those who have no god belief? "
Interesting question, Ray - I don't know the answer to that one.
Justin
July 8, 2003 - 03:49 pm
Ray: The answer to your question is, Yes! I am the answer man today. It is more threatening to learn about other religions than it is to face a nonbeliever. My reasoning is thus; Both religions ( the looker and the looked at) claim the existance of God. The only difference between the religions is ritual and litany. The looker is fearful of finding a ritual and litany that looks better than the one he now practices. That is not the case when the looker faces a non-believer. The diference between them is two-fold. First there is no ritual or litany to compare and second there is no God. The looker is more vulnerable when the diference is one of trappings and less vulnerable when the difference is very great.
Justin
July 8, 2003 - 04:06 pm
I too concede that life is a mystery but it is one we are working to understand. We now have a picture of the genome trail, understand DNA,and have begun to clone. Stem cell research will give us some vital living parts and correct some of the errors of nature. There are some among us who are fearful we will learn to cope with life and end the mystery. It's too bad the fearful are in positions of power in this country. I would like to resolve these questions before a scientist in a rogue country. But I fear we will play catch-up if we do not get a secular President soon.
Ann Alden
July 8, 2003 - 05:14 pm
If you have a chance, spend some time reading the first Curious Minds discussion which was all about cloning. It was a super time where many of us had many differing opinions but every poster was most respectful to all the others. Lively time, well spent!
Persian
July 8, 2003 - 06:31 pm
I'm from a multicultural family background that has always stressed learning as much as possible about other people, world regions, cultural traditions and religions. Thus, for me and perhaps others from similar backgrounds, learning about multiple religions or the non-belief in God or gods is not something to be feared, but an opportunity to learn about someone else's beliefs; look through their eyes and understand their perceptions of the world, if you will.
For example, understanding (but not accepting, condoning or encouraging) the violence towards women and the repression and abuse of their physical bodies mandated by the harsh Pashtun tribal customs of Afghanistan, does not mean that I set aside Islam because the perpetrators claim that as their religion.
Understanding the Jewish Lubavitch community and their increase in proseltyzing among more liberal Jews does not necessarily mean that I want to cross the cultural bridge from my Safardic Persian Jewish ancestors to the Lubavitch Eastern European heritage. Nor does it mean that I'm hesitant to learn from them. Persian Jews (and their cultural heritage) are not well known in the West, but the large Lubavitch communities (especially in the Eastern USA)certainly are.
In the case of Christian fundamentalists, there is a lot to learn about. But there is also a lot to set aside, especially the more radical insistence of "my way is the only way" perpetrated by some adherents. But it should not be a fearful experience, only an opportunity to learn.
And when discussing any aspect of life with a non-believer, it is also an opportunity to learn. Not necessarily about the absence of religion - even such a diverse topic can be boring after a while - but how the individual views other aspects of the world. And what fills their thoughts in the space where believers would place religion.
IMO, an individual's "vulnerability" (whether on the topic of religion or anything else) is more the result of personality development, level of maturity (or lack thereof), trust in oneself and the ability to utilize logic and analysis.
I'm comfortable with the American leadership having a religious dimension to their lives if they choose, but NOT when that personal religious belief is forced into major national/international decisions that influence other world regions. I've never understood the angst about John Kennedy being a Catholic or Joseph Lieberman's orthodox Judaism.
Bobbiecee
July 9, 2003 - 04:41 am
Good post, Mahlia.....I agree with everything you said.
Bobbie
Lou2
July 10, 2003 - 10:14 am
God, A Biography...
Kimball talks about Jack Miles' book on page 49. Finally realized I've had it by the bed for, well, I'll just say a while... not quite half way through it. This book takes the Bible as literature and does a "character study", biography of God, as you could do a character study on any character in any body of literature. Interesting concept and a very engaging read. Haven't decided if I "like" it, if I'll be glad I read it, but it sure can give you points to ponder. It won the Pulitzer Prize.
Lou
Persian
July 10, 2003 - 11:09 am
I had an interesting experience teaching the Bible as literature during a visiting professorship in China in the mid-eighties. I included the Bible along with other texts, so it was not strictly a one-focus endeavor. It was an opportunity for great insight for me to listen and learn from the Chinese students as they pondered various issues, characters in the Bible, the concept of the Trinity, womens' issues, wars, plagues, etc.
Lou2
July 10, 2003 - 11:37 am
I'll tell you. Persian, it's been a while since I've read the Old Testament... and it's a bloody thing. From the first 150 pages I think Miles is saying that God did a lot of OJT... on the job training... interesting concept.
Lou
BaBi
July 10, 2003 - 12:35 pm
Kimball writes on pg. 110: "Political leaders worldwide often consciously appeal to popular religious sentiment in an effort to bolster support for their policies."
I think we have all seen that happen often enough. Kimball gives Saddam as an example. So if the leader is successful in his appeals, and his policies are bad, does that make religion to blame, or politics?
...Babi
Persian
July 10, 2003 - 01:14 pm
BABI - IMO, Sadaam may be an unusual choice here, since it was NOT only his politics which were so overwhelming, but the continued psychopathic behavior of he, his sons, and the Iraqi intelligence services, coupled with the constant (and I mean CONSTANT) public physical, mental and psychological abuse towards those who would dare to thwart their efforts. Whereas Sadaam and the late Shah of Iran came from somewhat different backgrounds, there was the SAME type of psychopathic and egocentric behavior in each. Mohamed Reza Pahlavi was just a bit more suave, charming, articulate, better educated and debonair than Sadaam Hussein. However, at different points BOTH leaders enjoyed the full support of America - NOT through innerfaith awareness and shared religious understanding, but through the efforts of the CIA.
Justin
July 10, 2003 - 07:04 pm
Yes, Mahlia. In the days when the US was focused on blocking Communism, we had some strange bedfellows around the world. Too many evil doers slept in the Lincoln bed in those days. I remember how surprised I was when we knocked over Mossadech. The Shah was the same sort of sociopath as Saddam, except he was a better dinner companion. Chang kai Chek was another social criminal in our good graces but it was his wife who was the popular dinner companion.
Jonathan
July 11, 2003 - 08:58 am
I've come downtown to look up some of the books the rest of you are reading. I was happy to be reminded by Mary Z of The Search for God at Harvard. That one has been on my 'should read' list for a long time; but I had forgotten about it.
Also the reminder from Lou2 about the Jack Miles' book, which Kimball mentions. I enjoyed your observation about God's need for 'on the job training.' From that it's only a small step to the feeling that for evil, opportunistic men God is merely a puppet on a string. 'Monotheism' does sound a little hollow, given God's many metamorpheses in the OT.
How different it all seems with Allah. The theological declaration of a few years ago that God is Dead was given serious consideration by many Christians. But then, except for a few fundamentalists, most of America has only vague notions of what it used to believe. Despite the prayers at the ball games.
Can anyone doubt the the sceptical reaction of the whole world to the unthinkable proposal that Allah might be dead? I doubt if even the most diehard atheist would feel any satisfaction or comfort in hearing that, even if it came from the best Islamic authority. No way. Allah is alive and well, and America is His enemy. That too, on the highest authority.
Again an irony. The new life Allah is enjoying is due in large part to the opportunity given to the Islamic world by the downfall of the Soviet Empire, and the waning of it's influence. And who deserves much of the credit for that? Good old America with its historic destiny, trailing freedom in its wake. I only wonder how long it will take before the fundamentalists on both sides realize that they have common interests.
Persian
July 11, 2003 - 10:01 am
Allah is alive and well, and America is His enemy.
Fortunately, there are many Muslims who do not believe the latter part of this statement and cringe when the more radical Islamic elements insist.
Within the USA, anyone can say "God is dead," as a matter of freedom of speech. This is certainly NOT a comment one would hear in a Muslim community, since the very utterance of the phrase in rural, traditional communities is enough to bring about one's death.
Anyone read Pat Robertson's recent endorsement of Liberia's Pres. Taylor as "a good Christian brother, a Baptist leader, who has done extremely well in leading his country?"
BaBi
July 11, 2003 - 11:15 am
I've had too much to think about lately to take on Liberia, Mahlia. What is your take on Pres. Taylor? How is he running his country? ...Babi
Persian
July 11, 2003 - 12:43 pm
BABI - here's a link that will give you some accurate history on Charles Taylor - in Liberia and earlier in Boston. I spent some time at USAID's Africa Bureau a few years ago, so this topic comes close to home for me.
The author also ties together the African "Big Men" culture and what it means to those who strive for that role in their countries. IMO, Taylor will accept Obasanjo's offer to "relocate" to Nigeria temporarily, claim asylum there, refresh himself for a short time, and then begin to reclaim his "rightful" place (as he views it)in African political leadership. Since Taylor is personally familiar with American culture, he deals more easily with American politicians (and the intelligence community) than do other Africans who have not had the same experience.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41604-2003Jul11.html?nav=hptop_tsPersian
July 11, 2003 - 08:30 pm
Here is another link to a Washington Post article entitled "Moscow's New Fear: Women with Bombs," which shows clearly how the radical elements of Islam do NOT follow the Qur'anic teaching about the protection and care of women. And, in fact, how religion is used as an evil tool to place vulnerable women in situations which has no basis in Islam.
NOTE: Muslimas are permitted to fight in wars - even the Prophet Mohamed's wives took up arms against their enemies - but they are NOT to be sacrificed. This is a vile practice by adherents of the Wahabbi sect of Islam - every bit as viscious as the practice in Liberia (and other African countries) which forces children to serve as front-line soldiers in guerilla warfare.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40288-2003Jul10.html At the opposite end of the spectrum, there is a wonderful picture in today's Post of a female Sergeant in the Washington DC National Guard's 275th Military Police Company kissing her 2 year old grandaughter goodbye before she deploys to Iraq "to support the current military operations there."
I burst out laughing when I read the caption, knowing that when Grandmothers are activated, someone, somewhere is going to get their butts kicked in the blink of an eye!
Justin
July 11, 2003 - 11:42 pm
Thank you, Mahlia for the background article on Liberia. I had no idea there was such an African connection. There was a black man in the film "Armistad" who was a wealthy merchant and who was helpful in securing legal aid for the black prisoners as well as transporting them back to Africa when the Supreme Court freed them. I wonder if the sponsor who transported the blacks to Liberia is the same man.
robert b. iadeluca
July 12, 2003 - 05:23 am
This NY TIMES ARTICLE gives us another approach to religion.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
July 12, 2003 - 05:35 am
Hoorah for what Daniel C. Dennett says in the article Robby posted! I not only like what he writes and believes, I love the place where he wrote it, Blue Hill, Maine. Blue Hill is a lovely town on the coast which is right next door to where my sister lives. If that's where the brights are, that's where I want to be!
Mal
Persian
July 12, 2003 - 07:44 am
Thanks for the article, Robby. Dennet is a highly respected academic with a reputation for fairness, insight and a willingness to speak up about his beliefs and to support others in theirs.
BaBi
July 12, 2003 - 11:23 am
Thank you for the information, Mahlia. More of the same for Africa these days, I fear. ...Babi
robert b. iadeluca
July 12, 2003 - 01:36 pm
Is THIS culture or religion or are the two related?Robby
Éloïse De Pelteau
July 12, 2003 - 02:11 pm
Why blame either one Robby. Women's abuse is still rampant in spite of efforts by governments to eradicate it. We have that also here in another form and we cannot blame it either on culture or religion. Yes, of course the father of the child was also stoned I read, still.
The press was eager to plant the seed of a religious intolerance, forgetting that in some cultures for some people, such a violent, despicable act is a PLEASURE. The article did not mention if it was men only or both men and women who stoned the adulterous women, it just mentioned that her family did not help her in any way after she was stoned, insinuating that the women in her family approved of the stoning. "What could we do?" I am not sure that women in Turkey do not deeply feel women's abuse.
Women cannot defend their rights in these countries, they have never had rights, it will take many generations before things change.
Justin
July 12, 2003 - 03:32 pm
Dan Dennett's article may appear tongue-in-cheek, but I find it a very serious commentary on the unwillingness of Brights to participate in the political arena as Brights. If the registered-to-vote-Brights (closeted and uncloseted) out number the other kind, "In God We Trust" could be stricken just as "Under God" has been stricken. The tyrany of the Godly might be at an end or at least challenged.
Perhaps, it would be well for the Brights to organize and to meet regularly, as the Godly tend to do. They could come together to talk to one another instead of praying. However, a focus is needed. The Godly focus on God. The Brights would have to focus on a variety of topics. But variety is not a centering characteristic. I wonder if organized Brights could qualify for a 501 c 3 tax exemption.
Malryn (Mal)
July 12, 2003 - 03:46 pm
Justin
July 12, 2003 - 03:49 pm
We are asked to be tolerant when the religious among us practice their their faith but some traditions are so unfair, so barbaric, so brutal, that it is impossible to be tolerant. Madame de Pelteau is quite right. Abuse of women is wrong no matter where in the world it appears. Civilized people must be willing to root it out, label it for what it is, and stamp it out. Abusers of women are an evil men and women should not tolerate.
robert b. iadeluca
July 12, 2003 - 04:17 pm
What is the difference between an "atheist" and a "Bright?"
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
July 12, 2003 - 04:40 pm
Robby, not much, I guess. Atheist has become a dirty word. "Brights" has not . . . . yet.
Mal
Ray Franz
July 12, 2003 - 05:55 pm
I just became a "bright." It was easy as I have been out of the closet since I retired from education.
Before retirement I was a bit leary as there are some viscious individuals in positions of power.
georgehd
July 13, 2003 - 03:51 am
Thank you all for the information about the Brights, a group I was unaware of. While I am not yet ready to abandon God, I am intrigued by the philosophy of the Brights and want to see how their views are held in the Jewish tradition. Their web site is interesting but for some reason leaves me unsatisfied. I guess I think that there is mystery in life.
On another matter that may be of interest. It is about 6AM here and I have been up for a few hours looking at Mars which is unusually close to earth this year and worth a look on a clear night. As the summer goes by, Mars will rise earlier each evening so that by mid August you will be able to see it by 9 PM. If you have access to binoculars or a telescope, make sure to look. I realize that this topic may not belong in this discussion, but Mars is the brightest object in the sky at night (other than the moon).
georgehd
July 13, 2003 - 04:25 am
In thinking about the Bright view of nature, I came across this book review which appeared a few days ago in the NYTimes. The book provides a different outlook on the Church Galileo controversy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/11/books/11BOOK.htmlrobert b. iadeluca
July 13, 2003 - 05:08 am
Kimball says:--
"The impulse behind the desire for a more hopeful future is normal and good. Every tradition is predicated on the notion that something is wrong. We are not living in the 'Ideal' time."Might the "Brights" be saying that this is the ideal time for a change toward their beliefs?
Robby
Persian
July 13, 2003 - 03:23 pm
In an article in today's Washington Post ("Fighting for the Soul of Islam"), columnist Jim Hoagland deftly explains that the answer to "why do they hate us?" (often asked by Americans about Muslims in the Middle East, especially radicals like bin Laden) must come from Muslims about Muslims AND non-Muslims, as the fundamentalists (especially the rigid Wahhabists) turn against their own as well as the people and communities whom they refer to as "infidels." Here is a link to Hoagland's full article. Note his mention of Bernard Lewis's comment in The Crisis in Islam that ". . . the radicals have an entire world to destroy before their apocalyptic design of restoring the Islamic caliphate can be realized."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46070-2003Jul11.html And this article (also from the Washington Post), by Jonathan Zimmerman, a history and education teacher at New York University, may strike an all too-familiar chord with teachers among the SN posters. It certainly had me nodding my head in agreement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46073-2003Jul11.htmlÉloïse De Pelteau
July 13, 2003 - 07:56 pm
Mahlia, in the link you posted - "The rest of the content will be determined by Iraqis, the firm insists, not by Americans. But USAID officials say that schools should promote democratic practices and attitudes, including respect for Iraq's diverse ethnic groups and for each individual's freedom of thought."
If Irakis determine the content of text books, I wonder who knows, among them, what is "democratic practices and attitudes." Saddam has been in power 30 odd years. Is there a group of scholars in Irak willing and able to undertake the task of writing text books promoting "freedom of thought" something very few people in a dictatorship is free to have.
I realize that America wishes to help rebuild a Democratic Irak, but it should arm itself with patience because changing the way people in a country the size of Irak behaves, thinks and believes might take a while.
Persian
July 14, 2003 - 06:13 am
ELOISE - there are certainly numerous Iraqis who have lived outside Iraq during the former regime who are well educated, hold professional jobs and certainly would be willing to work with the local Iraqis in preparing new textbooks. There are also Western educational foundations and aid programs, which will offer financial and printing assistance to help in this venture. Iraqis who remained in country during the former regime and had to stop their public anti-Hussein comments will now have an opportunity to work in concert with others to bring textbooks and educational programs up-to-date, modernize teaching methods and blend the rich and diverse cultural and historical aspects of Iraq with what's been going on in the rest of the world during the past three decades. Certainly this will take time, but I'm confident that educators (as opposed to politicians) recognize and appreciate the need for thoughtful planning.
BaBi
July 16, 2003 - 07:39 am
It's been very quiet around here the last couple of days.
Two cites from Kimball, on pg. 123. This quote from Karen Armstrong:
"Challenging government and societal structures seen as unjust and oppressive is a valid, if not imperative, feature in most religious traditions."
Kimball:People of faith and goodwill must continually wrestle with the most appropriate and constructive ways to structure institutions in light of fundamental principles and changing circumstances."
Kimball discusses Pat Robertson's political activities negatively. IMO, Mr. Robertson does need to divorce his political activities from his church affiliation, if he wishes to remain a law-abiding citizen.
As far as his grass-roots political tactics, they are plain old-fashioned 'political savvy', and he is far from the first to use them. Does anyone recall the boastful claims of some workers unions that they were going to take over and control the government, because they had the votes?
...Babi
BaBi
July 16, 2003 - 07:46 am
I copied this AOL poll; I thought it would be relevant to this discussion.
Is one political wing more patriotic than the other?
55% No, they just have different opinions about what is best 274,164
40% Yes, the right 200,144
5% Yes, the left 27,048
Total votes: 501,356
Can you love America and still criticize it?
72% Of course, that's what America is all about 364,679
23% It depends on the issue 116,776
5% No way, true patriotism requires unquestioning loyalty 24,448
Total votes: 505,903
I was very happy to see that only 5% endorsed the opinion that patriotism requires "unquestioning loyalty". I also had to grin to see that only 5% chose the Left Wing as the more patriotic of the two vs. 40% for the Right. Suggestive, no? Happily, the 55% majority held that both were patriotic, just of different opinions.
...Babi
Justin
July 16, 2003 - 09:38 pm
Just a comment on the poll... It's encouraging to find only five percent in the "love it or leave it" category. These particular polls are self selecting and as result not very representative, however, I am amazed that 40% think people on the right are more patriotic. Perhaps it comes from the extremes. People on the far left are thought to be communist or at least "pinko". People on the far right are thought to be religious. One is considered patriotic the other is not.
robert b. iadeluca
July 17, 2003 - 04:17 am
Kimball (Page 108) speaks of
"conflicting movements toward globalism and tribalism. People in many couantries today are frustrated by their circumstances and the external, global forces that often appear to undermine traditional values."<I am wondering how much influence the Internet has on religion. Young people and others who never knew any other religion except their own and accepted it blindly are learning of beliefs that are sometimes diametrically opposed to their own. Maybe there are parents who do not want their children learning these things.
Robby
georgehd
July 17, 2003 - 10:09 am
I think that polls have to be examined carefully before putting much faith in them. An AOL poll probably uses only people using AOL and is not a representative sampling of the population.
I think that Robby brings up an interesting point about the internet and it use for educational purposes. I see the internet as a tremendous source of good for people around the world. While there is plenty of trash, there is much useful information. Families need to learn how to use the net to maximise its potential. Some of my grandchildren seem to spend an inordinate amount of time chatting and parents need to control this.
BaBi
July 17, 2003 - 11:03 am
The Internet is just one more 'outside contact' for the young. It has always been true that from the time young people emerge from their more sheltered environment into the world, they quickly learn that not everybody thinks the same about anything. For some, it can be a real shock. It has always been one of my concerns re. the church schools that the students are not adequately prepared for that sharp change. Still, given that they offer a much safer environment, I would prefer to send my own children there if I still had children of school age. ...Babi
Persian
July 17, 2003 - 11:18 am
I remember as an elementary school student in Oregon and California that I attended Summer Camp in a multicultural innerfaith environment, where we learned about the three major religions, read and listened to scripture from their holy books, talked with religious and secular teachers, dramatized major events in ancient history (I was an Egyptian soldier, a Jewish shepherdess, one of the "women at the well" and a goat herder at various times)and learned about growing and preparing food from the Middle East. From the time I was about 6, I've always had a Biblical herb garden.
My sense of the internet is that parents need to teach their children how to use - not abuse - this fantastic tool of learning. Then make sure that they keep track of what the kids are doing once they are competent to use the computers alone. Keep the spam filters in place, regulate the number of hours of computer use (and with whom) and enjoy!
Justin
July 17, 2003 - 11:29 pm
Kimball expresses a cause of conflict in the Palestinian-Israeli relationship I had not considered before this time. Israel is a democracy. If the Palestians are granted citizenship, they will outnumber the Israelis and could end the Jewish state with the ballot. Perhaps, that is as it should be. In a state with two opposing religious entities, conflict is inevitable, unless the state adopts a secular constitution with religious freedom guaranteed through secular institutions and neither Mosaic nor Islamic law allowed to influence legal decisions. That's a hard sell proposal but one that might work if the other issues can be compromised or compensated.
robert b. iadeluca
July 18, 2003 - 04:35 am
This NY TIMES ARTICLE suggests where religion goes together with democracy and where it does not.Robby
BaBi
July 19, 2003 - 07:26 am
Before posting the AOL poll, which got several comments, I posted the following from the book:
Two cites from Kimball, on pg. 123. This quote from Karen Armstrong: "Challenging government and societal structures seen as unjust and oppressive is a valid, if not imperative, feature in most religious traditions."
Kimball:People of faith and goodwill must continually wrestle with the most appropriate and constructive ways to structure institutions in light of fundamental principles and changing circumstances."
Kimball discusses Pat Robertson's political activities negatively. IMO, Mr. Robertson does need to divorce his political activities from his church affiliation, if he wishes to remain a law-abiding citizen. As far as his grass-roots political tactics, they are plain old-fashioned 'political savvy', and he is far from the first to use them. Does anyone recall the boastful claims of some workers unions that they were going to take over and control the government, because they had the votes?
Does anyone have any comments on the Karen Armstrong quote?
I also took a look at what the Jewish/Christian Bible had to say about 'false religion', as listed in the Thompsom Chain Reference. False religion per the Judaic/Christian definitions includes:HYPOCRISY/INSINCERITY, LEGALISM, RITUALISM, SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS, SANCTIMONIOUSNESS, AND SPIRITUAL PRIDE.
It's easy to see where some of these could lead to the evils Kimball addresses, isn't it. I'll throw in Titus 1:16 "They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient, and unfit for doing anything good." Pretty strong language from the religions in whose name these evils are being done.
..../Babi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
robert b. iadeluca
July 19, 2003 - 07:51 am
As Kimball and I and others go about defining various behaviors as evil, I keep thinking of the following verses from Matthew:--
7:1
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
7:2
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Robby
Éloïse De Pelteau
July 19, 2003 - 07:55 am
""Challenging government and societal structures seen as unjust and oppressive is a valid, if not imperative, feature in most religious traditions."
Babi, if societal structures that are unjust and oppressive are not challenged, then who will challenge them? Individuals have no voice in a government. Religious groups represent a large proportion of a population and the responsability becomes theirs to speak out. I am thinking of Reverand Martin Luther King who spoke out against segregation.
Eloïse
BaBi
July 19, 2003 - 01:25 pm
Me, too, ELOISE. Exactly my point.
Robby, my understanding of the very important scriptures you quoted is that we are to avoid judging the person. We can judge the results of their actions. A bit further down, Mt.7:15-17, also serves as a timely warning against 'religious leaders' who may lead others astray.
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." Pretty much what Kimball is talking about. ..Babi
Justin
July 19, 2003 - 04:02 pm
Babi and Eloise: On the other hand, there are religious leaders such as Pious Xll, who fail to speak out against oppression and then there are leaders such as Robertson and his arch pal Falwell who cause oppression.
Martin Luther and Martin Luther King are two clerics who recognized a requirement to address the evil of oppression.
Éloïse De Pelteau
July 19, 2003 - 04:35 pm
During the Holocaust, nobody came out to denounce it. Italy was under Hitler's spell and Rome had better keep quiet, or else. Yet, I believe that to keep silent was wrong and it was the pope's duty to denounce it at whatever cost.
Persian
July 19, 2003 - 09:34 pm
ELOISE - yes, certainly it would have been the moral thing to do for the Roman Church leadership to speak to the world about the Jewish Holocaust in Europe. But they, like many of their Turkish Orthodox Christian counterparts, who refused to recognize, let alone speak up about the Armenian holocaust in 1915, chose the path of silence.
And although not on the vast scale of the European holocaust, the American Catholic Church's silence over the past decades regarding the pastoral abuse of children and youth can, I believe, be looked at as an organizational decision of non-admission, a collective crime and shame that is extremely hard to understand.
Throughout the centuries, humans (of whatever religious or ethnic background) seem not to have learned from previous horrors, but instead continue to inflict physical and emotional abuse - often leading to death - on individuals who are the most vulnerable. We are in a period now where anti-semitism in Europe has been on the rise for some time, yet I wonder who among the European leadership (and their American allies) will really take up the mantle and address this very frightening cancer in society.
Justin
July 19, 2003 - 11:08 pm
I think the European governments and the Vatican are ducking the issue of anti-semitism again. Certainly, Bush is not going to complain. The only person I see, on the American political horizon, who would complain is Hillary. She has the sand and the social awareness to make a public issue of anti-semitism.
Persian
July 20, 2003 - 07:37 am
Perhaps Joe Lieberman will also speak out.
Éloïse De Pelteau
July 20, 2003 - 08:03 am
A larger proportion of minorities elected in governments can demystify their differences. Fearless Hillary would either increase or decrease her popularity by speaking out against xenophohia. The risk in taking a stand on tricky issues has deterred people in power from speaking out, but sometimes a brave stand for justice against all odds adds an aura to a person that goes down in history. I am thinking of Pope John Paul 2nd, as he is circling the globe spreading his sermons fearlessly and denouncing injustices to millions on far away lands and on television, has endeared himself troughout the world. Yet, it took a long time to admit the sexual abuse of children by priests. Nothing is perfect.
Eloïse
BaBi
July 21, 2003 - 07:29 am
A couple of quotes from Kimball at the end of Ch.4 that I found encouraging.
"The hope that Islam can provide the basis for nation-states cannot and should not be dismissed casually. Integrating all parts of life --religious, political, economic and social-- remains a deeply imbedded goal in Islamic thought."
It has always seemed to me that one should live according to one's religious beliefs in all areas of life. A faith not used in the workplace or in one's dealings with others sounds to me more like a casual interest than a faith. My church doesn't tell me how to vote, but my concepts of what a leader should be, morally and ethically, are undoubtedly rooted in my religious beliefs. Integrated life...absolutely. But from a personal stance, not government imposed.
This second quote is one I would like to see set in bold type and furnished to all those trying to stabilize Iraq just now.
"The best hope lies in serious and concerted efforts to address the major sources of frustration and, in the process, change existing government structures."
I am convinced that frustration and anger of the citizenry are precisely what has led to the present shambles and guerrilla warfare in Iraq. Less attention to politics and more to practical and urgent needs would, IMO, still be the best and wisest course. ...Babi
robert b. iadeluca
July 21, 2003 - 03:58 pm
Also at the end of Chapter Four (Page 125) Kimball says
"Beware of people and groups whose political blueprint is based on a mandate from heaven."I wonder if that is what the Shiite groups in Iraq are doing now.
Robby
Persian
July 21, 2003 - 04:29 pm
That is definitely what the supporters of Moqdar Sadr are doing in Fallujah with strong input from Iran.
robert b. iadeluca
July 21, 2003 - 05:59 pm
In Chapter Five (The End Justifies Any Means) I am temporarily jumping ahead to Page 150 only because Kimball seems to explain the chapter there in a couple of sentences. He says:
"One common warning sign appears within this chapter. A particular goal or end was articulated as essential or paramount. In defense of that goal people ignored the call to compassionate, constructive relationships. When people are dehumanized or treated as objects, the purported goal immediately should be called into question."It seems so simple as he explains it but people (maybe you or I?) keep doing it.
Robby
HubertPaul
July 22, 2003 - 08:49 am
"Beware of people and groups whose political blueprint is based on a mandate from heaven."
How about Bush and groups?
Éloïse De Pelteau
July 23, 2003 - 07:53 am
It appears that for end's sake, extremes means are often used. It is easier for an individual to follow a leader who has the same goals because he has the power to act whereas the individual does not.
After WW11, Nazism, almost disappeared. Ex-Nazis became ordinary citizens holding repectable jobs. Their leader was dead and so was his ideology. Before Hitler, Germany was in an unsustainable economic blight. The terrain was ripe for an evil dictator to take the lead. At first he appeared to preach peace and cooperation, but he was secretly preparing for war.
Most religious leaders preach and live a personal life according to the high values of their Holy Book. A few others hide behind the trappings of their religion to abuse of people's trust.
I am reluctant in trusting a leader 100%. It takes time for the genuine character to surface. Talk is cheap and actions speak louder. But when someone has power, it is the true test of character. If power is abused in the name of religion, the perpetrator should always be challenged but it can be too late for individuals to speak out.
Eloïse
BaBi
July 23, 2003 - 11:13 am
ROBBY, it seems that dehumanization or depersonalization of enemies and opponents is a necessary requisite to committing violence, oppression and injustice. Most people cannot allow themselves to identify with those they harm; the victims must be placed ‘beyond the pale’, seen as less than human. Our very common, lazy trait of lumping people into groups and applying labels and characteristics is, IMO, a first step in this depersonalization.
ELOISE, I think you make a good point that it takes time for the genuine character to surface. It would be plain wisdom to study a person's words and actions a while before placing one's trust or giving one's support.
...Babi
Justin
July 23, 2003 - 01:58 pm
Soldiers find it helpful to call one's enemy by names which dehumanize. It helps a soldier do his job.Killing is easier to accomplish. Japs, Gooks, and Krauts, were the preferred terms in WWll and Korea. I think the Irish use "Catholic and Protestant"in similar fashion.
robert b. iadeluca
July 23, 2003 - 05:47 pm
On Page 127 Kimball says:--
"Conflict between segments of India's Hindu majority and Muslim minority populations did not begin in 2003. Their long history of coexistence in South Asia has included considerable distrust and periods of open hostility."I have never understood that logic. I am going to get even with you for what your great-great-great-great grandfather did to my great-great-great-great grandfather. Or how people who were friendly neighbors yesterday are willing to kill each other today, because of something that happened five centuries ago, as in Yugoslavia between Orthodox Christians and Muslims. It's beyond my comprehension.
Robby
Justin
July 23, 2003 - 06:24 pm
I don't think the issue is revenge for what Great grandpa did to Great Grandpa. The issue is religious and social. We have just recently examined India in it's early period. You will recall The Hindu caste system and their many gods. Vishnu was prominent but only one of many. In 600+ CE, Mohammad and his band of one god worshipers invaded and proselytized with sword and axe. The essential diference continues.
Justin
July 23, 2003 - 06:33 pm
The root cause of these conflicts (Yogo slavia- Ireland -India )can be seen in the US today. Fundementalists, think their understanding of God is superior to that of Catholics and Jews and vice versa. Some times, as in No. Ireland the differences cause a violent eruption. There is only one solution. Throw all the creeds away and start again with "Love thy neighbor as thyself".
Persian
July 23, 2003 - 09:11 pm
ROBBY - I can understand your comment about not comprehending historical slights and the revenge factor which they attract. However, this is a very common (although granted unpleasant) aspect of tribal and clan affiliation in the Middle East, Central and South East Asia. Americans, especially those of Western European heritage, are generally unfamiliar with and uncomfortable upon learning about this type of retribution. However, for thousands of years, revenge has been a central part of the cultures around the world, tied in very closely to a family's honor and reputation. About the closest we can come in the USA is the Native American tribal conflicts against each other in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Justin
July 23, 2003 - 10:47 pm
Revenge, in protection of family honor, is not a common motivator in the US. I am sure there are individual cases but it is almost unheard of in relation to larger groups. We occasionaly see revenge killings among Sicilian immigrants who form extended families and show fierce loyalty to the family. But the vendetta is not a common response. In the hollows of the Great Smokey Mountains in Apalachia , one hears of great family feuds. But these are so rare, that when they occur they are moments of history. Revenge may be a motivator in gang warfare but it is difficult to conceive of whole villages or towns with enough person to person linkage to avenge a killing or even killings in the community. Perhaps, in the Middle East, as Mahlia says,people in villages feel enough cohesion to avenge a village killing.
There is another tack one can take. The holocaust was an act of revenge by a nation- perhaps many nations. The French participated as did other nations. No one took the Jews in- not even the US and the Pope kept his mouth shut. It was revenge for the killing of Christ.
Éloïse De Pelteau
July 24, 2003 - 04:48 am
Justin, "Love thy neighbor as thyself" the second commandment is like the first one. 'love' is indeed the most important of all words. It is even more important than eating and drinking.
To "love your neighbor" is not an easy task. We find faults and constantly quarrel for the least little offense. Why is it so difficult to love, and why do we have to constantly control ourselves not to lose patience? Why is it not as natural as eating and drinking?
Throughout history, except on rare occasion, love was absent. Laws are made preventing people from killing each other and millions are in prisons throughout the world.
To love is a command. It is not inborn, it needs to be sought out and practiced. Love is mentioned over 400 times in the Bible, even 'love your enemies'. When people can't find how to love, horrific things like the Holocaust and 9/11 happen. We can't even agree on who has achieved ultimate love. Mother Theresa is thought by her detractors to have been working only for glory.
So if to love is not natural to man, where can he acquire it? I know that most religions teach how to love in Holy Books, but I have yet to find the concept of 'love your neighbor' in science and philosophy.
Eloïse
Malryn (Mal)
July 24, 2003 - 05:13 am
On this subject of love thy neighbor, I must say something about scientists I have known and know. Though there can be great competition among the factors which promote scientific research, in the laboratories across the world there is no discrimination against race, nationality or creed. Scientists are focused on experimentation and development of various elements of science. With that creative drive common among them and the networking and sharing of knowledge and information they do, they don't waste time bickering about which religion is the only one or which nation or race is the best. My former scientist husband travelled to and visited laboratories in far corners of the world, and scientists
from all over the world travelled to and visited his.
Another thing they share, which I witnessed many times, is music. Inevitably, when scientists from all over the U.S. or foreign countries came to our house, we either listened to music, or they played chamber music with my husband. Musicians are another group which does not point out and concentrate on differences among them. A violinist from Japan, a violist from France, a cellist from Russia and a pianist from the United States all sit down amiably together in the same room and play the same music, once again sharing like interests and similar goals.
Mal
Ray Franz
July 24, 2003 - 06:25 am
Needed--more spiritual fruits and fewer religious nuts!
robert b. iadeluca
July 24, 2003 - 09:04 am
After reading this ARTICLE showing a mixture of Muslim culture and Islam religion, I got to wondering if that religion requires a transvestite (man dressing as woman) to wear a burqa.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 24, 2003 - 09:08 am
And then this ARTICLE made me think of the conflict between the Roman Catholic religion and the "internal priest culture."While religion, as historians note, is indeed strong, I wonder sometimes if culture isn't stronger.
Robby
HubertPaul
July 24, 2003 - 10:06 am
What puzzles me.... Wasn't most of the children's shocking abuse against boys, based on homosexuality? Now we flaunt homosexuality with gay pride week, gay parades, allow same sex marriages, and even allow homosexuals to adopt children, but the churches are against it. Puzzling...
robert b. iadeluca
July 24, 2003 - 10:43 am
The difference, as I see it, is that in the case of the church, minors were being taken advantage of. Some priests might say that the boys were "willing" but we can all see through that.Robby
BaBi
July 24, 2003 - 12:46 pm
Justin and Mahlia, the clan feuds may not be as common in the U.S., but there was a news report just recently that the Hatfields and McCoys have finally signed a truce with one another.
Justin, re. the multi-gods image of Hinduism, did you note the Gandhi ref. to “God”, singular. The various ‘gods’ of Hinduism are all aspects of one God, who is regarded as too complex to be grasped in entirety. People, therefore, approach Him, in Hinduism, in that aspect they best understand. I admit to being surprised when I first learned about this. I do find some of the 'aspects' represented by various Hindu gods hard to reconcile with my understanding of God, but that's to be expected. ...Babi
Persian
July 24, 2003 - 02:34 pm
ROBBY - I'm somewhat confused by your comment: "After reading this ARTICLE showing a mixture of Muslim culture and Islam religion, I got to wondering if that religion requires a transvestite (man dressing as woman) to wear a burqa."
Why would Islam, which does NOT condome homosexuality in any form, "require" a transvestite to wear a burqa?
I have a question for you: is a transvestite still a transvestite when he dresses as a man to pray in the mosque (as noted in the NYT article)? Or is he only a transvestite when he dresses as a woman?
robert b. iadeluca
July 24, 2003 - 02:55 pm
Mahlia:--My understanding of a transvestite is a person of either sex who dresses the way someone of the opposite sex usually dresses. I realize that Islam does not condone homosexuality, hence the wonderment in my mind. Obviously, based on that article, the culture is accepting it as the transvestite (a man)is working in a beauty salon dressed as a woman. And also, as I understand it, it is the culture which demands or does not demand the use of the burqa.
What, then, happens if in a particular culture it is accepted that women wear a burqa and what if the man (dressed as a woman) refuses to wear one. Now what? Does the Islamic religion see the person as a man or as a woman? In this case homosexuality obviously exists.
To answer your question, he would be a transvestite all the time because that is his way of life even if he happened to be wearing men's clothing at the time. In the "gay world" he would be known as a Queen even if he was not all decked up at the moment.
I am not an expert on this subject. Some knowledgeable person may correct me.
Robby
Justin
July 24, 2003 - 03:41 pm
Is transvestism considered a form of homosexuality?
Justin
July 24, 2003 - 03:57 pm
Bert; One cannot expect consistency or logical action from a religious group that has a two thousand year old history of inconsistency and illogical action. What amazes me is the number of people who have and have had a tolerance for such action.
robert b. iadeluca
July 24, 2003 - 04:12 pm
I wasn't equating transvestism with homosexuality but used that term here because he was living with another man. This is no proof of course but an assumption. The article explains in detail.
Robby
Persian
July 24, 2003 - 04:56 pm
ROBBY - here is a link which explains a bit more about the issue of non-heterosexuals and their behavior in Islamic cultures. Scroll down past the section titles and you'll see that the understanding of these individuals (and their communities) is a bit different than what is more freely and commonly displayed in the West among gays and lesbians. The focus is more on dominance/control (often financial)and the masculine role in ancient societies, rather than emotional partnership attachment and sexual choice as in the West.
http://www.travelandtranscendence.com/Muslimgay-news.html Regarding your question -
"Does the Islamic religion see the person as a man or as a woman?" - Islam recognizes the gender of an individual according to that at their birth, NOT how they later choose to lead their personal life or the clothing to which they are attracted.
From a purely logical standpoint, if a man wishes to present himself as a woman in a traditional culture which demands that a female wear a burqa (full-body covering with small grid across the eyes)or chador (covering head and body, but not the face, as in Iran), why would he wish to draw further attention to the gender he wishes to conceal (male) by not adhering to female dress codes in public.
On a lighter issue, Robby, it's bad enough to traditionalists that Muslimas are often refusing to cover themselves, but if the transvestites also refuse, what other evils will their cultures experience?
robert b. iadeluca
July 25, 2003 - 04:17 pm
According to Kimball,
"People of faith routinely want to connect physically with the places associated with the sacred stories of their religion. Sacred spaces represent an important component in religious life. But if protecting the sacred space at any cost becomes paramount, the results can be deadly. When people are called on to do violence to their neighbor in the service of a rightous cause, they should know that something is dreadfully wrong. In the end, human beings remain responsible for their actions."This has gotten me to wonder about "sacred places." I realize from reading about Islam and Judaism how important certain places are to them. But how about Christians? When they sing at Christmas about Bethlehem, do a significant number of them want to visit this "little town?" When they read in the Bible about the Sermon on the Mount, do most of them want to visit this Mount?
And then, what about churches themselves which are usually considered sacred places, as are mosques and synagogues. Time was when church doors were left open for people to enter and pray whenever they wished. If someone was trying to escape from the law, a church was considered a sanctuary.
I am questioning here the strength of Christian belief today as compared to the strength of believers in Islam. How do most Christians feel as they walk past a church?
Robby
Justin
July 25, 2003 - 06:20 pm
I think a Christian's first response, upon passing a church, is, What kind of church is it? Is it one of mine or some other religious group?There are pastors who discourage church members from entering a foreign church.
Persian
July 25, 2003 - 07:52 pm
There are pastors who discourage church members from entering a foreign church. I find that tremendously sad.
Years ago during the Gulf War, several dozen Muslim Arabs were evacuated from Kuwait to Maryland by the State Dept. In an effort to help them, I contacted several churches in the area, asking for financia help, people to visit with the evacuees and for any professional doctors to donate their services. After being rejected several times, I contacted several of my Jewish friends who barely let me finish my inquiry before they said "I'll be right there." And they were: men, women, children, teenagers. Checkbooks, cash and credit cards in hand; clothing; offers to take the evacuees shopping; one doctor brought his appointment book "snatched off his nurse's desk" and promptly signed up many of the evacuee men for general evaluations - he also contacted a female colleague to evaluate the women. One friend insisted that several of the men go with him "right now" to buy a van load of food so that "no one would be hungry." He provided the van, accompanied the shoppers, paid for the groceries, and made a several hundred dollar deposit with the Store Manager so that "these people can come in and shop whenever they need to."
But the best memory I have is of an American Jewish man telling me "I know an Egyptian, he attends shul with me; I'll call him right now and he'll come." About an hour later, the Egyptian showed up, greeted the male evacuees in Arabic, huddled with them for several hours as they planned what was most important for them to arrange and in what order. He was Jewish and had immigrated to the USA several years before. The Muslims were greateful to the Americans and thrilled to see another Egyptian. It didn't make any differnece to them what his religion was. Later on in the evening, the Muslims excused themselves to pray together, while the Egyptian Jewish man stood to one side and said his own prayers. And I prayed silently, tremendously grateful for these Americans who recognized human beings in need, rather than only their religion.
Justin
July 25, 2003 - 10:17 pm
Mahlia; I am sure there are good samaritans in Christianity. They are just hard to find, when the recipients are not members of the same church. I am talking about ordinary people and not organized charities. Clearly, there are some Christians who are willing to give their time to foreign others but usually there is a missionary provision attached. People associated with groups like Catholic Charities may take issue with me and I hope some one does because my observations support my view.
seldom958
July 25, 2003 - 10:59 pm
Please explain; "Years ago during the Gulf War, several dozen Muslim Arabs were evacuated from Kuwait to Maryland by the State Dept. In an effort to help them."
Why did they need help and why did the State Dept pick out those few dozen?
Bubble
July 26, 2003 - 01:16 am
robert b. iadeluca
July 26, 2003 - 03:43 am
Bubble:--That was a most thought-provoking article. I read it in its entirety.
Robby
Éloïse De Pelteau
July 26, 2003 - 04:09 am
Thanks Bubble for the link and I also think that:
"Christianity is dishonoured not only by anti-Semitism, but by Christian indifference to this age-old plague."
Persian
July 26, 2003 - 07:17 am
BUBBLE - excellent article. Thanks for providing it for us.
SELDOM - the Muslim Arabs were in danger in Kuwait from the Iraqi force and evacuated for their own safety. The men were professionals (several Egyptians and Palestinians)- university teachers, administrators, some in the tourist industry and from various ministries. Many brought spouses and children, although I remember one fellow who came only with an infant, since his wife had returned home to Asia because of the death of one of her parents. I met only the families evacuated to Maryland, but there were others relocated to different areas.
seldom958
July 26, 2003 - 11:14 am
On page 137 there is a conversation between Graham and Nixon;
Graham -Jews had a "stranglehold" on the media that needed to be broken up because it was "ruining the coountry."
Nixon-"You believe that?
"Yes sir."
"Oh, boy, So do I. I can't ever say that, but I believe it"
"No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something. A lot of Jews are great friends of mine----They know I'm friendly to Israael and so forth. But Jews don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country, and I have no power and now way to handle them."
"You must not let them know."
This conversation was from 30 year old Oval Office tapes released in March 2002.
Justin
July 26, 2003 - 11:26 am
Mahlia; Hillary, in her new book, describes a conversation with Arpad Goncz, president of Hungary, in which Goncz warned about Islamist extremists and argued that the same expansionist impulses that had led the Ottomam Empire to the gates of Budapest in the 16th c. were again thriving among Muslim fundementalists who rejected the secular pluralism of modern democracies and the freedom of others for religious belief and women's choices.
I understand all of that except "expansionist impulses". Do you also see "expansionist impulses"? (I don't think he had in mind Saddam's entry into Kuwait. Goncz is talking about something more significant than that.)
Persian
July 26, 2003 - 01:00 pm
JUSTIN - my sense is that Goncz was ONLY speaking in terms of what Eastern Europe experienced with the Ottomans, rather than what has taken place among the Middle Eastern fundamentalists, led by al Qada and adhered to by numerous Saudis, which then led to expansion into the Asian Muslim communities.
Although Goncz's comments are certainly historically correct (and a valid reason for that part of the world to be more alert), the major issue among the core adherents of al Qada (which are Arabs, although there are other ethnic groups involved, too) is the deep hatred and wish for revenge among the Saudi al Qada leadership (in particular)and the extremely radical fundamentalist view of the Egyptian Second-in-Command towards the West. They feel (as do many others) that Saudi culture and Islam have been betrayed by the Saudi Royal family. And even more so than their wish to overrun the West, they wish to destroy the Saud family.
Among Arabs (and NOT just Muslims), there is a deeply felt distaste for the wanton societal manners of the West (especially sexual mores, exploitation of women - which is worse: the suppresion of women or their exploitation - and hypocrisy by public officials - i.e. Bill Bennett's recent admission of his enormous gambling problem; Clinton's White House daliance), combined with the steadfast American support of Israel.
The latter makes sense in the West, given our large population of Jews in the USA and their contribution towards American society. But the decades-long refusal of Americans (particualrly) to better understand the Arab/Muslim Middle East creates strong suspicion among this community. Whether it is racial, religious, economic or just America's unwillingness (or inability) to deal with non-Western languages, is still up in the air. But Arabs know in their hearts that America has not been receptive to them as a people - even those who are Christians or Jews.
And then, of course, there is the decades old relationship of the American CIA with various heads of state throughout the Middle East(again, not well understood by Americans). For example, the USA has had strong relations with Saudi Arabia for decades, but much of their relations have been kept quiet out of deference to the Saudi's almost paranoid fear of letting their public know the depth of the relationship. For decades, there had been a historically strong relationship with Jordan's late King Hussein, even though he also was strongly allied with the Arab world, especially Iraq.
All of these complex relations are not well understood in the West; some are dismissed entirely out of hand. But they shouldn't be, since the al Qada leadership (diminished though it may be now)can yet "weave a dastardly web" than what the world has viewed.
The issue of al Qada being engaged in only a religious war is naive, just as the dislike of the American invasion in Iraq is purported to be ONLY about oil and control of that commodity worldwide. Bin Laden is an experienced spinmeister, as are his senior colleagues, and they have been using the world press (NOT just Al Jazeera) as their strongest voice. More and more, we see that the West simply does not understand the depth or complexity of the Arab mind (or situations which include Arabs with other non-Western cultures) or the real need to know more about them.
For example, recently in the Washington Post, a writer included a comment in her article that "Arabic language speakers are not needed in Afghanistan." I almost fell out of my chair! Arabic is the first language of many of the al Qada fighters who were in Afghanistan. To interrogate them fully, it must be done in their first language - Arabic. The writer was an American who obviously knew nothing about the scope of languages used in Afghanistan or the mix of Arabs and non-Arabs engaged in the fighting. Particularly in Afghanistan, like much of Cenral Asia, where there is a lot of trading going on between different ethnic/linguistic/national groups, many people speak several languages: Dari, Farsi (Persian), Arabic, some Turkish and Russian. It's really sad when something so blatantly incorrect shows up in a major Western newspaper.
Back to your original question: certainly there are Muslim fundamentalists who wish that they could overthrow the West (particularly America) and replace such open societies with an orthodox form of Islam. These are the "expansionist" thinkers/dreamers.
However, there are also fundamentalists who would NOT accept living and being guided by Saudi Wahhabism or the Iranian Shi'ia doctrines of Islam. Whereas the Shi'ia are much more emotional in their demonstrations than the Wahhabists, they "all seem the same" to Americans. Not to the Brits and French, of course, who have a long colonial history with Islamic countries. I don't think it's time to "circle the wagons" yet, but it is surely past time to learn more about Islam and its adherents. And a very good place to start (because there are going to be such strong repercussions) is with the way that the American morticians treated the bodies of Uday and Ousay Hussein.
Justin
July 26, 2003 - 02:31 pm
Mahlia; You ended your post the way American movie "chapters" were ended when I was a boy. You ended with a teaser. What did the American morticians do to the bodies of the Hussein brothers that would cause a concern among Iraqis? How did we blunder?
BaBi
July 26, 2003 - 02:36 pm
And just maybe...(wish,wish)... there was a typo in that Post article and it should have read, "Arabic language speakers are NOW needed in Afghanistan." Could a Washington Post writer really be that obtuse?
...Babi
Justin
July 26, 2003 - 02:44 pm
Mahlia; I understand your message. We must have a clearer understanding of the Arab mind and folkways, as well as a better grasp of their internal political relationships before we try to fix things that may not be broken.
Do you suppose that America gets some of the blame for the errors of colonialism or have we just created our own special set of problems?
Persian
July 26, 2003 - 03:28 pm
Here's a link to a Washington Post article which describes some unusual names - many within religious communities - which connect to the professional responsibilities of the individuals.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43835-2003Jul25.html?referrer=emailarticlepgPersian
July 26, 2003 - 03:49 pm
JUSTIN - The initial decision by the Pentagon to show the bodies of the deceased Hussein brothers was purely to prove to the disbelieving Iraqis that the men were dead. It was an American decision to disspell the disbelievers among the Iraqis. And from a political standpoint, it made sense.
However, from the Muslim and Arab standpoint, showing the deceased was a desecration of the men in death, regardless of how vile they had personally been in death. Further - and to the absolute horror of Muslims world-wide - was the decision to perform an autopsy and embalm the bodies. THIS IS NOT DONE IN ISLAM and certainly not to then show the bodies in the embalmed state.
When a Muslim dies, the body is washed, shrouded and buried - usually within 24 hours if at all possible. Often family members prepare the body for burial, so that no "stranger" touches the deceased. Thus, seeing the televised bodies of the two men in an unnatural state (to Muslims and Arabs) was a tremendous shock. No use explaining about the high temperature in Iraq; the mutilated remains from heavy weapons fire; the "cleaning up" of the bodies (which is an affront in itself when done by strangers)in preparation for viewing by journalists.
I am truly distressed (personally and as an American) that such a tremendous cultural gaffe was made by the American leadership, whether out of sincere ignorance or refusal to recognize the importance of the death/burial customs in Iraq (or any other Muslim country). And I find it very hard to believe that the American military in Iraq with/without alerting the Pentagon, did not seek guidance from local Iraqi religious leaders - or at least respected elders. Since there are so many senior Ba'ath Party leaders now in US custody, anyone of them, including the former Deputy Foreign Minister, Tarik Aziz (who is a Chaldean Christian) could have recommended that autopsies and embalming not be performed.
The only thing I can compare this to in recent times is the horror Americans experienced when an American soldier's body was desecrated in Somalia.
BABI - one could hope that it was a typo. But there have been comments from readers and the Washington Post Ombudsman did NOT write anything to clear up an error.
Persian
July 26, 2003 - 04:03 pm
JUSTIN - RE your #760. From the American standpoint, I think it is just cultural arrogance, developed (and continued) since the birth of our country. The Brits and the French are the folks I associate with colonialism. Given the history of Western Europe (from which many of our families originated) and America's disdain and at times total non-acceptance for "people of color" or those of non-Christian religions (or in the case of Protestant fundamentalists, their non-acceptance of Catholics)there is a lot of blame to go around.
But what bothers me the most (on a personal and professional level) is the continued unwillingness of the majority of folks to learn about - or encourage their children to learn - about other nations, continents, religions, languages, cultures, etc.
Last night I was watching Jeopardy on TV. The contestants were teenages. The question was "what is the capital of Iraq." Only one student tried to answer. She replied: Kuwait. My mouth fell open!
We've had American TV coverage of the conflict in Iraq for months; families across the country have had members deployed; teachers have covered various aspects of the Middle East in history classes. And this young girl did not know the capital of Iraq, nor that Kuwait was a country and not a city.
It reminds me of several years ago when I was invited to give a lecture to a group of Christian women about various issues in the Middle East, particularly how they could learn more about Muslim women. During the Q&A session after my presentation, one of the women asked "how could a good Christian girl like you know so much about heathens?" She followed up her question with "where I come from, girls would have chosen a more 'suitable' field of study."
I asked the woman where she came from and she replied, Salem, MA." I paused a moment, explained my own family background and choice of professions, and then asked "are you concerned that any of your ancestors may have participated in the Salem Witch Trials?" I know, nasty, nasty, but the woman made me so Irish mad!
robert b. iadeluca
July 26, 2003 - 04:06 pm
The United States prides itself at "allowing" all religions to practice. Respect for someone else's religion, however, seems to be another matter.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 26, 2003 - 04:09 pm
Mahlia:--You say:--
"Teachers have covered various aspects of the Middle East in history classes.I question that.
Robby
Persian
July 26, 2003 - 05:20 pm
ROBBY - you are quite right about "respect for another's religion" is quite different than reality. But then we've seen that from the very beginning of our USA. The Founding Fathers were careful to include the phrase "all men are equal." Blacks, particularly, know that that was not true and still continues to not be true in areas of the USA today.
As far as teachers using the Iraqi conflict as a learning opportunity, I cannot, of course, speak for all teachers. However, in the area where I live (metropolitan Washington DC), numerous teachers in private and public schools with whom I've talked personally, as well as teachers in religious classes (for children, Youth and adults) have broadened their class plans to include various aspects of the region, the people, the culture, the language, the vise-like grip which the Ba'ath Party had on Iraq. Among Muslims with whom I've spoken directly, they've used this point in history as an opportunity to teach students (and their own children) what the God of Abraham did not intend: the destruction of a vulnerable society for one's own greediness and insanity; the torture of innocents; the vile representation of Sadam Hussein as a model for Iraqis.
And in some cases, where my Irish has gotten the better of me, I have contacted area clergy to inquire if their congregations are interested in interfaith dialogue; learning more about Iraq as a country and its people - or of much more significance, the historical Christian community in Iraq. Whereas the schools (according to the people with whom I've talked) are much more interested in learning, the churches are not. I've also inquired of individuals who are involved in local politics or are members of community organizations (i.e. Chambers of Commerce), whether they have encouraged their neighbors to learn more about Iraq - not just the war - but the region and the people. So far, none have done so, which I find amazing. And sad.
Justin
July 26, 2003 - 05:32 pm
Mahlia; I certainly concur that the US does not have a history of colonialism. We refused even in China and the Phillippines to play a colonial role. But at the same time, I think we are seen in the world as a white, Christian country, similar to Britain and France and therefore might be tarred with the same brush.
robert b. iadeluca
July 26, 2003 - 05:46 pm
Justin
July 26, 2003 - 05:51 pm
Mahlia; I am not so sure that the God of Abraham did not intend the destruction of a vulnerable society for one's own greediness. But putting that aside, your message about learning the ways of others in the world is good advice. In my little community, we have invited Middle East experts from the University of CA. to come talk to us. I hope the audience is large enough to make it worthwhile for the speakers.
Persian
July 26, 2003 - 08:22 pm
JUSTIN - I applaud the efforts of your community to learn more about the Middle East. And certainly hearing from members of an academic community is a good way to do that. Especially if they happen to be FROM the Middle East themselves, not just experts in their field. And don't overlook Middle Eastern students, who are often eager to get out into the surrounding community and let their voices be heard (and understood) also. And if you're really enthusiastic about learning, offer to host a series of lectures on the topic - or make it a rotation among citizens, organizations, churches. Good luck!
As far as how the USA is viewed by world regions, it depends on the standpoint from which one is viewing our country. For example, Egypt receives the second largest amount of financial support after Israel.
Thus, the Egyptian government (NOT the Egyptian people) have worked hard to maintain strong relations with the American leadership even in the face of less enthusiasm from Egyptians. The amount of American economic support to Iran during the late Shah's monarchy was astronomical, but it was also coupled with enormous levels of corruption. Who trained the hated and feared SAVAC? Guess!
Certainly there are concerns about the USA being a "super power" and willing to "shoot straight" - I wish the cowboy rhetoric would disappear from the President's speeches - but there is also a definite lack of diplomatic finesse in the current Washington leadership, which has not encouraged the world to look favorably on the USA. Plus, the continued lack of cultural and historical understanding - even, unfortunately, as a younger generation assumes senior positions at the State Dept. - is working against our reputation abroad. Three resignations at State by senior Foreign Service officers just prior to the War in Iraq attest to that. And its truly a shame, as Madeleine Albright wrote recently in the Washington Post, because the USA "had such a high level of international good will - positive currency in diplomatic circles - with which America could have developed even better relations." Notice the past-tense phrasing.
Éloïse De Pelteau
July 27, 2003 - 07:50 am
Mahlia, your posts are so interesting and to the point. I cannot agree with you more especially on the Diplomacy issue. International relations are practiced while learning other languages. But it is especially difficult for Americans as North America is so far from the rest of the world. A Diplomat's first quality has to be his ability to speak other languages as it is so tied to a culture.
Geographic location is a crucial element in learning about other cultures. I don't see that it is possible for most Americans to learn other languages as it is virtually impossible to practice it with people close by (except Spanish). English as the official language in an immense country of over 300 million people has its good and bad points.
Bubble
July 27, 2003 - 08:05 am
Eloise, with today's cable TV you can hear the foreign language of your choice daily in your home. Seeing films and hearing the news bulletin daily is a wonderful way to make the lessons sink in- you just need motivation. Bubble
Éloïse De Pelteau
July 27, 2003 - 08:33 am
Bubble, yes and what motivated me to learn English was to get out of the poverty that had plagued us during the depression. I thought that when I was 12 years old knowing English would open doors that seemed tightly shut for those who didn't know it at that time. Motivation is sparked by dire needs that will fulfill an ambition.
My children and grandchildren all learned 'some' English with television, but it was accompanied by oral and written learning in classrooms, at home and in University as all my children attended both French and English schools. Just listening to TV is too passive to provide the necessary interchange. The brain shuts down looking at the tube for some. I think a dire need is the best or only motivation.
I notice that a larger majority of people in Quebec speak two languages in any segment of society. That is good.
Persian
July 27, 2003 - 09:44 am
Geographic location is a crucial element in learning about other cultures. I don't see that it is possible for most Americans to learn other languages as it is virtually impossible to practice it with people close by (except Spanish).
ELOISE - I respectfully disagree with your statement about the lack of opportunity to practice foreign languages in the USA. Certainly we have a large Hispanic/Latino population, especially in the Southwest and large cities throughout the country, but there are also numerous other ethnic communities in the USA, offering an abundance of languages other than English (or other Indo-European languages).
Many American students from elementary to high school levels bring foreign languages to the forefront in their everyday lives. Although they may all speak, write and read English in classes, many converse among themselves and with their families at home in other languages - either their own birth language or that of their parents or grandparents. Thus, English speaking Americans do have an opportunity to hear (and thus learn if they choose)numerous foreign languages.
I spent more than 25 years in a major American university with a sizeable foreign student population. Thus, the opportunity for learning foreign languages was available every day on campus, not only in the foreign language classes. Many (although not all) colleges and universities require undergraduates to complete foreign language instruction before they can graduate.
I agree that the decision to learn a language and then use it regularly is one's own decision. But that decision (like many others)is based on an individual's upbringing, parental encouragement and interest, pride in heritage (including maintaining foreign language skills)and interest in the world. The latter is one of the weaker links in American culture; our country is technologically advanced; linguistically we have failed miserably.
The study of foreign languages goes hand-in-hand with curiosity about the world, the ancient traditions (whether from Biblical times or prehistoric), and one's ability to project outwards into the world. Americans are a friendly, open and generally affable people. But we have a deeply imbedded cultral ignorance about others, shown openly in the demand that "if foreigners want to talk to me, it'd better be in English." This is a comment I heard repeatedly in China some years ago from American tourists. It seemed so ridiculous, since they were the "foreigners" in a nation where many students are encouraged from childhood to speak more than one language."
Even with our border countries of Canada and Mexico, my impression is that Americans know very little about the structure of the countries, their leadership, political parties, major issues of conern to the citizens, etc. Certainly both countries offer wonderful vacation sites, but outside of the tourism opportunities, there doesn't seem to be strong and on-going interest in the countries and their citizens. The recent SARS scare in Canada caught the attention of the American media and perhaps some people realize that Mexico's President Vincente Fox has lost his first election lustre, but outside of those two topics, my sense is that little else is known - or perhaps cared about by average Americans.
I want to be very clear about my comments above. I was born in the USA (Los Angeles) and have lived throughout the country, as well as abroad. The men in my family have served (and continue to serve)in the military during times of conflict. I've made my own contribution to the USA by serving in several US Govt. agencies throughout my career. I've always been very proud to be an American and have often stood up for the good things about our country. But I've also recognized, admitted and spoken out about those issues which are less than celebratory.
BaBi
July 27, 2003 - 01:22 pm
ROBBY, I read the article you linked, concerning the words of the officiating priest at a funeral. As there seems to be disagreement about the facts of the case, it is surely too soon to start labeling any aspect as 'evil'. And on either side of the argument, would we be looking at instances of evil or simply bad judgment? "Evil" has always been to me a very strong word with very dark connotations.
...Babi
Justin
July 27, 2003 - 01:46 pm
I presume that some Americans pursue two or more languages, that most Americans speak one language,and that many Americans do not speak that one language well. I also suspect that some Arabs pursue two or more languages, that most arabs speak one language, and that many Arabs do not speak that one language well. I think it is also the case that Belgians, Canadians, Swiss, and border resident people on all continents tend to be multilingual.
There is a good chance that because of the pluralistic character of the US population, a larger percentage of Americans speak a second language than is the case in many other countries.
There are failings, of course, in the way Americans view the usefulness of a second language. Which language should one choose as a second language? Spanish, perhaps, is most useful. We can talk to our gardeners. I chose French in high school because a pretty girl I wanted to date also chose French. I have studied French in one way or another all my life, and Eloise can vouch for me when I say that I remain a rank amateur. An American can not get enough practice with a second language to become proficient and to continue proficient. Nor is there sufficient incentive to do so. I enjoy French literature so I keep the language alive in me but so few educated Americans have any use for a second language. Many American universities have ceased to require language study as requisite for a degree. That's simply an expression of the usefulness of a second language to an American.
Unfortunately, this condition leaves the State Dept. with very limited choices for employees. We have, as a result, made some serious diplomatic errors in dealing with the people of other countries and cultures. I think immediately of the problems Hurley had with Chaing kai Shek and Stilwell in War time China and I think, also of the errors we make today as a result of our inability to understand the Arab culture.
Persian
July 27, 2003 - 03:54 pm
JUSTIN - you've made some good points about why Americans seem not to be more interested in studying/using languages other than English. Although I've never employed a Spanish speaking gardener, I have been able to use that language with senior officials in banks, insurance companies, the diplomatic sector, sports, publishing, the military (American and foreign), children and youth in classes and their teachers. And from a couple of gardeners, I've learned a few sentences in a Hmong dialect and a Guatamalan dialect (spoken by an individual who did not speak/understand Spanish). Although I can't imagine much opportunity to learn my new-found language skills, I did learn about tropical plants from the first gardener and how to discourage rabbits from eating my flowers from the second fellow. Important advice at the time.
Justin
July 27, 2003 - 07:28 pm
Someone has said this before but it is worth repeating. Mahlia, you live in a part of the country in which multilingual opportunities abound at high levels in society. We provincials have little opportunity to meet, much less engage in conversation, foreign diplomats.
When I lived in Connecticut and worked in Manhattan,such opportunites appeared more often than they do today. But even then, my focus was centered around English speaking people. I taught economics and econometric theory at the graduate level for several years in New York and rarely found a need for a second language. Foreign students who came to the University either spoke English or did not grasp the subject matter. I earned my bread working on econometric models for a major American corporation. Several colleagues were foreign born but all were English speaking. Some were Chinese, some were Indian, some were European, some were Japanese, but the language of mathematics is much the same the world over.
Persian
July 27, 2003 - 08:41 pm
JUSTIN - I had a similar experience with University colleagues from other countries at my former home institution in Maryland and also as a visiting professor in China. All of the Chinese visiting scholars spoke English, but encouraged me to polish my Chinese language skills.
In China, most of my colleagues, university administators whom I met and worked with and most (but not all) of my students spoke English.
Thus I could have spent the entire period just speaking English. However, all these wonderful people continued to encourage me to develop my Chinese language skills - sometimes teasing me in Chinese in hopes that I would learn new words and tease back - so there was a constant level of encouragement.
I understand your comment about being away from a major city and the lack of opportunities for foreign language practice. However, I met the Hmong gardener at a small town in Montana; the fellow from Guatamala came to my attention when we lived in an equally small enclave in Michigan. One thing that does seem to be the same worldwide: mathematicians (and physicists)in China write on the walls at tea time if they can't find a piece of paper just like some of my former academic colleagues did in Maryland.
Justin
July 27, 2003 - 10:03 pm
Yes,Mahlia, and on napkins, place cards, business cards, and sometimes even in the sand. Relationships are most important and connecting links vital in a discussion often have a tendency to disappear over lunch.
We are engaged in a religious discussion that seems to have shifted from ends that justify means to means that justify ends.
Bobbiecee
July 28, 2003 - 06:17 am
Mahlia.....Wonderful posts. I found myself nodding again and again, in agreement....with everything you said. BTW, I see you as a true patriot, one who loves their country but can also see what's wrong, and do what you can to correct it.
Bobbie
BaBi
July 28, 2003 - 08:41 am
ON THE SUBJECT of justifying means by the [supposed] end, I noted the following:
P. 132 “Blatant abuse of religion for political expediency may be deplorable, but it is often effective.” Unfortunately, too many religious people tend to assume that anyone who 'talks the talk' must be one of the good guys. The charge of gullibility is too often valid.
P.133 “Political manipulation, nationalist agendas, & group identity are also bound up in the defense of ‘sacred space’”. We've seen a great deal of that, haven't we? Outrside of political agendas, I have been trying to figure out where the idea comes from, in Christian theology, that the Jewish Temple must be rebuilt before the return of the Christ. All I have been able to find is that it was prophesied that he would enter the temple on his return through the Eastern gate, ergo, there must be a temple to enter. The gate itself exists, but has been sealed up by the Muslims currently occupying the site.
If that is the only source of this belief, it appears somewhat tenuous. Does the Jewish faith teach any religious mandate for the rebuilding of the Temple, other than 'it was ours and we want it back!'?
..Babi
tooki
July 28, 2003 - 08:42 pm
Justin thought you folks would be interested in the Library at Alexanderia, destroyed for religious reasons:
The Library While I'm visiting, I think I'll comment. Babi's post 782 quoted from P. 133 about the "...defense of 'sacred space.'" Sacred spaces pose great problems in the United States. The Black Hills, the petroglyph, "She Who Watches" on the Columbia River, and areas around the Snake river in Idaho, to name just a few, are sacred spaces to Indians. These spaces are treated as archological digs, with little recognition of their sacredness. Cause for anger?
Bubble
July 29, 2003 - 08:41 am
A proper translation can mean so much, especially when remembering which language was spoken at the time.
Article in this weeks Newsweek that was banned in Pakistan!
Challenging the Qur’an
A German scholar contends that the Islamic text has been mistranscribed and promises raisins, not virgins
By Stefan Theil
NEWSWEEK INTERNATIONAL
ARGUING THAT TODAY’S version of the Qur’an has been mistranscribed from the original text, scholar Christoph Luxenberg says that what are described as “houris” with “swelling breasts” refer to nothing more than “white raisins” and “juicy fruits.”
Luxenberg—a pseudonym—is one of a small but growing group of scholars, most of them working in non-Muslim countries, studying the language and history of the Qur’an. When his new book is published this fall, it’s likely to be the most far-reaching scholarly commentary on the Qur’an’s early genesis, taking this infant discipline far into uncharted—and highly controversial—territory. That’s because Islamic orthodoxy considers the holy book to be the verbatim revelation of Allah, speaking to his prophet, Muhammad, through the Angel Gabriel, in Arabic. Therefore, critical study of God’s undiluted word has been off-limits in much of the Islamic world. (For the same reason, translations of the Qur’an are never considered authentic.) Islamic scholars who have dared ignore this taboo have often found themselves labeled heretics and targeted with death threats and violence. Luxenberg, a professor of Semitic languages at one of Germany’s leading universities, has chosen to remain anonymous because he fears a fatwa by enraged Islamic extremists.
Luxenberg’s chief hypothesis is that the original language of the Qur’an was not Arabic but something closer to Aramaic. He says the copy of the Qur’an used today is a mistranscription of the original text from Muhammad’s time, which according to Islamic tradition was destroyed by the third caliph, Osman, in the seventh century. But Arabic did not turn up as a written language until 150 years after Muhammad’s death, and most learned Arabs at that time spoke a version of Aramaic. Rereading the Paradise passage in Aramaic, the mysterious houris turn into raisins and fruit—much more common components of the Paradise myth.
The forthcoming book contains plenty of other bombshells. It claims that the Qur’an’s commandment for women to cover themselves is based on a similar misreading; in Sura 24, the verse that calls for women to “snap their scarves over their bags” becomes in Aramaic “snap their belts around their waists.” Even more explosive are readings that strengthen scholars’ views that the Qur’an had Christian origins. Sura 33 calls Muhammad the “seal of the prophets,” taken to mean the final and ultimate prophet of God. But an Aramaic reading, says Luxenberg, turns Muhammad into a “witness of the prophets”—i.e., someone who bears witness to the established Judeo-Christian texts. The Qur’an, in Arabic, talks about the “revelation” of Allah, but in Aramaic that term turns into “teaching” of the ancient Scriptures. The original Qur’an, Luxenberg contends, was in fact a Christian liturgical document—before an expanding Arab empire turned Muhammad’s teachings into the basis for its new religion long after the Prophet’s death Such interpretations will undoubtedly draw the ire of many Muslims—and not just extremists. After all, revisionist scholars have been persecuted for much less; in 2001, Egypt’s Constitutional Court confirmed the “apostasy” of former University of Cairo scholar Nasr Hamid Abu-Zayd, for considering the Qur’an a document written by humans.
Still, Luxenberg may be ushering in a whole new era of Qur’anic study. “Luxenberg’s findings are very relevant and convincing,” says Mondher Sfar, a Tunisian specialist on the historic origins of the Qur’an in exile in Paris. “They make possible a new interpretation of the Qur’an.” In the West, questioning the literal veracity of the Bible was a crucial step in breaking the church’s grip on power—and in developing a modern, secular society. That experience, as much as the questioning itself, is no doubt what concerns conservative Muslims as they struggle over the meaning and influence of Islam in the 21st century. But if Luxenberg’s work is any indication, the questioning is just getting underway.
BaBi
July 29, 2003 - 11:07 am
Tooki,..definitely cause for anger, considering the large number of protests and lawsuits that have been brought in defense of Native American sacred spaces.
Whooee!, Sea bubble. 'Luxenberg' has put the cat among the pigeons for sure, hasn't he? Have we any Aramaic/Arabic scholars around here?
Let's not forget we want to finish Kimball's book, tho. ...Babi
Persian
July 29, 2003 - 12:14 pm
Thanks, Bubble. Luxenberg's original article (in German, 2000) can be accessed via Google (The Qur'an in Aramaic) with multiple sites for more detailed information/discussion about the Arabic/Aramaic question.
I received a message from Charles Kimball this afternoon in which he apologizes for not being able to join our discussion due to am extremely heavy travel/lecture schedule, coupled with attending to the health of his 84 year old father. He sends his best wishes and still hopes to be able to join us sometime later in the discussion.
Éloïse De Pelteau
July 29, 2003 - 01:16 pm
Bubble, I feel that it is the case in several translations of the bible. The Hebrew alphabet having only 26? letters in their alphabet, and omit vowels, that would leave a lot of room for interpretation. Knowing several languages yourself, you know how difficult it is to translate a thought from one language to another as not only words are translated but with meaning you have to take into consideration folklore, religion, and culture.
Words have power.
A poster once said: "Religion Becomes Evil" when quoting this discussion. There is a world of difference between that and the real title: "When Religion Becomes Evil".
Bubble
July 29, 2003 - 01:27 pm
Eloise, English and French "only" have 26 letters including with vowels!
No, vowels, included or not, would make no difference in the interpretation because it is the root of the word which would show the meaning and vowels don't change that. From what I understand, the misunderstandings usually occured when the copist made a mistake or thought he was correcting a mistake in a previous version
Nowadays, apart from childrens book, the Bible is the only book printed with the vowels signs in it.
Bubble
Éloïse De Pelteau
July 29, 2003 - 01:40 pm
Bubble, sorry about the number I knew I should never mess with that!!!
It is the omission of vowers that seems strange to me.
Justin
July 29, 2003 - 02:13 pm
Luxemberg's thesis seems to explain the abundance of Biblical references in the Q'uran and particularly the Abrahamic connection. It would be nice if the Aramaic version destroyed by the Caliph were not the only copy. Research in this area is very new so there is much to come.
Luxemberg must be very careful with his identity. Remember Sal Rushdie's problems. Priests will stop at nothing to protect their cushy jobs.
Bobbiecee
July 30, 2003 - 07:16 am
Inappropriate translation of the Bible as well.
America is a religion http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1007741,00.html Reprinted in our The Age under the heading
The kingdom of America Bobbie
BaBi
July 30, 2003 - 08:14 am
On Bible translations, one also has to bear in mind that the monks who translated the Bible into English for King James did not have access to all the earlier documents available to more modern translators. A comparison of the King James with, for example, the excellent NIV shows many corrections that make a significant difference in the understanding of the passage. I continue to enjoy the KJV for the beauty of it's language, but I go to the NIV for study and better understanding. ...Babi
Éloïse De Pelteau
July 30, 2003 - 08:47 am
Bobbiecee, "America is a religion" is a powerful, interesting article.
MaryZ
July 30, 2003 - 09:44 am
Great article, Bobbiecee - thanks for the link.
Bobbiecee
July 30, 2003 - 11:04 am
Eloise and Mary......I read it several days ago in The Guardian, then yesterday in our newspapers, and have been feeling sick about it ever since as there's so much truth in it. I printed it out. The first person who read it, my neighbour, said 'It's demonic, machiavellian, Orwellian.' I took it to my political party meeting today, and they echoed what my neighbour said. It's frightening. I really can't see much difference between radical Islam and radical, evangelical christianity (notice the lack of capitalisation)as preached by the Neo-Cons.
Bobbie
BaBi
July 30, 2003 - 03:28 pm
I read the article Bobbiecee linked for us, and on careful reading I find it flawed and manipulative. It puts forth opinions as though they were facts. The writer associates direct quotes with other phrases, thereby attempting to include them by implication. He finds something diabolical in the use of biblical imagery by speech-makers. He takes an interesting view of historical developments over the centuries, giving them a unique slant. However, I have always found it best to be wary of 'slants'. The article puts me in mind of a fumarole.
Am I alone in this view of the article? ...Babi
Persian
July 30, 2003 - 04:24 pm
BABI - you've gone right to the heart of the issue - the style of writing seen in the article is the type that "leads" the reader to make negative assumptions, based on "slanting" - a style of writing that is coercive and depends on the general reader not paying close attention. In a general sense, it is uses a controversial theme, builds on the negativity associated with it, purports to derive conslutions from implied fact and leaves the reader either shaing their head in agreement (without having carefully reviewed the comments) or, as you did, carefully reflecting on what has been printed.
This style of writing is very common in non-democratic societies, where negativity about a topic (person or organization or method) is the overall point, but without stating that in the article. The "blame someone else" (or something else) is a common thread in this type of writing (as is often incorporated into Washington-style politics).
Refering to America as "a religion" is ridiculous to anyone who truly understands American culture - NOT only the political aspsects of this society, but the depth and soul of the Nation. Ameirca is indeed unique in the world, but NOT because it is a religion, but for many reasons. Anyone who has been incarcerated in a foreign country, tortured or frightened by death threats and comes to the USA will attest to the basic fundamental values of freedom in America.
Certainly, there are many things that need to be fixed in this country - starting right here near my own home in the metropolitan Washington DC area - but for those who have traveled widely (especially in the developing world), it is good to be home. And it is damned good to be an American!
Malryn (Mal)
July 30, 2003 - 04:47 pm
George Monbiot is a British journalist and social crusader who, like many others in this world, thinks that the world is going to be swallowed up by the United States of America.
I seldom read anything without questioning what the book or article says, and doing enough research to convince myself whether the stand taken by the author is reasonable or whether it is not. Much of what Monbiot writes in his articles is true.
As an adult I have often thought that United States politicians ally themselves much too closely with God. "God is on our side." It's a very convenient umbrella for any number of things. I feel that way now more than I ever did, and very much object to hearing the President of the United States call attacking another country a "Crusade" and I object to hearing politicians excuse what we do in the name of righteousness.
It's my belief that people in the U.S. should take another look at the idea that we are somehow the God-given saviours of the world who should convert other nations to our philosophies and beliefs. We aren't and shouldn't, and that's all there is to that. Ancient Greece tried it, and look what happened to that civilization. I'm glad to be an American, too, and would hate to see this civilization go down the drain because our leaders think they have God-bestowed rights the way the Ancient Greeks did.
More about George Monbiot, an interview
Persian
July 30, 2003 - 06:10 pm
MAL - I agree with you that as Americans we should not view ourselves (or our elected leadership) as God-given saviors. But on the other hand, I believe that we also have a responsibility to try and stop (or lessen) the evil that is perpetrated by individuals like Sadam Hussein. Not in the name of religion, nor in the sense that we are "Crusaders," but because it is the right thing to do as human beings, trying to help those who are less fortunate and certainly more vulnerable. And although American democracy works well for us (most of the time), it certainly is not for every country in the world. Monbiot is an interesting journalist, but one that must be read carefully.
Justin
July 30, 2003 - 11:40 pm
The message of Monbiot, despite his deviousness, can be found in the last sentence of the article. "Those who seek to drag heaven down to earth are destined to engineer a hell." He clearly thinks the US is conducting a "crusade" as a "National Divinity".
We ARE acting like a savior and some argue that the role of savior is an appropriate one for the United States. We entered Irag because GB said they were a threat to our peace and freedom. But Iraq was not a threat to the US. There were no WMD. Now he says, Saddam was evil and that was enough justification for us to declare war. That response makes the US a savior. In payment, we will let the Iraqis sell us oil and we will use the proceeds to pay for rebuilding Iraq. Bechtel and Halliburton, the Vice President's companies will do the rebuilding. The American GI's who conducted the war contributed their blood to the transaction. In retrospect, this is what happened. However, I think GB honestly thought Saddam had WMD and planned to use them or sell them to a high bidder. When it turned out there were no WMD, GB had egg on his face. So he went to plan B.
Unfortunately, GB is an evangelist, so he makes every decision sound like a biblical exercise. He may be gullible in that respect only because he used religion to help him get away from the booze. He thinks he owes the priesthood a debt of gratitude so he pays them with appropriate phrases and an occasional bone. Unfortunately, the bones he throws them cost women their dignity and their basic political rights. He will have the gals chained to the sink again before he is through. That I regret, but lots of women voted for him.
Bobbiecee
July 31, 2003 - 04:05 am
As an ex-American, now a citizen of a country which is being threatened, coerced and blackmailed by the Bush administration, I can assure you that from down under, the article makes sense. Aussies have always be pro-American in the past. However, we want to remain a sovereign country, not be the victim of bullying. Consequently, I now watch my elocution carefully, and if, when tired, I slip, because I'm considered a nice person, people are kind and ask if I'm from Canada, and I say......."Mmmmm.......I've been an Australian citizen for years.' Unless you're really into reading international newspapers, you probably wouldn't see what's happening here and throughout the world. Unfortunately those of us who are being bullied are experiencing it. For the first time ever, I feel ashamed, rather than proud, of my country of origin.
Bobbie
MalrynF
July 31, 2003 - 06:57 am
I do read some international newspapers and articles by journalists in other countries who are not American. What Bobbie says is right. The United States is viewed as a bully more often than not. I had my first taste of that view when a Canadian woman posted in one of Robby Iadeluca's discussions a while ago. I didn't like what she said, so did some research and found that what she was saying was accurate, much to my chagrin.
I hasten to say here that Alcoholics Anonymous, a group to which the American president belongs or belonged because of his serious addiction to alcohol, is not a religious program and has no affiliation with any religion. Mr. Bush's evangelism, as Justin called it, did not come from AA.
What bothers me very much, among other things, is that women are part of a group of people who are being hurt by things done by the present administration. We are being bullied, too, and I resent it very much.
It is not just women here in this country who are being hurt. Decisions made here are hurting women in other parts of the world.
There are other things which bother me about the current administration. At one point when invasion of another country by the U.S. was imminent, I posted in another discussion that I was ashamed to be called an American. I was jumped on by other participants, but there is no reason I can think of that jusitifies pre-emptive invasion or attack except self-defense.
Despite the fact that Saddam Hussein is a mass murderer, no amount of talk without proof will convince me that Iraq had anything to do with the September 11, 2001 attack here in this country. I was horrified when pictures of his dead sons were allowed to be published all over the world. That seemed like a violation of everything I was taught to think Americans believe.
There is an article which relates to our government's decision to invade Iraq rather than going after Osama bin Laden and the Al Quaeda by Bob Herbert in today's New York Times called Dying in Iraq.
Is it evil when a country's leaders use religious beliefs to justify killing of innocent people, including its own? We say yes when it comes to Muslim countries, and we say no when it comes to our own.
I wish I had this book. I'd like to know what Charles Kimball says about this.
Mal
Persian
July 31, 2003 - 11:45 am
BOBBIE - I appreciate your discomfort with your country of origin. I've run into that several times as I've traveled overseas. IMO, it is the hypocrisy of our leadership in Washington which bothers me the most. With a son on the ground in Iraq, I tend to hear first-hand about some of the stress and one of the major issues is "the convoluted nonsense from Washington."
MAL - many of us share your concern about publication of the photos of the deceased Hussein sons. However, purely from the standpoint of convincing the Iraqi public (which does not make it morally right by a long shot!), the pictures were published. I had a flagged email from my son before I saw the photos on TV. His message began "Mom, this is NOT right morally, but necessary for the local citizens to help alleviate their fear of the Ba'athists returning to power."
BaBi
July 31, 2003 - 12:09 pm
I apparently have missed something in the political scene (which is not surprising). Justin and Malryn have both referred to Bush policies injurious to women's rights. Please tell me what that is about; I know nothing of it.
Malryn, I can't help thinking that we did not know about the wholesale murder of the Jewish people in Germany when we entered that war. If we had known, would you still maintain that we should have done nothing until we were personally attacked?
As for America being perceived as a bully, I believe the historians among us would agree that the leading power of the world... England, Spain, Roman,whatever.... is always perceived as the bully. When I compare America with the expansionist, Empire-building rule of these earlier powers, I think America stands as a marvel of respect for the liberty of others.
...Babi
MalrynF
July 31, 2003 - 01:46 pm
MAHLIA, I thought you said showing the pictures of Saddam Hussein's sons went against what is believed in Islam? Those pictures reminded me of the pictures of Mussolini after he was killed in World War II. Whether the person concerned is an international criminal or not, the practice of showing such photographs, for whatever reason, is barbaric, and I deplore such representations of the United States' downward slide on the road to barbarism.
BABI, freedom of choice for women is seriously threatened by the current administration; $34,000,000 has been withdrawn by the U.S. from the UN Population Fund, grants for maternal and child health have been cut in this country, a gag rule has been put on prenatal clinics, embryos could be granted "personhood", even to the point of receiving aid from the federal government. There's more. All you have to do to learn about this is go to Google Search Engine and type in "Bush women's rights" and you'll be able to see what Justin and I are talking about. If this kind of thing continues, women will be forced to go back to the male-dominated, pregnant in the summer, barefoot in the winter ways we fought so hard for so many years to overcome.
Liberian leaders have killed more of their people than the Saddam Hussein regime did in Iraq. Except for oil, why didn't we go after them? Why isn't well-developed alternative fuel use promoted in this country? It's available and cheap. There seems always to be an ulterior motive for our going into countries and "emancipating" the people of those countries.
Our leaders knew about the massacre of Jews in Germany and did nothing about it when we entered World War II. They certainly were not going in to rescue Jews from annihilation before that time if they did nothing when the chance of saving some people's lives was possible.
Discrimination against Jews has gone on since the Ancient Greeks discriminated against them because the Jewish religion was different from
theirs. Why should Americans in the late 30's and 40's be any different from people who lived 2500 years before that time and 500 years before Christianity came into being?
I remember as a young girl seeing a photograph in Life Magazine I'll never forget of lampshades made from the skin of Jews who had been gassed during the Holocaust for all Americans to see while we sat on our hands. The line between civilization and barbarism is very, very thin.
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
July 31, 2003 - 03:20 pm
Perhaps I am off topic here by referring to the book, "When Religion Becomes Evil" and referring to the author Kimball but I note that he asks on Page 171
"How does one know the will of God? The answer begins as we've noted earlier, with God's revelation, the Qur'an. The sacred scripture in Islam includes a great deal about love, justice, compassion, and other virtues....The Islamic self-understanding is that all three religions are dirct results of the same revelation God had given through many prophets and messengers."So if I am understanding this correctly, God has said exactly the same thing in ALL "sacred" texts. Yes? No?
Robby
Justin
July 31, 2003 - 04:50 pm
Not so Robby. The message may be the same in all three texts but it is not a message of love. The god of the OT drove the Jews to invade, pillage and destroy other peoples. He was unforgiving and vengeful. The God of the NT punishes even his son in the most cruel manner. Muhammad, invaded his neighbors while killing and pillaging as he went. I don't see much love in this God. The pattern started with Abraham who willingly took a knife to his own son on the command of this God. Never mind that the act was aborted, the evil was in the order. Even today, if one does not obey this God, the recalcitrant will be punished in hell.
robert b. iadeluca
July 31, 2003 - 05:44 pm
So it IS the same message.Robby
Persian
July 31, 2003 - 06:05 pm
MAL - of course showing the pictures of the deceased was barbaric, but then so is war. The decision was made after discussion about what would convince the Iraqi civilians that the Hussein brothers were indeed dead. War changes many things, including what is normal societal behavior. I'm not defending the decision, only stating that I can understand it (without condoning it), considering the situation in Iraq.
"Liberian leaders have killed more of their people than the Saddam Hussein regime did in Iraq. I'm not aware of the stats in this context, but certainly there has been ongoing conflict and mass murders throughout the African continent (not just Liberia) for many years - during the time of many American presidencies. This is not new and the case of America immediately reallocating troops to Liberia because it was founded by free slaves from the USA (a point mentioned in many media broadcasts) doesn't quite make it a top priority.
I think we are all aware that the Washington leadership is in trouble; decisive information has not been shared (as it should be) with the American people in a timely fashion; mistakes in judgement have occurred repeatedly - high level officials contradicting themselves and military commanders in the field, as well as elected Congressional representatives. The good news today is that Poindexter is out of the Pentagon loop (should have happened long ago). And perhaps "fences can be mended" (to use GB's cowboy rhetoric) with the UN.
Most of the women I know in our age group have been fighting for womens; rights since they were teenagers. The young women of today have that history behind their efforts. They're smart and I have a lot of confidence in them - thanks to their own initiatives and sense of what is right, as well as the manner in which they've been raised.
Yes, there is still massive discrimination and abuse against women in the USA, but there is also much stronger support and opportunities for women than when I was a teenager oh so long ago. Their voices are heard; they're not silenced so easily. Young American women are fighters in their own right - not only for themselves, but for those of both genders who cannot fight for and defend or support themselves.
I give them a lot of credit.
As far as organized response is concerned, we Americans know the way to Congress's door; we know how to get in touch with our elected officials; we know how to make our voices heard. That the futures market scheme based on investing in what/when terrorist acts will occur was hatched, hit the news, withdrawm and Poindexter resigned happened in 48 hours shows how quickly Americans CAN make their voices heard and bring about change.
Now . . . where are we in the Kimball discussion?
ROBBY - So if I am understanding this correctly, God has said exactly the same thing in ALL "sacred" texts. Yes? No?
Since the God of Abraham is NOT the god of "all sacred texts," the answer is No. But the key in your inquiry is really ". . . that God had given to many prophets and messengers" - which obviously brings into play the human factor. And we all know that where humans are concerned, things can go wrong, laws are misinterpreted (whether deliberately or not), words, sentences and phrases are misconstrued - translations from one language to another (or even from one dialect to another) can color the meaning in a much different way than the original message.
In other words, from the ancient period to today, people of all ethnicities and religions have regarded their own intersts first. When it suited them, they complied with their religious doctrines.
When it did not suit them for whatever reason, they "colored" the meaning or discarded the original all together. But always insisting that their way was the correct way.
georgehd
July 31, 2003 - 07:43 pm
I think that this is a crucial exchange in our discussion.
"ROBBY - So if I am understanding this correctly, God has said exactly the same thing in ALL "sacred" texts. Yes? No?
Since the God of Abraham is NOT the god of "all sacred texts," the answer is No. But the key in your inquiry is really ". . . that God had given to many prophets and messengers" - which obviously brings into play the human factor. And we all know that where humans are concerned, things can go wrong, laws are misinterpreted (whether deliberately or not), words, sentences and phrases are misconstrued - translations from one language to another (or even from one dialect to another) can color the meaning in a much different way than the original message.
"In other words, from the ancient period to today, people of all ethnicities and religions have regarded their own intersts first. When it suited them, they complied with their religious doctrines. When it did not suit them for whatever reason, they "colored" the meaning or discarded the original all together. But always insisting that their way was the correct way."
It is important to note IMO that God does not say anything. Men have written the sacred texts. Men have carried on the oral tradition. By invoking the "word of God" men try to absolve themselves of responsibility for our actions.
Justin
July 31, 2003 - 09:22 pm
Well said, George.
Bobbiecee
August 2, 2003 - 04:00 am
I was so distressed after reading a post which seemed to approve of the bullying, I couldn’t come back until now. I rang cousins in the US & American cousins who migrated here. It’ depressing, realising many American’s really don’t understand. My cousins said it’s that many don’t know, don’t understand…..their words: ‘insulated, ignorant of what is really happening, & naiviety. We, in Australia, in the world, have been hoping that enough American’s would see what’s happening, in their country, in the world, that they’d vote Bush out, before we’re overwhelmed in fascist-style rule. It’s important for Americans tool, as the Bush regime is gradually chipping away at your democracy….the democracy that initially made the US great, an example to the world. MAL, thanks for understanding, for reading international newspapers. Hopefully, you’re one enlightened Americans who can lead others to understanding, what’s happening in your country, in the world. Yes, women’s rights are being taken away from you, as are the rights of all but a small group of the wealthy.
Return to the topic…when religion becomes evil….a prime example…the Bush regime. The Neo-Cons started their push for with Reagan, then Nixon. When Nixon was impeached, they went underground, but kept planning, and waiting. It was essential that they get Bush elected so they could institute their plans……NPAC. And why Bush? Because he was a radical evangelical Christian. They instituted their planning with the Clinton-Lewinsky saga…..drawing on latent American Puritanism. They lost the election, but with pressure and money, Bush was ‘elected.’ They completed NPAC, and finalised in March ’01. However, Bush wasn’t popular so they were stymied…….until 9/11. They had the intel prior to 9/11, but quashed it. Perhaps they didn’t know how great the devastation would be, but they knew that attacks would work to their advantage. The day of the attack, Cheney went into hiding, with Wolfowitz, Perle, etc, and while the nation was grieving, they formulated their plans, and encouraged Bush to push his evangelical religion. American people were understandably in shock from that severe trauma. Cheney, et al, planned a complete program of brainwashing, thought control…..and the attack on Iraq in order to commence the plan for world domination. Meanwhile, Bush was to push evangelical religion…..encourage more traumatised Americans to join evangelical churches , ch stressing Old Testament and Revelations, rather than New Testament.
The program of thought manipulation…..making‘liberal’ a dirty word, criticism of the government ‘unpatriotic,’ un-American,’ even ‘traitorous.’ The importance of flag-waving ‘patriotism’ (nationalism). They first chose weak and war-ravaged Afghanistan to ensure this, then Iraq and oil. They ‘won’ in Afghanistan (even though the Taliban is now taking over there, with US assistance and monies), then turned the focus to Iraq……propaganda, which convinced the American people, all lies. Meanwhile, in the US, more and more people joined evangelical churches, because their President pushed those radical, and IMO, really non-Christian-type sects, which stressed retribution, revenge, and Armageddon…..the evil (Islamic) vs good (evangelical Christian). Interesting the the radical Islamics are stressing the same thing, with the evil Big Satan (Bush and his evangelical Christians, the good being Allah. The Neo-Cons, including Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Libby, etc, are using Bush as their mouthpiece, their puppet, the person who can encourage Americans to join and believe in the radical evangelical sects. Where religion has turned evil.
MAL, you are right. What Bush is espousing, his evangelical beliefs, is totally against the AA program. Bush is no longer in AA. You would know that it’s dangerous for recovering substance abusers to join fanatical evangelical sects. Instead of the concepts of humility, forgiveness, etc, the dry drunk who joins fanatical sects becomes vengeful and revengeful, believes he is all powerful, goes into total control, obsessive-compulsive behaviour, and lies without conscience, etc. The Neo-Cons are using a manipulating Bush, encouraging these ‘character defects.’
The Neo-Con brains are manipulating Bush, while Bush manipulates the many evangelicals in the country (around50% according to one poll), encouraging invasion and occupation of other countries, their fascist world domination strategies. They’ll manipulate the American people against that country, while US troops are still dying in Iraq daily, prior to the ’04 election, in order to put them in a numbed, ‘patriotic’ and flag-waving mood, which also means, no criticism of the Bush regime. In between, they’ll announce ‘terrorist alerts’ to raise fear levels and lower criticism levels. Some may think it doesn’t matter if we ‘lesser’ countries become subject to the US fascist regime. Don’t believe it! Your Constitution is being eroded, your rights are being eroded, and as MAL pointed out, women’s rights are already eroded, and will get worse. It will be White Male Supremacy…..but only rich white males, the other’s won’t count. Your media’s been controlled for 2 years. I see what you’re being fed on your ABC and CBS. Shocking! American’s who see what is going on, like MAL, are being jumped on for daring to criticise the Bush administration.
I read, and occasionally participate in the US political folders. Those Americans who see what is happening are called unpatriotic, un-American, traitors, and worse, members of al-Qaeda. Free speech is being eroded. If the Bush regime, controlled and manipulated by the Neo-Cons succeeds in their plan for world domination, they will rule the world with fascist control. Where Hitler failed, they hope to succeed. They have taken a large number of strategies from Mein Kampf. Skull and Bones, a necessary membership for the ‘IN’ group, was founded in Germany, originally fascist. Bush is pushing evangelical Christianity but also encouraging worship of the President… religious fervour for the man who gets his orders to attack and invade other countries, direct from God. How many Americans believe that. Quite a few, I’d say. Check out Mein Kampf, how Hitler and his ‘neo-cons’ manipulated the German people. Not much difference. Bush and his Neo-Cons have the advantage of pushing evangelical religion to get the fervour which Hitler’s rallies produced.
The rest of the world sees what is going on, but we don’t have the military strength to fight the Neo-Con fascism. We’re battling, havefought against the American Ambassador’s interferance with our politics, our Parliament. We all have one hope, that enough American people will wake up and vote Bush out, realising what the regime is doing, that you’re losing your democracy. I don’t expect the evangelicals to ‘wake up’ but I do hope the rest of the American’s do. IMO, an evil plan….designed to destroy American democracy, to think of all but the wealthy few men in America, in the world, as ‘expendable,’ the same way that they consider the young American’s in the military in Iraq as expendable. What the rest of the world does know is that even though we may be bullied, the US fascist regime will not be able to totally destroy our democracies until democracy in the US is destroyed. Therefore, every time we see another Constitutional right taken away in the US, we cringe, every time we see more American’s succumbing to the religious/ patriotic fervour, the melding of religion and state, Bush using ‘Jesus Christ’ in his speeches rather that ‘God’ we cringe, knowing that we’re one step closer to losing our independence, our democracies, under the Neo-Con evangelical Christian/fascism. Yes, when religion becomes evil.
Bobbie
robert b. iadeluca
August 2, 2003 - 04:38 am
I hope you folks don't mind if I move away from the political topics. (I am interested in political points of view but follow them in other Senior Net discussion groups which are set up for that purpose).
As regards the theme of this forum -- as it says in the Heading, talking about books -- may I share another quote by Kimball. He says on Page 183 that "the only intelligent way forward is the route laid out by authentic religion. We must be peacemakers. Yet working for peace and justice is exceedingly difficult. Passivity, isolationism, wishful thinking or holding hands, lighting candles, and singing 'We Are the World' may provide an illusion of peace, but hard work in the dense thicket of the particulars is required."
I am wondering if anyone here can share examles, either in the recent past or distant past, where peace was achieved by "hard work." I am having difficulty bringing up any in my mind.
Robby
georgehd
August 2, 2003 - 05:29 am
I have a few links that should be of interest to the group. Here is a new book on Mormon fundamentalism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/03/books/review/03WRIGHTT.html Another on the controversial Mel Gibson movie about the death of Jesus.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/02/national/02GIBS.html?hp And a third link to a new book on Genesis and bioethics which is very interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/02/arts/02SHEL.html?pagewanted=1 And lastly, after reading Robbie's post, I immediately thought of Martin Luther King as someone who worked for peace through his religious beliefs. Gandhi also comes to mind.
Éloïse De Pelteau
August 2, 2003 - 05:31 am
Robby, Thanks for quoting from the book as not everybody has it.
Just like in a family, peace in the world is hard to come by and nobody notices it because a state of peace is too precious to discuss at length and the media certainly will not use space for good news.
I wonder we hardly ever hear of what goes on in a peaceful country. Switzerland is a small country but it is not too small for discontent yet hardly a Swiss ever conplains about anything. I am quite sure that it is not because there is nothing to complain about. They have athiests, agnostics, religious groups of every kind, homosexuals, young and old, 3 official languages, yet we seldom year about what goes on in Switzerland. Their press coverage is not sentional and when problem occurs at their borders, they have quick unyielding methods of dealing with it. They are content and if they were unhappy about their government, they are free to vote it out of office.
In spite of the difficulties of our two languages, I think Canada is a peaceful country. Our neighbor to the South is friendly and cooperative and we seem to always find a solution to our mutual problems. Nothing is perfect but if we need to live in peace, we must make the effort to only criticize in a constructive way.
Eloïse
Bobbiecee
August 2, 2003 - 05:48 am
Thanks for your links, George. Jesus Christ preached peace. I have a red letter version of the Bible, and adhere to his preachings, peace, and love one another as God loves you. I do NOT adhere to either the Jewish or the evangelical religionists philosophy of 'an eye for an eye' or for the concept of Armageddon through World War III, nuclear anniliation, as encouraged by the evangelicals.
Eloise, we have tried to be a peaceful country,....for years, like Canada, another Commonwealth country. Unfortunately, we are being drawn in to Bush's wars. Jesus talks peace. The Muslims in Australia talk peace as per the Koran, the peaceful portions of it which relate to the peaceful portions of the New Testament. I have several Muslim friends and we share the peaceful portions of both the Koran and the New Testament.
Bobbie
MalrynF
August 2, 2003 - 07:14 am
I'd like to say here that there are some of us who have been -- and are -- anonymous faces in non-violent protests against war and injustice in the world. There are some of us who have been -- and are -- quietly working for what I call "Peace through Reason, Enlightenment and Education". We try to open the minds and eyes of people to other people whose religions and beliefs are different from theirs.
What we do is not splashed over media outlets
because we are nameless and anonymous. We start in our own homes, with our children, our grandchildren, our neighbors and friends. Nations and religions are made up of people. We work with and for people.
There is a Lakota saying which is:
Mitakuye Oyasin
Mitakuye Oyasin means "We are all related."
Think about it.
Mal
Bobbiecee
August 2, 2003 - 07:43 am
Good on you, Malryn.....You give me renewed faith and hope in the intelligence and sanity of the 'grass root' people in my country of origin. In fact, I feel so moved by your post that I feel tearful.
Bobbie
BaBi
August 2, 2003 - 08:36 am
Thanks, Robbbie, for moving us back toward Kimball. I would have to say that the United Nations has attempted to act as peacemakers, tho' with limited success. Trygve Lie comes to mind as a peacemaker. Jimmy Carter's efforts at Camp David. Organizations like 'Doctors Without Borders".
Thank you, Malryn, for the Lakota saying. I agree with that bit of wisdom. It would be nice if we could remember that families can quarrel and brothers fall out, but they are still family. They are not "other" than ourselves. ..Babi
Justin
August 2, 2003 - 10:36 pm
I was not aware that significant numbers of people in countries in the Commonwealth, particularly those down under, felt put upon by the US and the Bush Administration. I know that Bush was looking for International support for his policies in Afghanistan and Irag. Germany and France thought he was full of baloney. I feel put upon because he lied to us about WMD. That lie has cost us 151 American lives. Blair bought into that argument and may pay for his gullibility. I occasionaly read the Economist and that pub gives me some feel for current attitudes in the Commonwealth but I have had no indication of the kind of anger you exhibit in your post, Bobbie.
Bush has been waging war on women. We knew that was his policy before the election. Women voted for him in droves. When the Supreme Court chose him, I knew it was all over for the ladies. They did not understand what the election was all about. Susan B. Anthony and her crusade was a thing of the past. She gave her gender the vote and they thanked her by ignoring the right.
Some of the things the gals have lost include Millions of dollars for family planning withheld from the UN Population fund...the gag rule reinstated...embryos declared to be children under the law...abortion equated with terrorism...stem cell research limited...emergency contraception opposed...Medical funding for family planning slashed...Abstinance only programs promoted...Anti-abortion judges appointed...clinic violence unchecked...
tooki
August 3, 2003 - 06:18 am
This article is written from the point of view that the killing, and subsequent display, of Saddam's sons served a vivid purpose given Iraq's harsh realities.
Points of View This article is brutal, but so is the war in Iraq.
tooki
August 3, 2003 - 09:01 am
Does getting the United States out of Vietman count? I worked hard for some years at helping to bring this about by changing peoples' minds. I'd like to think it counted for something.
Persian
August 3, 2003 - 01:09 pm
Here is a link to an interesting article in today's edition of the Washington Post describing how diverse religions in the USA adapt their teaching to Americans customs in a posive way - especially during summer camps - and ease their children into a better understanding of how to respond to negative comments about their religious customs and traditions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15588-2003Aug2.htmlBaBi
August 3, 2003 - 01:11 pm
JUSTIN, I believe embryos were declared to be children by a Tennessee judge with no guidelines to go by, as the Supreme Court has steadfastly refused to rule on the question. It's not clear to me how the Tennessee judges decision got to be a Bush assault on women. Other than that, I see references to 'opposed' and 'promoted' issues, which means they are still unsettled. There has been limitation of funds in many areas, some of which I don't like and some I do. Malryn also made reference to funds that were cut whose connection to women-bashing was unclear to me. I felt it would take too long a diversion to follow it up. I look at all this and I simply do not feel in the least threatened. Laura Bush hardly seems repressed to me.
Are we finished discussing "When Religion Becomes Evil"? Some of the issues being raised here could use a format of their own and extensive investigation. In the Political area, perhaps.
I have some information on the Bishop of Milan and John Chrysostom, if we get that far. Amazing that both of these men were later canonized as saints, and the article on them in the Encarta Encyclopedia makes no mention whatsoever of their anti-Jewish diatribes. These men would not have been heeded before the 4th century. We should take a close look at what happened to change that. ...Babi
BaBi
August 3, 2003 - 01:18 pm
MAHLIA, how intriguing to find that story used by a Hindu teacher. I first read it in a Christian publication, tho' I believe the Hindu teacher modernized it with the addition of the video games. :>)
The point it makes is so universal, and so important. ...Babi
Joan Pearson
August 3, 2003 - 02:48 pm
We are sorry to report that Ann Alden, the DL for this discussion, ran into complications following her surgery in July. We are hopeful that she will return soon. In the meantime, this discussion will remain as READ ONLY, which means that you may reread the posts, but we'll wait for Ann's return before opening to further comment. Thanks, everyone.
Ann Alden
November 26, 2003 - 09:35 am
We will return to discussing here on Dec 1. Hope to see all who here before.
Ann Alden
December 1, 2003 - 07:02 am
Well, I don't know where everyone who posted in here went but lets try to get back to this book and see where the author takes us.
From the previous chapter, I will quote Mr Gandhi:
I never dreamed I could win merely through my effort or assisted on by Hindus. I stand in need of assistance of Muslims, Parsis(Zoroastrians) Christians, Sikhs, Jewss and all other Indians. I need the assistance of even the Englishmen. But I know too that all of this combined assistance is worthless if I have not one other assistance that is from God. All is vain without His Help. All is vain without His Help.
Another point of the author is made when he observes that "the end justifies the means" is a warning sign of failure of a particular request.
When participants take up a particular call to action with no compassionate constructive relationships with their neighbors, are they bending the rules of a "just action"? Do the Crusades come to mind, when one speaks of the end justifying the means?
When Jesus picks wheat and heals the sick on the Sabbath, he breaks the law. HIs response to the authorities when they challenge his actions is, "The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath". Jesus means that although we all need the sacred space of the Sabbath, the observation of it, does not mean that we ignore needs of others. And that we should be asking ourselves to what end are we progressing when we don't help the needy or we fail to feed the hungry just because its the Sabbath. I believe the Jewish faith in the Conservative branch requires its people not even to turn on a light, pick up a toy or branch or even cook. Some of what I consider basic living, they do not do on their Sabbath. Perhaps we need to stick to Jesus command to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves.
Lou2
December 1, 2003 - 07:49 am
Thanks, Ann, for coming back into this discussion. I'm still so deep into Gandhi I haven't gone looking for Evil... so will take care of that this morning and give the chapter and your post a "look see".
Lou
Ann Alden
December 1, 2003 - 07:51 am
Having just read the autobiography of Gandhi, I am reminded of his struggle to always focus on his goals. The quote above from one of his many speeches refers to his constant plea for nonviolent 'soul force' or satyagraha. He was committed to treating everyone including the British with love and compassion, trusting that God's truth would prevail.
So now we come to Chapter 6 where the author reminds us of the 'jihad' of Osama bin Laden. And, right away, he makes us aware of the true meaning of the word, 'jihad'. The meaning of 'jihad' is not 'holy war' but 'struggling or struggling in the way of God'. When 'jihad' is referred to by the faithful in the Islam world, they are speaking of their own personal struggles to walk in the way of God according to their holy book, the Q'uran. And, most of us have had a struggle in our lives to reach our goals. Many of us follow the Old Testament or the New but the simple rules are the same in both books.
Ann Alden
December 1, 2003 - 07:54 am
Thanks for coming back, Lou2. Yes, I understand the magnetism of Gandhi and since our author quotes him, I feel like we can just carry one discussioin over to the other. Gandhi is wonderful example of nonviolence but still accomplishing one's goals.
The problem will be when I get a copy of "Midnight" which I am awaiting at my library.
GingerWright
December 1, 2003 - 08:16 am
I recieved this in email and thought it belongs in when Religion becomes Evil.
On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the
Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to
address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our
national Leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully
truthful. They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it
received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every
politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called
expert!
These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating,
and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice
crying in the wilderness. The following is a portion of the transcript:
"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts
of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of
violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the
deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must
not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers."
"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out
in the field. The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the NCA,
the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for
the murder could only be found in Cain's heart."
"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how
quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a
member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not
here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are
responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they
need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's
murder I would be their strongest opponent."
"I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was
a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame
lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies
behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves."
"I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best. This
was written before I knew I would be speaking here today:"
"Your laws ignore our deepest needs, Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage, You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms, And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere, And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws, Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand, That God is what we need!"
"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, soul, and
spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we
create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak
havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for
most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as
theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us
as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the
doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's
tragedy occurs - politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the
NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to
erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more
restrictive laws."
"Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount
of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of
massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts. Political posturing
and restrictive legislation are not the answers. The young people of our
nation hold the key. There is a spiritual awakening taking place that will
not be squelched! We do not need more religion. We do not need more gaudy
television evangelists spewing out verbal religious garbage. We do not need
more million dollar church buildings built while people with basic needs
are being ignored. We do need a change of heart and a humble acknowledgment
that this nation was founded on the principle of simple trust in God!"
"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two
friends murdered before his very eyes - He did not hesitate to pray in
school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right!
I challenge every young person in America, and around the world, to realize
that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to
our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in
vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for
legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To
those of you who would point your finger at the NRA - I give to you a
sincere challenge. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first
stone! My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this
country will not allow that to happen!"
Do what the media did not - - let the nation hear this man's speech.
Lou2
December 1, 2003 - 10:13 am
Ginger, thanks so much for this!! What a wonderful loving father to be able to seperate his feelings from his intellect in order to be able to deliver this message.
Lou
Ann Alden
December 1, 2003 - 10:14 am
Yes, a big thank you, Ginger. I lost my copy of this so am emailing this one to me!
kiwi lady
December 1, 2003 - 10:37 am
As a furriner I have to say I don't understand the American fascination with guns and I have to say that since we outlawed Military styled weapons we have had no repeat of the two massacres we had more than a decade ago. Gun laws here are strict and even among the criminal faction we have few shootings although since the drug trade took hold here they are more frequent. I don't believe gun toting and Christianity go together another thing I don't understand about the American culture.
I do agree that since they took Bible teaching out of schools we as a society have lost our way.
Carolyn
GingerWright
December 1, 2003 - 12:10 pm
It trully touched my heart as you can tell.
Ann, I loved it so Very much that I have saved it.
Lou2
December 1, 2003 - 01:09 pm
Ann, Thank you again for reopening this discussion. I just finished re-reading chapter 6... Declaring Holy War. I had forgotten what a wonderful, disturbing book this is. Kimball gives much food for thought when he mentions all the support the US has given her now enemies... The phrase The enemy of my enemy is my friend... I just read that phrase recently and can't for the life of me remember where???? Certainly, this chapter calls to mind Gandhi's 7 points of view...
I found the just peacemaking paradigm wonderful. I'm so glad to know folks are working on this.
Lou
GingerWright
December 1, 2003 - 02:23 pm
When does too much knowledge become "evil"? Perhaps it is not knowledge that is evil but the people who use it and how?
Persian
December 1, 2003 - 09:49 pm
Or perhaps the PERCEPTION which individuals, communities, cultures have of knowledge. For example within Islam there is general understanding that the Prophet Mohamed discouraged the representation of the human or animal form. Thus in many devout communities, there will be beautiful, abstract art, but not paintings of individuals or animals.
Yet in many of the books on Arabic and Persian literature, richly colorful pictures accompany the text. And, today in Iraq, as the Shia religious communities begin to come into their own (as the majority in the country), one sees numerous large posters of the Martyrs Hussein and Ali (relatives of the Prophet and his heirs). To a conservative, traditional eye this is against Islam, yet to the younger genereation of Muslims it is a practical and appreciated reminder that these posters were absolutely forbidden by Sadaam (let alone by Islam). So perceptions of age-old rules are interpreted differently.
Another example: For generations, polygamy was not practiced as often as it has been recently in Islamic countries. When polygamy was approved in Islam (during its early years) it was primarily to provide a legal way to take care of the thousands of widows and children who were left destitute during the many wars at that time. In the Christian West, polygamy has always been misunderstood and associated primarily with sex, rather than protection for women. And certainly there have been Muslims who have taken addvantage of it in that manner. But the original purpose was for protection.
Speaking before Congress is a daunting task, yet the Father who did so displayed the bravery and love for his daughter that can only be applauded at such a tragic time. And his son's prayers underneath the table in a classroom which was the scene of such horror can only be understood as the natural reaction - the ONLY reaction - for a Believer.
As a former teacher I have often wondered why, instead of being outraged by symbols of religious belief in public schools, our curriculum simply doesn't include comparative relgiion so that ALL can learn about each other's beliefs and resepct them. One does NOT have to be a Believer to respect the traditions of others; nor does one have to look with contempt upon the symbols of the religion of others. Respect will do it!
No, I do not think that too much knowledge is a bd thing, but the way in which it is used seems to be more of a key point. Whether knowledge is used for one's own appreciation, success, advancement, etc. OR whether that knowledge is shared - as in teaching, training using one's ability (coupled with knowledge and traing) for the betterment of others. Knowledge itself is not bad, but our human foibles seem to get in the way too often.
georgehd
December 2, 2003 - 05:42 am
Ann (your post 628) - There are three or four branches in Judaism. The Orthodox group is the one that prohibits any kind of work on the Sabbath. Thus Orthodox Jews do not press buttons, light fires, ride in cars, etc. This may seem out of date but this approach to Judaism kept the Jewish faith alive during 2000 years of persecution. These rules were established by Rabbis after the time of Jesus and these rules were decided after much deliberation on the part of the Rabbis. Most Jews today are not Orthodox; the Conservative movement does allow riding, pushing buttons, etc on the Sabbath. There are many secular Jews who do not follow any of the old laws and may or may not celebrate the Sabbath. This remains a complicated and a somewhat divisive issue for Jews in the United States because there really is no longer a Sabbath for anyone - every day is a work day or a shopping day. As a Jew living in the Cayman Islands (a very conservative Christian community) I find that the closing of all stores once a week is a useful reminder of the need to consider issues and values not related to business and "normal or regular" days.
I want to read the article by the father more carefully as I am not sure that, while I sympathize with his sentiments, that I fully agree with some of his thinking. While I may be treading on many toes, I feel that the NRA is an evil organization - the ends justify the means to their members. They take up their cause with a religious zeal that I believe Kimball would identify with evil. I will not get into constitutional issues here.
I agree with Mahlia that courses in comparative religion might be a welcome addition to the public school curriculum. I fear that the problem would be in finding qualified teachers who would be unbiased in their presentations. I do think that in the US we need to keep the separation of Church and State very clear and very real. While the US is overwhelmingly Christian, we have always recognized and respected the views of minorities. That idea was one of the most brilliant contributions to civilization by the founding fathers. We have seen the damage done in history and in our time when the state and religion are one. As a Jew, I fear for the state of Israel which while it is a Jewish state, there has always been a desire to include and respect minorities. That value may be under attack in the current crisis in that country.
Is Sea Bubble a member of this group? I would be interested in here comments.
Ann Alden
December 2, 2003 - 06:23 am
And so much to think about!
Lou2, I also had forgotten what a thought provoking book this is. It is not that most of us don't know any of his revelations, its just that I like that its all here in one concise publication with much to ponder and discuss.
Ginger, yes, you sound right to me. Its what we do with our knowledge of good and evil!
Persian, when I was growing up, a Catholic, we had statues in our church but I always felt that they were put there to give one a focus when praying or meditating. I have wondered about the Islam rule of no pictures or statues of the human or animal form since in all of their old books one finds wonderful pictures of these same things. Also, in the Hindu books, there are such beautiful creatures portrayed in their myths. Your slim but meaningful paragraph about teaching the traditions so that we all respect each others beliefs is right up there with my wanting them to include parenting in all the grades. These things can be done.
An aside---just last Sunday I read in the paper about the fact that the YMCA no longers offers or supports the Indian Guides/Princesses but has formed another orgination for children. They felt that they were becoming racist???? Yes, that's what it said. Yet my husband says thats just not true. He was a member of Indian Guides along with our son and the teaching was all about honoring the Indian ways and learning much about their traditions. So what's up here! Are we so involved in Political Correctness that we've become ridiculous? Methinks so!
George, so you still have a Sabbath closing of some kind in the Caymans? That's great, to my way of thinking. I liked when we had the 'blue laws' here in Ohio. Helped me get my ducks in a row before the Sabbath(Sunday). Sort of forced some kind of organization on all of us. I like the idea of 'Sacred Space' being given its own time and day of the week. Was it in this book that I read that we are all made of three things-body, mind and spirit and that each needs to be honored and fed?
Persian
December 2, 2003 - 11:44 am
I've lived in Maryland for more than 30 years. In our area we have large segments of Orthodox and Conservative Jews as neighbors. Although all are from Eastern European background and my Jewish roots are Persian, we have always talked about our heritages, shared holidays and gotten to know each other well. There is a common sense of learning and respect for different backgrounds. I also have Israeli Arab friends, as well as Israeli Jewish friends, and Chaldean Christian friends originally from Iraq. (My son's current Arabic interpreter in Iraq is a Chldean Christian.) In my personal experiences, it IS possible to share and learn about different religious backgrounds without antagonizing each other; educate one's children to be curious and respectful and to abvoid ridicule or judgement. One of the best compatative religion classes I sat in on was taught by an American atheist. And in one segment of my own American Culture & Society seminars which dealt with comparative religions in the USA, my students were all Communist Chinese. I've taught aspects of Christianity to Muslims and Islam to Christians and Jews. So I know that it can be done with respect for the audience.
Regarding the loss of Indian Guides at YMCA, it seems like the same kind of thinking which brings Native American protesters to Washington during Thanksgiving week to protest that this is not really a time for Thanksgiving, but in the Native American culture a time for grieving. And from that perspective, one can see that the celebration of Thanksgiving - known throughout the USA - is indeed a period of sorrow. That doesn't mean that one should give up the Thanksgiving celebration (unless one wants to), but only that it is understandable how Native Americans might view this time of the year differently.
Another good example would be the way in which Muslims view Christmas. Islam respects Jesus as a prophet and teacher. Muslims revere him in the same way they revere Abraham, but they do not believe that he is the Son of God. Thus, they can celebrate the birth of a great prophet, just not that he is the Son of God. I've had many conversations with Muslims about this, especially my husband, who is an Egyptian Muslim. Since there is not a substantial understanding of Islam in the West (particularly in the USA), this component of Islam, its views of Jesus, and the respect in which he is held by Muslims may not be well known to non-Muslims.
kiwi lady
December 2, 2003 - 01:10 pm
Mahlia that is so right. I was amazed to find that my Turkish SIL to be happily joins in our Christmas celebrations. He loves Christmas.
georgehd
December 2, 2003 - 09:38 pm
Ann Alden
December 3, 2003 - 06:29 am
Persian, its so good to hear that the religious traditions are addressed if one chooses to take a class but again, I wonder why they don't try to accomplish this before one has had time to form an unjust opinion about a certain faith. In the lower grades where children are sponges and eager to learn about anything? As a child, I found much to admire in my Seventh Day Adventists and Jewish friends' religions. Also, in the faiths of my Protestant neighbors. I attended Catholic schools and they were in the public schools or the Temple schools or the Lutheran schools but when we all arrived home, our differences went out the window and we returned to our neighborhood happenings--ie. kickball games, baseball games, dollhouses and baby dolls for the girls, just plain hanging out together because we were friends.
George, I saw that news about the Supreme Court on the news but it was nice to read it and ponder what a dilemma the justices have on their plates. There seems to me that both sides have their points. When I first heard about it, I wondered by the young man who brought the case before the court, couldn't change his named major to something else while he was in his first four years then change it when the scholarship money is no longer available and he is on his way to a doctorate. Of course, that doesn't address the school voucher programs. Its really a sticky wicket and bound to cause the justices some sleepless nights.
In the book, we read that there are three distinct attitudes and approaches toward war and peace: pacifism, the just war doctrine, and the Crusade. I was surprised to hear that the early Christians of the first three centuries were pacifists with a real commitment to nonviolence. That they weren't soldiers when their countries were at war. Gandhi would disagree with this approach, if I remember correctly, as he favored the "just war". He thought that when a just war was intended(maybe saving another country from its despotic government?) that the Indians were obligated to join the ranks. He did however form the ambulance corps(in Africa and India) and offered to help in that way without the actual carrying of arms. Where does one draw the line between serving one's country in a war and racing off to Canada or wherever, to avoid serving? This all in the name of pacificism. I think that Gandhiji would have urged the men to serve in a nonviolent corp as he felt that one should support one's country. If you don't agree with what the government is doing in a war, what do you do? As a citizen of a country, do you have a right to think for yourself when that country goes to war to defend itself from invaders?
And then we have Constantine deciding that church and state should come together since most of the wars were religious wars? and threats to the state became threats to the church. No wonder our forefathers wants separation of church and state.
Just last night, the city of Columbus and their hockey team received a new young man into their ranks. He was playing in Russia and decided to come over here to play. At the age of 19, he didn't ask for permission to leave his native country or its hockey team and therefore the Russians are saying that he should come back and do his duty for his country which includes serving in the service for a short time. That is Russian law. What do you think? Does he owe his home country? The same rules apply in Israel to males and females.
Russian Hockey Player Leaves Without Serving Military
georgehd
December 3, 2003 - 08:01 am
Ann, I know that you committed to Feiler's book next but did look into the Gnostic Bible that Mahlia suggested and it looks interesting. I also again suggest books by Bernard Lewis.
georgehd
December 3, 2003 - 08:23 am
Note this quote: "more wars have been waged, more people killed, and more evil perpetrated in the name of religion than by any other institutional force in human history." "Both Christianity and Islam, however, have a long and checkered history in which their repective adherents fought for causes declared holy... they also head the list of those who have corrupted the heart of their religion by linking it confidently to war." It seems to me that Christianity was corrupted almost from its beginnings and certainly from the time of Constantine who combined the church and the state government. As a youn boy in a semi military school, I remember having to sing "Onward Christian Soldiers"; and I have always questioned that hymn and wonder if it is still being sung in churches. It seems to me that Kimball makes a very damaging case against Christianity and its use of war (I wonder if the Muslims would have resorted to war had it not been for the Crusades). Islam had a most advanced civilzation during the long period of Christian domination of Europe called the Dark Ages. It seems to me, a non Christian, that Christian leaders abandoned the teachings of Jesus. And I see in the current administration in Washington a strong sense of religious superiority and the notion that God is on our side. Kimball's discussion of the first Gulf war was interesting and I am hoping that he will comment on the Second war with Iraq.
Note also, something that I pointed out early in this discussion - it is the prosyletizing religions that seems to cause the most evil. The notion that "my religion is better than yours" and that "you need to be saved to reach heaven" are still quite common.
Lou2
December 3, 2003 - 09:40 am
Georgehd said: It seems to me that Christianity was corrupted almost from its beginnings and certainly from the time of Constantine who combined the church and the state government.... It seems to me that Kimball makes a very damaging case against Christianity and its use of war.
George, I am a Christian, and I agree with what you are saying. And I too think Christianity has gotten away from its roots. Currently spending as much time as these busy discussion boards here will let me reading the Gnostic Gospels... and wondering about lots of decisions made in the first centuries after Christ... including Constantine's impact with the decisions he made. One can only wonder what the world would look like today if the love and compassion, nuturing side of Christianity had won over the warring, challenging side?????
Lou
georgehd
December 3, 2003 - 10:55 am
Lou, I am interested in your reading of the Gnostic Gospels as Mahlia suggested our reading that book. Perhaps we will have a discussion later next year. I do hope the Dr. Kimball can join in the discussion of his final chapter as I, for one, have some questions about the role of religion in our lives.
I am dissappointed though not surprised that the Sharon government in Israel rejected the peace plan that has been under negotiation for over two years. I am afraid that there will be no peace in the Middle East as long as Sharon and Arafat remain in power.
Persian
December 3, 2003 - 08:03 pm
As we have returned to complete our discussion here, I have re-read the latter parts of the book and notice - again - the horrendous move away from the teachings of Jesus undertaken by the early Crusaders.
One aspect of their behavior which was particularly noxious and which has always been hidden away in the literature is the overwhelming barbarisim of their behavior, including mutilation and cannabalism of individuals who would not conform (including infants and children). The inclusion of the Crusades in American history classes did not even reach close to some of the more heinous acts committed in the name of God by those who cried out "God wills it" without thought to what truly were His intentions.
Kimball also mentions that the hysterical insistence by fundamentalist preachers, often counting on the lack of knowledge of the early Christian period among their congregations, has contributed another negative aspect to what should be a celebration of the Christian religion, yet is often one in which adherents follow blindly.
It is interesting to read the author's comments (a few paragraphs further on) about how the lack of knowledge of early Christianity is tolerated in the West (and often not explored deeply), while at the same time the Crusades are a core period in the overall history as understood by individuals and religious communities in the Middle East and Europe, including Jews, Muslims, Roman Catholics, Protestant Christians, Orthodox, and Eastern Christians.
Regarding the young man who missed out on his scholarship due to his declared religious major, IMO he simply felt that it was too important to him personally to "coast" along with Fed. funding without stipulating clearly what his academic goals were. Certainly he could have accepted the scholarship funds, maintained a neutral (read acceptable)discipline and then gone on to some form of graduate studies in theology. But evidently for him it was equally important to state his intentions upfront. And for that I applaud him. I believe that it is important for our youth to speak out when they have strong feelings, while understanding that their voice and what they claim may result in contention or disapproval or other risks within our free society. Yes, we live in a free society, but there are also risks when one feels differently than others.
Persian
December 4, 2003 - 09:42 pm
This may be a little bit ahead of our scheduled pages, but not too much and seems appropriate as we think about the rich diversity which Kimball has written about.
The U.S.Arab Muslim Population Has Doubled Since 1980.(Washington Post, 12/4/03, compiled from reports by the AP, Reuters and Bloomberg News).
"The Arab population in the United States has nearly doubled in the past two decades, according to the Census Bureau's first report on the group. Experts cited liberalized U.S. immigration laws and unrest in the Middle East that led many people to come to the USA.
The Bureau counted nearly 1.2 million Arabs in the USA in 2000, compared with 860,000 in 1990 and 610,000 in 1980. About 60 percent trace their ancestry to Lebanon, Syria and Egypt.
Although earlier Arab immigrants came from countries with large Christian populations, newer arrivals come from heavily Muslim countries such as Iraq and Yemen."
With the substantial increase in the Arab Muslim population in the USA, Charles Kimball offers a comment from Albert Einstein in WHEN RELIGION BECOMES EVIL (a recently resumed selection in the Religion Related Books discussion)which would be most appropriate today as we try to better understand our multicultural society: "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level we were at when we created them."
In speaking of our multicultural society, Kimball notes (p. 189)that "Today's call for reformation is both an imperative within the different traditions and an imperative at the interfaith level. We need new paradigms, new ways of understanding and living out our particularity in the midst of pluralism. We need new paradigms both for the ways we function within existing traditions and for our multicultural and interfaith engagement."
Kimball's words are certainly an encouragement for all of us to think, learn, share and experience as often as possible some of the traditions, ways of thinking (and reasons for them" between ourselves and individuals whose differences (whether ethnic or religious based)draw our attention and/or curiosity. Most particularly, this changing cultural and societal diversity is a wonderful opportunity for our youth to overcome whatever misunderstandings our generaetion may have harbored. In my personal experience, young people often make the best teachers.
tigerliley
December 5, 2003 - 07:03 am
I think this may be the most important book for me personally I have read all year.....I intend to read his other books.....
Ann Alden
December 5, 2003 - 07:45 am
Sorry I haven't been here but Christmas and stuff plus a bad cold are getting in the way of my making sense of Dr Kimball.
George, since we have decided to stick with our schedule and do "Walking the Bible" in January, I hope you will try it or at least use the accompanying links to see the other stories and opinions on the Exodus. I think that you would find it most interesting.
Persian, your call for teaching comparative religion in school would seem to be a reasonable way to bring understanding and interaction among the different faiths of our children. And, from that, our population might become more understanding of the problems of being an non-Christian or Jewish immigrant to the US.
As to the supreme court case, I agree that the young man wanted to stand strong and true and that the case is a matter of principal to him, but he maybe could have maintained his scholarship while getting in his first four years. Personally, I am not sure what the court should decide. Again, its a real sticky wicket for the judges. The law is pretty clear and it certainly would cause less trouble if they decide in the favor of the law, but the taxpayers include the young man's parents and friends,too, (as is also true in the matter of school vouchers) so part of the state scholarship monies comes from specific members of different faiths.
Back to the book, I found it surprising that so many of the different religious leaders objected to the Gulf War. This must be what Kimball alludes to when he says that we must come from a different level to understand the Muslim problems. That bin Laden(our avowed enemy) offered to the bring Arab Afghan 'mujadin' to Saudi Arabia to defend the Kingdom and was ignored by the palace who then accepted the US offer to defend the House of Saud. Trying to understand the deep sources of frustration and the ways in which we(the US) may be culpable is an essential step. It does seem that most 'state war departments' really don't look to the end result of their decisions. That they don't see the 'big' picture and don't seem to want to see it. It is time that all the educated or richer or civilized countries tried to understand the Third World and their problems without throwing in huge military machines plus troops for settling matters. As Kimball points out, there is no "holy war" and to persue holy war today is not accomplishing the peaceful settling of the world. I can remember when I thought that we needed to go to Iraq and get things settled over there (such as stop Hussein and his punks from killing poor people) but when I saw what I perceived as poverty stricken citizens, I thought we needed to help these people regain their country and live a decent life. The weapons that we(those countries who have the money) have today are frightening to me and we (those countries who have the money) seem to be developing more and more. One of the points that Kimball makes is that the some of the well-established groups within various denominations have been working diligently to develop an alternative to pacifism and justs war theory: the just peacemaking paradigm. He notes that the focus shipts to initiatives that can help prevent war. At the end of Chap 6 he list 10 guidelines for peacemaking:
1. Support nonviolent direct action
2.Take independent initiatives to reduce threat
3.Use cooperative conflict resolution
4.Acknowledge responsibility for conflict and injustice and seek repentance and forgiveness
5. Advance democracy, human rights, and religious liberty.
6. Foster just and sustainable economic development
7. Work with emerging cooperative forces in the international system.
8. Strengthen the United Nations and international efforts for cooperation and human rights.
9. Reduce offensive weapons and weapos trade.
10. Encourage grassroots peacemaking groups and voluntary associations.
What do you think of his guidelines?
Are they reasonalable and accomplishable?
Within the guidelines, are you aware of things that are already being done within the world to help with these guidelines?
Lou2
December 5, 2003 - 08:04 am
10. Encourage grassroots peacemaking groups and voluntary associations.
We listen to NPR a lot in the car when we are lucky enough to travel.. this past fall we heard a long conversation involving several national groups, of course I can't recall any one of the names, that are forming local peace loving committees... groups. They were encouraging a wide range of actions... to include, as I recall, demonostrations, inner cultural activities, inner faith understanding.
Ann, I find this peacemaking paradigm the most encouraging notion yet. When Gandhi was assassinated General Douglas MacArthur, supreme Allied military commander in Japan, asserted:
'In the evolution of civilization, if it is to survive, all men cannot fail eventually to adopt Gandhi's belief that the process of mass application of force to resolve contentious issues is fundamentally not only wrong but contains within itself the germs of self-destructin.' "
This quotations is from
Gandhi, a Life by Yogesh Chandha. When a US commanding General makes such a statement is sure does make me set up and take notice...
I think back to my own reactions when President Bush sent our troops to Iraq... My husband was in Vietnam when there were protests... it broke his heart as well as mine... So I knew I couldn't protest... the loyalty to our troops must be there for me, a 20plus year Army wife... but we both just kept saying, wait, wait, wait... give dipolmacy a chance...
Lou
Persian
December 5, 2003 - 08:05 am
I think it would be enormously helpful that the West learn to appreciate how Middle Easterners feel about the same issues which we read about or hear about in our daily news sources. There is an enormous difference!
For example, it would seem at first glance that bin Laden's offer to bring mujahadeen from Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia is logical. But from the Saudi standpoint, it was an offer that made them cringe.
Why? Because of bin Laden's former attempts (not widely known or understood in the West) to bring about the downfall of the Royal Saud Family. The bin Laden family is well ensconced in Saudi Arabia - multi-multimillionaires many times over. Thus when Osama, the "radical son," who had been ostracised by his family, extended his offer of protection, it was viewed by the Royal Family as not just assistance, but an opportunity for him to arrive with armed fighters who could very easily (and quickly) turn on the Royal family itself, overthrow them and take control of the country.
On the other hand, America certainly should stand up and be counted as making one disastrous mistake after another about dealing with the Middle East. For example, our current reason for being in Iraq was to discover WMD, overthrow Sadam's regime, protect the Iraqi people and help them to achieve democracy.
But where were the Americans years ago, when Sadam was using chemical WMD against his own people? Why did the Americans suddenly turn from supporting Iraq in the Iraq/Iran multiple year war? Was Ayatollah Khomeini REALLY THAT FRIGHTENING? Yes, certainly, he was to the Royal House of Saud and to Sadam - and thus to the continued oil supply from those two countries to the West.
Why is the American govt. so concerned NOW about the Iraqi people, when for the past 30 years they were subjected to atrocities that one cannot imagine from the safety of the West?
Yes, indeed, this discussion is a wonderful opportunity to understand more fully how/why people of other lands, religions and ethnic heritages differ from ourselves. It is not necessary to fully accept their thinking, but understanding them more fully would be a big step forward for our global community.
Lou2
December 5, 2003 - 08:11 am
I think it would be enormously helpful that the West learn to appreciate how Middle Easterners feel about the same issues which we read about or hear about in our daily news sources. There is an enormous difference!
Thank you, Persian, for your insightful comments... Wouldn't it make such a difference if we had you, or someone like you, on CNN, or somewhere, daily to help us understand issues from those points of view??? Certainly couldn't do any harm, could it? I'm hoping that the President's advisors do this for him, but us regular citizens don't get enough of this... for instance, it was amazing to me that the Crusades are still so fresh to the Middle Eastern mind, as Kimball says in the book...
Lou
georgehd
December 5, 2003 - 08:18 am
The guidelines offered by Kimball are reasonable and like 'motherhood' who could be against them. I also think that they are extremely idealistic and perhaps unrealistic in today's world. Our society is an extremely competitive one and we achieve adulthood with a frame of mind that does not easily grasp or accept the guidelines proposed by Kimball. Most religions are exclusive and not inclusive. Religious leaders around the world have not come out strongly in favor of such guide lines. Certainly conservative politicians would question some of the guidelines (1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10).
I have finished the book and eagerly await discussing the last chapter because I find it disturbing.
In the airport yesterday (we just got out in time to avoid the snow) I picked up a copy of Bernard Lewis's What Went Wrong, the Clash between Islam and Modernity. It looks most interesting.
I am wondering how big our group is right now? And Mahlia, has Kimball given any indication of when he might join us?
Lou, you and I were posting at the same time. I do not think that the Presidential advisers are liberal enough to accept Kimball's guidelines and of course the American public will take its cue primarily from the President. He was the man who used the terms "axis of evil" and "crusade" in his speeches. Lou as a Christian, the Crusades and the Inquisition probably do not loom large in the history of your faith. But as a Jew, they loom very large in my history of Western Civilization. You and I could probably be close friends, yet our historical perpectives are quite different. Think of the young Muslim growing up in poverty in the Middle East. His perspective is different from ours and I am sure is quite damning of the West, Judaism, and Christianity. Political leaders can use that hatred to further their own political and national aims. That is why I find Kimball's guidelines unrealistic.
Lou2
December 5, 2003 - 10:50 am
Georgehd said: Lou as a Christian, the Crusades and the Inquisition probably do not loom large in the history of your faith. But as a Jew, they loom very large in my history of Western Civilization. You and I could probably be close friends, yet our historical perpectives are quite different.
George, I certainly hope my comment was not offensive to you, I did not mean it to be. Accept my apology if it was. The word Christian has so many different meanings. I don't consider the Crusades or the Inquisition as a part of my religious hertiage and am over whelmed with grief each time I read about them. Now, that sounds really contradictory, doesn't it??? When you look at the history of Christianity most often you are looking at the history of the Roman Catholic Church. And once again, I'm trying not to be offensive. Please understand that. If I'm not mistaken the Pope apologized for the Crusades not long ago??? Did I get that right?
All I know is, if we (as in people)could be more aware of how we are alike instead of how we are different, the world could be a much better, safer, loving place.
Lou
georgehd
December 5, 2003 - 11:34 am
Lou, your comments were not offensive at all - no need to apologize.
Persian
December 6, 2003 - 02:25 am
LOU - as we come to the final chapter in Kimball's work, he includes a clear statement of Pope John's supportive stance on interfaith issues.
GEORGE - what aspect of the final chapter disturbed you?
I appreciate some of your concerns about Kimball's comments, but from an overall standpoint, he seems to offer fairly well-balanced commentary on the major religions and the responsibilities of their adherents in the global community today. Whether we as individuals choose to accept those responsibilities - either through organized religious instituitions or as individuals - is a personal decision.
But it certainly is clear in this text (and others mentioned in Kimball's book) that there is much work to be done in better understanding and thus developing positive ways of working together as citizens of the world, rather than continue to pursue long-established, but often negative (or uninformed) courses of action.
I look at Kimball's work as a wake-up call to non-specialists, written by an individual with many years of professional experience working on behalf of one of the world's great religions, but open and accepting of religious doctrine and communities other than the one to which he belongs. I particularly like his inclusion of Diana Eck's comment about herself as a "Christian pluralist," and of his own commitment to Christianity which also allows him - no, encourages him! - to continually study and evaluate the commitments of others towards their own religious choices.
Bubble
December 6, 2003 - 05:04 am
Looking for a list of Books on the Church Index, I came across this...
http://www.withchrist.org/archives.htm
Vatican Archives Reveal Bible Was Once Banned Book
georgehd
December 6, 2003 - 08:44 am
Mahlia, I believe that we are still on chapter 6 and I wanted to wait to post comments on chapter 7 until the group got to read it. I have underlined a lot of material.
Ann Alden
December 6, 2003 - 12:18 pm
I think it is time to go to Chap 7 and to see what
George has to say about his underlines.
Without picking each paragraph apart, I, like
Persian,
find Kimball very reasonable. He even includes those who have no commitment to a particular religioin when he quotes Wilfred Cantwell Smith, on the phenomenon of faith:
"It is an orientation of personality, to oneself, to one's neighbor, to the universe...a capacity to a more than mundane level; to see, to feel, to act in terms of, a transcendent dimension...Faith is the quality of a human being."
Lou2, I find the history of the Inquisition being discussed more and more by Catholics who did not really know the history of it or the checkered past of their church. It is one of the abominations that happened when there was no separation between the state and a religion. That is what the history of the Inquisition tells us.
Then we must look at the long lived life of the Muslim faith while it occupied so many countries ie. Egypt, Turkey, Spain, Portugul,etc. I seem to remember that after taking over those countries, the Muslims were satisfied to leave the citizens alone in their many different manifestations of faith practiced in each country.
Sea Bubble, so good to see you here with a link to the Inquisition. Thanks! Hope you will join us in the final chapter as we may be done with the book next Friday Dec 12th which is my druthers!
I am going out of town from the 13th to the 31st so would like to see us finish with this most interesting book by the 12th, although you are all welcome to continue the discussion until we go to the newest book, "Walking the Bible".
I will come back in after the holidays and hope you all will join us for the discussion of "Walking the Bible" on January 5.
So, now, lets go to Chapter 7 of "When Religion Becomes Evil" and see what we think of Kimball's ideas of how we might try to live.
Persian
December 7, 2003 - 12:44 am
ANN - I seem to have totally missed the group discussion on the recommendations for the next text to discuss and the final selection of WALKING THE BIBLE. Is it archived where I could browse through the comments?
georgehd
December 7, 2003 - 08:36 am
Mahlia, I do not recall any group discussion of the next book. I believe that I pointed out to Ann, that many of us who read Feiler's last book were not impressed and I pointed out that I for one would not join in a discussion of Walking the Bible.
Now for Chapter 7. First I think it necessary to give some background. It is not my intent to question anyone's faith or beliefs. These are very personal matters and are usually the result of a life time of experience and exposure. What I hope to do is raise some questions that the book does not answer for me. I will go page by page and probably not cover more than a few pages in one post.
page 187 - "how religions can remain true to its authentic sources and a force for positive change". How do we distinguish 'authentic' sources when there is so much time and controvery that have evolved over the last 2000 years? How were these so called authentic sources changed over time?
page 187 - "Throughout history religion has often been connected with what is noblest and best in human beings" But Kimball has pointed out that throughout history religion has often been connected with the worst in human beings. He cannot have it both ways.
page 189 - one of the most interesting quotes in the book (IMO). Albert Einstein once noted, "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." And then Kimball says " We need new paradigms both for the ways we function within existing traditions and for our multicultural and interfaith engagement." Kimball really does not want us to move on to new paradigms because he is so committed to old ways; he is afterall, a minister and must necessarily believe in the religion of his choice. May I suggest that religion need not be the force that it has been for human beings. Do we need religion to have morals and ethics? Do we need religion to believe in God? I suggest that religion as we know it is not necessary for any of this. After all, Jesus was not religious in the sense that he supported the religious system of his time. He spoke against what in his time was the norm of Judaism. Moses, Abraham, Jesus did not have religion or at least there was no organization that we could term to be religious. Yet these men had faith, morals and believed in One God. These men were not evil. Yet as history unfolded and the followers of these men saw the need to organize and to some extent claim exclusivity, the religions became more evil.
I am Jewish, I suppose because my parents were Jewish, but also because I have not yet found another religion that would satisfy my needs any better. I am not a very religious person; I do not need to go to synagogue to pray. I find in the history of Judaism a marvelous thread of constant questioning. Questioning Rabbis, questioning God. I find this exciting. Some would find this scary. What I find scary in today's world is man's reliance on religious beliefs that may in fact be a source of evil. This fright is in part what drew me to this book. And as I read the book, I questioned more and more the need for religion as we know it. I am not naive and do not see the world abandoning religion during my life time. But is it possible that a world without religion would be a better world? Read again what Einstein said. Why must I feel seperate from Mahlia or Lou or Ann? Wendell Wilkie wrote of One World. How about One Faith?
To be continued. Unless of course the group objects.
Lou2
December 7, 2003 - 08:48 am
OK, GeorgeHD, you've sent me scrambling for my book!! have marked the first few quotations... will read, cogitate and return!!
Lou
Lou2
December 7, 2003 - 09:53 am
George, as to your point about "authentic sources" I mentioned I have been reading Gnostic Gosels by Elaine Pagals. The gnostic books found in the Nag Hammadi have been fancinating to me... as is the history of inclusion and exclusion of the cannon. So yes, authentic sources is an issue for me as well.
But, when I consider Kimball's statement "Throughout history religion has often been conected with what is noblest and best in human beings." and religion being evil, I can see that both statements can be and are correct... not mutally exclusive.
When we consider all that religious communities offer beyond worship, can we deny human need of them? When I was a young child the stories I heard in Sunday School where from the Old Testament... Daniel in the lions den, the flood, Joseph's coat,etc... the Chosen People... and because I was faithful to my religion, I was sure that I was one of the Chosen, and therefore Jewish. Perhaps, this addresses the points later in the chapter about the Universal and the particular???
I don't know if any of this will make sense to anyone else... I'm for sure a seeker and don't claim any answers, just some thoughts thrown out for what they are worth.
Lou
MaryPage
December 7, 2003 - 05:29 pm
And have read most of the books mentioned. Most people who follow and embrace religions are good people. All religions cause a certain amount of evil,and the older the religions become, the more evil lies in their wake.
There is a universe of such size we truly cannot stretch our minds to encompass the distances. Our own galaxy is as a poppy seed, or less, compared to the total size of this universe. This galaxy contains hundreds of billions of stars.
If we were to start out counting at the second of birth, and were to live to 100 years doing nothing but counting, we could only count to a bit over THREE BILLION. We could not count up even one trillion of the trillions of dollars our nation is in debt for. We could not EVER count all the stars in Just Our One Galaxy.
And there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in our universe. JUST our universe. There may be other universes. And within our universe, there are definitely many other dimensions which we humans cannot fathom. Our mathematicians have proved 11 of these, but they think there are many times that many unknown to us.
So I have a difficult time thinking all this rises from NOTHING and has NO purpose! Nope. WE humans are just one of a myriad species on this one of a myriad planets in this one of a myriad galaxies. We are a product of the seeds of life. These seeds came from somewhere. Perhaps that somewhere includes an intelligence or intelligences of a type we cannot begin to imagine. Perhaps not.
The mathematics that make up our universe and hold it together are one complex number. Those mathematics may differ by just a fraction of a fraction in the next universe to ours, and then by a fraction of that fraction in the next one to that one, and so on and on and on into hundreds of trillions of quadrillions of other universes. Perhaps the outcome or product or destiny of each universe is being jotted down in a ledger kept by those possible intelligences. Perhaps not.
But We are not "made in the image of God", other than the life force that makes us among the quick for a brief speck of time. Then the force leaves us, the furnaces in the billions of cells of our bodies blink out and become cold, and we are among the dead. Then the elements of nature that make up the cells of our body dissolve, evaporate, melt, reconstitute, and return to their basic formulas. There is no more we. No more me. No more you or I or us or they or he or she or it.
And no thinking or dreaming or worrying or believing. We won't know anything. Not even a black void. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.
Because we don't matter, unless it is possibly as a species. Will some species learn to get along with its own kind? Some species of our galaxy? If not, of our universe? Will Some species achieve perfection and reach out to the other stars of its own galaxy and learn the secrets of exploring them? Will this species learn to travel to other galaxies? Will this species learn the secrets of the origins of all of this? It is almost a certainty that our species will not accomplish these things. Our species is busy assuring its own extinction just as fast as it can!
Maybe that is what it is all about. Maybe the Creator or Cause of all of this is just experimenting to come up with something possessed of the ability to learn all of the secrets of existence. Perhaps it amounts to a contest, with bets being placed by Higher Powers as to which combination will come up with the correct numbers?
I don't know. I don't believe I am meant to know. I don't believe I am in any way judged wanting for my lack of knowing. On the contrary, I believe the correct answer here IS that I do not know.
We should be treating one another as valuable individuals with individual wants and needs and abilities and gifts and talents. At the same time, we should recognize we are a species and we Win or Lose as a species depending entirely upon how we React as a Species. We are all closely related. We should stop killing our own kind. We should stop hating our own kind. We should adopt rules good for all of us as a group and each of us as an individual. We should stop polluting our environment and stop putting our resources into weaponry. We won't.
Just my two cents worth. Don't wish to offend anyone, just share differing perspectives on it all.
GingerWright
December 7, 2003 - 06:34 pm
Welcome Mary Page
I don't think that I have seen you in this discussion before, have I? What you have said and I might say Very well is so true. Thanks. I remember when we met in person, Your head gear. (bg)
Persian
December 7, 2003 - 06:40 pm
In my personal experience throughout many years of interacting with people of different religious and cultural backgrounds, I've come to believe that one can be a person of Faith without being particularly religious (in the "organized religion" or "church/temple/mosque" membership manner). IMO, faith and integrity, dignity and respect for others go hand in hand; they're partners in how we live our lives and relate to others.
Organized religion (and all it mandates) is fine for some, not for others. A person of good deeds towards others is equally important to me as the one who is a member of a congregation. But on the other hand, I greatly respect individuals who commit their time, funds and encouragement to their places of worship and the programs supported by their denominations.
Indeed religion (ANY religion) is an enormously personal issue. Some of us are born to a religion - some to more than one - while others make a determined choice. Blending the tenets of one faith with another is possible, although sometimes awkward. And, of course, there is one's personal level of vulnerability to religious pressure, either from family or friends or spouse.
From a personal standpoint, I've never been troubled by my "blended" religious background. In fact, I've relied on it enormously throughout my life as a means of learning. Actually, I've always felt that the multicultural aspect of my family heritage has given me more than one ready access to God. And all those avenues of communication have been readily used, sometimes with respect and awe; sometimes in sheer frustration; and occasionally with unabashed anger and demand for answers. (Dream on!)
I've really been interested in and appreciated the diversity of experiences and thoughts brought to this discussion. We approach our belief structures in different ways, all valuable and with consideration for our own lives and with respect to others.
Indeed as MaryPage mentions, we are tiny in the overall realm of things, but important nonetheless - to our family and friends and in this discussion to each other. Carry on in the knowledge that we are "a community."
GingerWright
December 7, 2003 - 07:12 pm
Well said. I have been thru many religions and have done what was expected of me and now I am learning about the middle East religions and do believe we are All doing our best to get to the same place just taking a different path and Mary P and you have said it so well. As you know I love God and humans.
Wars are because we cannot just love people as everybody thinks there way is right and don't take the time to listen to others. There is good and bad in All religions, people, races, and Nationalities etc..
MaryPage
December 7, 2003 - 08:33 pm
Thank you for the welcome, GINGER. Of course, I remember you! And I look forward to seeing you again when we all go to Richmond in May. Bob and I anticipate with pleasure meeting MAHLIA and her husband there, as well.
Persian
December 7, 2003 - 08:44 pm
GINGER - there certainly are pleasant and unpleasant aspects of every people. I like to look for the positive and take a lot of joy in recognizing it in people with whom I interact. Their ethnic or religious backgrounds are less important to me. Interesting people with varied experiences (especially those much differnet from my own) are like fine books. They offer really special and marvelous opportunities to learn even more about our global village.
MARYPAGE - Welcome! indeed it is good to have you amongst us. I see that you got settled and your "electronics" are up and running. Glad that hassle is over with for you. Come in often and share your thoughts.
You're always an interesting participant.
Persian
December 7, 2003 - 08:55 pm
Here's a link to an interesting article in the Washington Post about the Saudi Embassy revoking the diplomatic passports of the Senior Imam and staff in the Islamic section of the Embassy, coupled with the decision to discontinue financial support for an Islamic Institute in the metropolitan Washington DC area. I noted particularly that the Institute had helped to prepare reglious personnel for the U.S. Military.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41907-2003Dec6.htmlGingerWright
December 7, 2003 - 09:50 pm
I also look forward to seeing you again in Richmond Va. Will you still pull your shenaigans? I also will be looking forward to seeing Mahlia and her husband he was in DC this year but I did not personaly get to meet him and have seen Mahlia but did Not get to talk to her a year ago in DC. I just had to welcome you special having met you.
Persian, Thanks for the link. I just recieved a phone call from a Lady who used to be head of our Senior center in my town who has Ms so is no longer the head of our senior center as when she got sick they let her go because of the insurance needless to say I quit driving for them for many reasons Not just because what happen to her. If married people cannot get along and or families etc. How can we expect Nations to. Where is the Love for people in general, I see None. let there be peace on earth and let me begain with me/each of us .
GingerWright
December 7, 2003 - 10:15 pm
U.S. Revokes Visa of Cleric at Saudi Embassy and we say that we accept all? I wonder. Know that I observe here but do not say much as I do Not have the book.
Persian
December 8, 2003 - 06:16 am
GINGER - PLEASE do not let not having the book deter you from participating more readily in this discussion. At this point, we've covered most of the chapters and there have been numerous examples of posts which are complementary to the author's work, but indicative of the poster's own impressions of the topic at hand.
I very much liked your last sentence: "Let there be peace on Earth and let it begin with me." Wouldn't it be wonderful if we ALL could adopt that as our own mantra. I've often been so proud of groups of folks who, working individually and collectively, have brought issues to the forefront and truly represented what our great country is all about.
It is sad about your friend losing her position at the Senior Center due to MS. That is such a devastating condition, but yet folks respond quite differently to it in the short-term as well as long term. For someone who has obviously taken great pride in her work, her dismissal must have been a great sadness. Perhaps with the encouragement of friends and family will find another way to participate in her community life.
I'll look forward to meeting you, too, at the Virginia Bash next May.
I'm sorry that my husband didn't introduce himself to the SN folks at the Book Festival in Washington, but he's a bit shy.
GingerWright
December 8, 2003 - 09:39 am
Thank you for telling me that it is ok for me to post as the book and Author has been discused. My friends name is Ruth and when I saw her a at the legion she has lost so much weight since I had last seen her few years ago but have asked about her. She tells me she is working for our University of Notre Dame here and has a Very good job as she is well educated. I am very happy for her. Ruth knows that she can call on me at any time and if posiable I will be there for her, she knew my Mother very well and knows how I treated Mom. Ruth is getting a computer in her home and loves to read so will probabaly join our group if she has time with all the therapy she takes which is 60 miles round trip. I will ask the Aunties to pray for her when I get to that discussion.
See you in Va. Here we come. Yea.
Lou2
December 8, 2003 - 02:33 pm
When Religion Becomes Evil has so many books mentioned on its pages that seem like "must reads" to me.... I was so excited the other day when digging around on the book shelves upstairs I found From Beirut to Jerusalem by Thomas Friedman. I've read about 100 pages so far and have learned so much. I highly recommend this book though the copyright date is 1989, there is much basic information about the Middle Eastern ways of life. I plan to look for his newer one The Nexus and the Olive Tree but for now this one is an education between two covers.
Lou
georgehd
December 8, 2003 - 06:20 pm
Lou, Friedman, one of my favorite columnists, has a newer book which is excellent, Longitudes and Attitudes, 2002
georgehd
December 8, 2003 - 06:34 pm
In the discussion of Roman Civilization, our leader posted Martin Luther King's famous "I Have A Dream" speech. I found rereading it quite moving and apropos to this discussion.
http://www.mecca.org/~crights/dream.htmlLou2
December 8, 2003 - 06:46 pm
Longitudes and Attitudes is Friedman's???? I'll be darn, I've seen that book but hadn't really looked at it... One more on the list!!! Thanks, George... Have you read from BtoJ???
Lou
Persian
December 8, 2003 - 06:47 pm
GEORGE - you're absolutely right. Dr. King's speech is certainly relevant in today's world.
LOU - not to worry about Tom Friedman's earlier book. It's excellent and, as you'vce found out, provides a wealth of information about the region. His newer work is equally stimulating. Friedman's long-time experiences in the Middle East as Bureau Chief give him the substantial background, coupled with a journalist's curiosity, to bring an honest balance to his work. His frequent articles in the NYTimes about the Middle East are always enlightening. I've forwarded several to my son during his deployment in Iraq and they've become a treasured resource for him.
georgehd
December 9, 2003 - 05:12 am
How big a group are we? There seem to be very few of us left in this discussion. I also wonder about dealing with the last chapter of the book which as I have written before, I find disturbing and not encouraging.
Bernard Lewis's book which I mentioned earlier is proving to be very enlightening for me but possibly not a good book for discussion. I am slowly beginning to realize how long the animosity of Muslims towards Christians, and vice versa, has been going on. Roughly thirteen hundred years.
Ann Alden
December 9, 2003 - 06:11 am
Good morning all,
We have a new poster,Mary Paige, who has certainly called my attention to the smallness of our world. Just a bit of sand but of great importance to us. Welcome, Mary Paige!
Gingee!so good to hear you speaking up about your beliefs in the human race. Yes, "let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me" is a wonderful song and was our signature song at the end of every concert when I was singing with "The Singing Moms". We spent many hours entertaining in nursing homes, for women's clubs and men's clubs, schools, etc. It was a well received song and I have always loved it. It is appropiate for any group as it mentions no god, just us and peace!
PersianI have not ignored your note of above about the decision on "Walking the Bible". During the past 6 months, I received emails about that book plus your suggestion and George'sfor Elaine Pagel's "Gnostic Gospels". After bringing home both books plus 6 others<Houston Smith, other Elaine Pagel's and more) from the library and perusing them all, I decided to do "Walking the Bible" first. I hope you will join in the discussion as the links along with the book are quite thought provoking. For instance, I had no idea that the Exodus was questioned. Nor did I have any knowledge of the archeaological findings that are recorded about the bible(Pentatuch)stories.
Lou2Seems like we have many titles to deal with and will never run out of books to read and discuss in this folder. I too have been interested in reading more about the Middle East and have been devouring three other authors,Elaine Sciolino (Persian Mirrors-The Elusive Face of Iran), Christiane Bird (Neither East Nor West) and Wayne Teasdale's The Mystic Heart-Discovering a Universal Spirituality in the World's Religions. Seems like I have become a non-fiction lover and the result is that I hardly ever read fiction anymore. Except for a mystery or two. :<).
Back to the book, which I would like to finish as I said earlier by Friday. I mispoke myself there--that should read Monday the 15th. After that I will be in and out of here and traveling plus partying plus getting ready for Christmas so my time will be limited. We have celebrations planned for our anniversary(2 separate parties in two different states), 2 birthdays(12/14 & 1/3), and a family reunion plus the usual holiday happenings(Christmas dinner will be here as usual.) Am meeting myself coming home most days. Hope you will all forgive me if I can't get in here as often as usual. But we will keep this folder open and change the heading for starting on the new book on the 5th of January.
tigerliley
December 9, 2003 - 07:50 am
Freidmans new book is a compilation of his N.Y. Times Articles which have to do with the Middle East situation for the most part......I have read all of his books and throughly enjoyed this one as well....His writing style is very straightforward and easy to understand.......His books are hard to put down.......
GingerWright
December 9, 2003 - 09:23 am
IN answer to how many people have posted in here, There are about 30.
Persian
December 9, 2003 - 09:56 am
ANN - thanks for the clarification regarding how the next selection was chosen.
GEORGE - with Ann'e explanation about her own family schedule for the hoidays, I think we might accept her invitation to continue the discussion through the end of the book, regardless of how many posters there are. I'm familiar with the text, have used it as a teaching and lecture tool, and would be happy to continue to discuss additional points. And, perhaps, as you outline your concerns, other posters will join in, too.
MaryPage
December 9, 2003 - 03:43 pm
PBS has had some wonderfully enlightening documentaries about the history of the Bible and of the Church. Many of these have revealed truths that most people, and I emphasize most, and not all, simply do not know. History is a fascinating thing. We are all of us, when you stop and think on it, old enough to remember things and tell them to our grandchildren and great grandchildren and have them look at us simply dumbfounded and say: "I never knew That!" Textbook history is terribly selective, as are church preachings. You have to get into reading the old histories and journals and archival materials in order to see how it really was. If you are at all interested, you can go on line to PBS.org and go to their sales department and look up the documentaries I speak of. They have them all listed for sale.
I own Pagel's books, and also Lewis's. I would like to add, for your consideration, THE PASSOVER PLOT by Dr. Hugh J. Schonfield and every book ever written by Bishop John Shelby Spong, but most specially RESCUING THE BIBLE FROM FUNDAMENTALISM, WHY CHRISTIANITY MUST CHANGE OR DIE, and BORN OF A WOMAN. This last is a rethinking of the Virgin Birth and about the treatment of women by a male-dominated church. He has written many, many more books than these three. The research and scholarship is outstanding. These recommendations are not an endorsement of the beliefs of these authors, but sincerely offered as great mind-stretchers.
Ann Alden
December 9, 2003 - 04:41 pm
Thanks for your kind offer to continue the discussion after the 15th(I know you would do an excellent job) but we have decided to close it then and reopen on Jan 5th with "Walking the Bible" by Bruce Feilor.
To anyone here who is interested in reading the new book, please do sign up in the Proposed Discussions folder and let us know.
---Religion-Related Books ~ Walking the Bible ~ Bruce Feiler ~ Proposed for January 5, 2004" Thanks!
Mary Page, I am writing down those titles and authors and will be looking at them for consideration. I am particularly interested in one of them and plan on getting it at my library now.
Lou2
December 9, 2003 - 04:46 pm
George, I know I'm very limited in my knowledge, to say nothing about being a real jerk in discussion abilities... but I would love to hear from you... and see your concerns from chapter 7. I did respond to your first post, though I understand how limited that response was and not the discussion you would have had when so many participated.
Lou
georgehd
December 9, 2003 - 08:07 pm
Lou, I appreciated your response. Again these are my opinions.
ON page 190 there is a long quote by Stephen Covey. Read the quote and leave out the word 'religion' and see what you think. Does religion add a fanatical dimension that we do not want?
On page 191, it says "we would do well to follow Rainer Marie Rilke's suggestion that we think of God as a direction rather than an object" I like that thought but also wonder what happens if the perception of God's direction is wrong and self serving.
Page 191 (bottom) over to 192. Smith is quoted "Faith, then is a quality of human beings" an essential human quality. I agree with that but nothing is said about religion being required for a person to have faith. The author goes on to speak of hope. And I ask, if you are poor and destitute, where is your hope, where is your faith? Historically religions have offered the poor hope but have the religions made the quality of life any better? I ask these questions, not for answers, but just to raise questions about the historical role of religion.
And we go on to Moses, Muhammad, Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi and Mandela. I totally agree with Kimball's view that these men had faith, they had hope and fairness, integrity, honesty, human dignity, service and encouragement. But except for King, were they part of any organized religion? There were no religions at the time of Moses, Muhammad, and Jesus. Gandhi, a devout Hindu, rejected some basic principals of his religion.
I have a lot more underlined but basically want only to make two more points about this last chapter. Kimball speaks as a Christian minister and he speaks well. But his is a tradition of religion; I dare say that none of us in this group have grown up without a religious tradition. It is hard for us to imagine a world without religion. We could still have faith, hope, belief, God, honesty, fairness, integrity, love, etc. It is when religion was introduced, that we began to see devisivness.
page 200- "Religious argumentation has defined and reinforced needless boundaries that many religious people - especially Christians and Muslims - have had difficulty crossing." The next sentence I think was written prior to 9/11 and is possibly more optimistic than the situation today seems to dictate.
Reading Bernard Lewis's book, I am amazed that the war between Muslims and Christians has been going on for almost 2000 years. That is a very long time and the war does not seem to be over. All in the name of Religion.
The last paragraph of the book is wonderful; no where in that paragraph is the word "religion" mentioned! We are one human species and we had better recognize that fact before we destroy each other in the name of religion.
Perhaps as we approach this holiday season and the New Year, we might share what we have learned from this excellent book with others who are near and dear to us.
Persian
December 9, 2003 - 08:49 pm
ANN - My apologies for obviously not being clear in my earlier post when I suggested that we continue with Kimball's book.
I did NOT intend to imply that I (or anyone else) would assume your role of DL, but only that the discussion might continue until Jan. 5th, when the new selection will begin. That seemed reasonable to me, since although many people will be busy with Christmas, not ALL of the posters celebrate that holiday. And, quite frankly, I did not realize that the discussion would close down between Dec. 15th and Jan. 5th.
In the final chapter, Kimball offers some very fertile comments for discussion which could readily draw a hearty debate among those posters who might enjoy the chance to follow through to the end of the book.
It seemed a reasonable opportunity (although admittedly I did not state it clearly in my earlier post) for posters who would like to continue discussing When Religion Becomes Evil to do so.
MARYPAGE - I, too, enjoy the PBS offerings. It's really good to have your input about others texts to complement our discussion. Your suggestions of the work by Spong and Schonfield are excellent. They are stimulating commentaries which would certainly encourage a better understanding of the time and culture and events. And you are absolutely correct that so many do not have a clear understanding of the early Bible.
GEORGE - your last sentence in the above post says it all - regardless of whether we as individuals have a religion (or not); practice our beliefs within an organized religion or simply behave towards others as best we can.
Yes, indeed, the animosity, violence and misunderstanding between Muslims and Christians has been ongoing for many years. But I wonder if it is religion which causes the divide or the traditional cultures to which each group belongs. Or a little/or a lot of each?
Years ago, in a very dicey situation on a mountain in rural Afghanistan, a tribal elder asked me the following: "Do you believe in God?" "Yes," I replied. He turned to a group of men who stood nearby and said "she is a God-fearing woman." The men nodded and went away. The elder had not asked me if I feared God, only if I believed in God. To me there is a difference; to him there is absolutely no difference.
Ann Alden
December 10, 2003 - 06:44 am
Here's a hopeful article from this morning's NYT about the latest to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
Iranian Woman Accepts NobelI, particulary liked, her acceptance speech reference to Cyrus the Great who never believed in forcing his religion beliefs on countries that he controlled.
We are getting such diverse information about the Muslim faith from the newspapers that one does not who to believe. Maybe reading the Q'ran would help us understand what Muhammed had to say about a person's human rights.
tigerliley
December 10, 2003 - 07:18 am
I grew up in a certain religious tradition.....Throughout my adult years I gave up this "organized religion" as I just could not relate to it....words like salvation, sin, blood of the lamb etc. just turned me off.....Now 40 years later I have returned to that faith tradition and oh what a change! So......things do change...religious thought does progress......Permit me to state this churches statement of .......without the name of the church....."_____ ____ ___ joyfully welcomes persons of every race, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, economic status, educational level, and differing ability into an intentionally inclusive Faith community.....We experience the liberating, reconciling love of Christ through creative opportunities to worship God and serve those who are in need in ------- and throughout the world".....This faith tradition completely respects all other faith traditions including Islam.......As I read this book I am pleased that my church passes the test for NOT turning evil......I do hope this post is not out of place on this discussion......
georgehd
December 10, 2003 - 08:04 am
Ann, you indicate that "we" decided to close the discussion and I just wonder who "we" are? It certainly was not the members of this group. Just as the decision to move on to Feiler's book was not discussed by the goup. Usually there is a sign up period when people express interest in a suggested book.
Ann Alden
December 10, 2003 - 08:17 am
Things, such as religion, do change over the years but I think that their basic tenets remain the same. And, they do improve sometimes.
George
Here's the link to the proposed new title to indicate interest. Proposed Discussion-Walking the Bible
"We" is the SN Coordinators of Book Discussions who are in charge of these decisions.
Lou2
December 10, 2003 - 10:16 am
Have you read The Seven Habits of HIghly Effective People? I found this fascinating for years and have several of his books. Do you agree with Covey that fairness, integrity, honesty, human dignity, service, growth, patience, nurturance, and encouragement are among the universal principles? He says: "It's almost as if these principles or natural laws are part of the human condition, part of human consciousness, part of the human conscience." Is that right? I had never thought about until I read his books, but he makes sense to me.
Lou
Persian
December 10, 2003 - 10:20 am
ANN - thanks for that link to the great article in the NYTimes about Shirin Ebadi. She is indeed a "fresh breeze" among global humanitarian groups, those interested in gender equality world-wide and a special pride to Persians in Iran and in the diaspora. Her record is clear; she has never wavered in her belief or actions towards fairness for all; and definitely stands up to the fundamentalist element of Shia Islam about the equality of women as taught by the Prophet Muhammad. She is well known in Iran and among the Persian communities elsewhere. Whatever criticism she has received recently in connection with the Nobel is simply the frustration of the patriarchal society (NOT Islam itself) which could not control her public comments and, thus, recognition.
Reading the Qur'an: in earelier posts in the ISLAM discussion, we discussed questions posed by posters unfamiliar with the religion. Some were fairly simple and direct, while others were more detailed.
If those earlier discussions are archived, they may be helpful to the non-Muslim posters. Several of the posters obtained copies of the Qur'an and thus had ready access for clarification.
What seemed to be problematical is that the Qur'an (like the Bible) can be confusing or contradictory to readers unfamiliar with the historical and cultural elements of the period. An intense study of the Qur'an would take some time - similar to what the participants have been doing for the past two years in THE STORY OF CIVILIZATION.
But it is certainly worthwhile for those who may wish to better understand Islam.
TIGER - I was heartened to read the comments about your church. Isn't it wonderful to be a part of a community which is inclusive, rather than exclusive (or overly judgemental) about another's choice.
Persian
December 10, 2003 - 11:21 am
Here's an addition link to a Washington Post article regarding Nobel Prize winner Sharin Ebadi. In this article, the author (an Iranian woman who has benefitted personally from Ebadi's staunch support of human rights in Iran) speaks of the culturally-inflicted discrimination against women in the name of Islam.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51812-2003Dec10.htmlgeorgehd
December 10, 2003 - 11:45 am
There are a number of interesting titles that we could discuss in Kimball's bibliography. I also support Mahlia'a selection of the Gnostic Bible as I would like very much to learn about that period.
I am reading one of Bernard Lewis's books, What Went Wrong, and while it is excellent as a reference, I would not recommend it for a discussion group. There is really nothing to discuss. At the appropriate time, it would be a good addition to the discussion of Durant's History of Western Civilization.
tigerliley
December 10, 2003 - 01:47 pm
Lou....yes....part of the human conciousness all these principles for living a fulfilling life for ourselves as well as for others....some might choose to see this as a little seed which the "divine" has planted......some not.....Persian, that statement by the church with which I am affiliated has changed my life and thoughts about organized religion.... It comes as close as anything to taking care of the poor, the orphans, etc. and also has the distinction in my community of coming out against the Iraq war on religious principles!!!!!! It is a very socially active church....I read carefully all the things which Mr.Kimball indicates can cause a religion to become evil....This is a good stick with which to measure in my opinion.....
Persian
December 11, 2003 - 01:32 am
ANN - The two links from the NYTimes and the Washington Post are a good beginning for posters to learn how a Muslim woman thinks about the topic of human rights and how she has devoted her life to this type of work in Iran.
In your #894, you mentioned the possibility of posters reading the Qur'an to understand the Muslim view of human rights. Although the following example does not quote the Qur'an on that topic specifically, it might be more comfortable reading initially for non-Muslims, since it incorporates the familiar names from Judaism and Christianity, while showing clearly that the patriarchs and prophets in all three religions are respected. Posters who are unfamiliar with Islam or the Qur'an may be surprised to find that many of the suras include references to the biblical figures. But here they are from The Muslim Mind by Charis Waddy (Chapter Two, pp. 17-18).
The Qur’an and the Prophets
No less than eight sura (chapter) headings in the Qur'an recall figures in the Old and New Testaments. Moses and Jesus, founders of Judaism and Christianity, are prophets like Muhammad with the title of rasul' (apostle), greater than nabi’ (announcer).
In the course of the Qur'an, David and Solomon receive no less than thirty-three mentions, and Noah appears some thirty times, as well as heading a chapter. The Sura of Joseph is the longest narrative given. Jonah, "the Man of the Fish", and Sheba, whose famous Queen visits Solomon, are both names of Suras.
Many of the stories are allusive rather than narratory. Evidently the facts were well known to the hearers, and the commentators fill in the details. Some of the information given is found in Jewish sources other than the Old Testament, and in the case of Jesus, in the Apocryphal Gospels. The lives of the prophets were current knowledge in Muhammad's day, as they have continued to be throughout the Muslim world.
In one chapter of the Qur'an (Sura 6: 83-86 Cattle) eighteen prophets are named. The authoritative modern commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali analyses these in four groups. They cover, he says, the great teachers accepted among the three religions based on Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.
•First come Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
•Then follow those who "led active lives and are called ‘doers of good'." These are Noah, David and Solomon, Job and Joseph, Moses and Aaron.
•In contrast, the next group were not men of action, but preachers of truth, who led solitary lives. They include Zachariah and his son John (the Baptist), Jesus and Elias (Elijah), and their designation is "the righteeous.”
•Finally come four who were concerned in the clash of nations, and who through conflict and personal misfortune kept to the path of God: Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah and Lot.
The chapter headed The Prophets (Sura 21) has a similar passage. Elsewhere over and over again the historic sequence is repeated - a warning, followed by either repentance or destruction, as God sends His messengers to one nation after another. The view of history
in the Muslim mind is a prophetic one.
According to the Qur'an, the succession of prophets has been completed - sealed - by the mission of Muhammad. The truth necessary for man to live by has been revealed. There is no need for more. But if men do not presume to claim the stature of the prophet, there is still plenty of scope for humbly following their example. Muhammad's own constant emphasis that he was only a man like other men lays stress on the responsibility carried by all believers.
Here is one of many passages which show the heritage of prophetic inspiration common to Muslim, Jew and Christian.
"We inspire thee [Muhammad] as We inspired Noah and the prophets after him, as We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as We imparted unto David the Psalms;
And messengers We have mentioned unto thee before, and messengers We have not mentioned unto thee; and Allah spake direct unto Moses;
Messengers of good cheer and of warning, in order that mankind might have no argument against Allah after the messengers. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise." (Qur'an: Sura 4: 163-165 Women)
Persian
December 11, 2003 - 01:57 am
TIGER - I truly believe and it has been my own personal experience that adherents of the three faiths under discussion have much more in common with each other from a humanitarian standpoint than differences.
Since we are humans, there is always going to be a certain hesitancy about "differences," but that need not stand in the way of learning. What you describe as such a powerful attraction in your church (especially people working together to benefit others) seems to be similar to some of the very core issues in Islam.
For example, the following, which was written by the Shaikh of Al-Azhar University (regarded in the Muslim world as the leading authority of matters of law and doctrine)and included in Charis Waddy's book, gives a much different view of what the media has reported or what some Muslims interpret (through violence) as "jihad":
"In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Islam is a religion of universal character. The word 'Islam' itself signifies clearly that this religion is a world religion, for linguistically a Muslim is one who is sincerer in his worship of God.
The Prophet Muhammad (God's mercy and blessing be upon him), when asked to define Islam said: 'It is to submit your heart to God and to harm no one by word or deed.' Sincerity towards God and the surrender of the heart to Him are universal principles independent of time and place.
If we examine the concept of Islam linguistically and theologically we find that it is the very same concept as that of the word "faith." For faith means submission to God and full acceptance of what he commands and what he forbids. His orders and prohibitions form the highest morality. And since the concept of Islam is universal, its morality, its legal system and its social order are also of world relevance."
ANN - I'd like to participate in the discussion on Walking the Bible. Since one of the reviewers mentions that this work is much more academically written (although still reads alot like a travelogue), we may find it intereseting occasionally to include links to or comments from other sources which will complement Feiler's efforts. And who knows, Walking the Bible may not be as "Feiler Lite" as Abraham seemed to be!
Lou2
December 11, 2003 - 06:23 am
The Muslim Mind by Charis Waddy
Persian, do you recommend this book, maybe as a kind of introduction to the religion?
Lou
tigerliley
December 11, 2003 - 06:26 am
Thank you Persian for you interesting post....Since returning to my own faith tradition and because of the times we are living in my interest has really been piqued in these three great faith traditions.....Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam....I am currently reading "Striving Together, A Way Forward in Christian-Muslim Relations" by Charles Kimball.....Just as an aside Mahalia.....I live in a college town of about 85,000 and we have a beautiful mosque here...I love the diversity of this community and believe me it makes for a rich and interesting life!
Lou2
December 11, 2003 - 06:45 am
Striving Together, A Way Forward in Christian-Muslim Relations" by Charles Kimball.....
Tigerlily, is this our same Kimball? Is this a newer book or one before Evil? Do you recommend this one?
Lou
tigerliley
December 11, 2003 - 08:37 am
Lou it was written before "Evil".....and yes....the same Kimball
Persian
December 11, 2003 - 09:26 am
LOU - The Muslim Mind is only one of many books which offer a clear look at Islam and its adherents, as well as presenting the historical and cultural environment in which Islam began, and the true nature of the religion, as opposed to a lot of the media propaganda of current times.
What I like particularly about this text is that the author (a Christian woman, born in Australia, but raised in Jerusalem following the first World War)includes comments from individuals as diverse as the aforementioned Shaikh of al-Azhar; professionals in the fields of law, teaching, diplomacy; theology students; and the rich tradition of the Hadith (the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad). It's an easy read for individuals unfamiliar with Islam or Muslims, yet does NOT patronize the uninformed.
And it includes some wonderfully intriguing suggestions. For example, the Honourable Justice M.M. Ismail from Madras writes ". . . Islam is not confined to the mosque. It is a code of conduct and guidance for everyday life. We have to watch the career of a Muslim who has himself understood the religion of Islam and who practices its principles. Without that watching, the mosque or textbook will give us only an incomplete understanding."
From the Muslim Guide, Islamic Foundation of Leicester, England, Waddy's includes the following: "The phenomenon of a pluralistic society which today confronts Britain and many other countries, East and West, is not something new in man's history. The cross-fertilization of ideas, cultures and races has been a major force in the development of civilization." Certainly an example of what the congregation from Tiger's church is doing today!
As Charles Kimball did in When Religion Becomes Evil, Charis Waddy writes from her own unique experiences. For example, she was the first woman to study Oriental languages (Arabic and Hebrew) at Oxford University; chose to focus on the Arab side of the Crusades for her doctorate at London University; has lectured extensively at Muslim centers in Asia and Africa; and been a featured speaker at conferences in Europe, Australia and North America. The Govt. of Pakistan awarded her the Sitara-i-Imtiaz (Star of Excellence) in 1990.
TIGER - I, too, lived in a college town for many years (College Park, MD, home to the University of Maryland)and appreciate the diversity you are enjoying. Hopefully, you have had opportunities to attend various evenets at the mosque, interact with the congregants or perhaps become involved in interfaith programs. Here in the metropolitan Wahsington DC area (including my area of Maryland), we are fortunate to be surrounded by large communities of Christians (Western, Eastern and Orthodox), Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and others which contribute to our cultural diversity.
Lou2
December 11, 2003 - 10:18 am
Persian, thanks so much, I'm going to look for this one. My list doeth growth!!! Just hope the mind can take it all in!!!
Hope everyones' holidays are a blessing.
Lou
georgehd
December 11, 2003 - 01:31 pm
Mahlia, have you looked at the bibliography at the end of Kimball's book and are you familiar with any of the books listed? I thought that your suggestion of the Gnostic Bible (do not remember author) was intriguing. I, too, might be interested in a book about Islam.
By the way, Bernard Lewis's book is most interesting as he tries to explain why the Arab world fell so far behind the Western world. Your approach to Islam seems far more liberal than the approach adhered to by many if not most Muslims. Is this correct? I have been struck by the extremely conservative approach of Islamic holy men (I do not think there are any women yet) in that they seem to want to find answers to modern problems in texts written a thousand years ago. We have to remember that Islam is a total civilization and much more than just a religion. Religion and politics are closely linked as are religion and nationalism. Our notion of separation of church and state would not prove viable in Muslim countries as I understand Islam.
So far, no one except Lou, has really argued with the positions I have taken regarding Kimball's last chapter and I guess I wonder why not.
tigerliley
December 11, 2003 - 03:24 pm
Persian...Yes ......lots of interfaith participation here in this University town and LOTS of ethnic diversity in my church......You know of course by now that I don't believe for a minute that Christianity is the only "way" and it was a great relief to find that most people in my faith tradition no longer believe that either..... though I consider myself a Christian.....I have not been to the mosque but will go one of these days I am sure.......
Lou2
December 11, 2003 - 03:39 pm
So far, no one except Lou, has really argued with the positions I have taken regarding Kimball's last chapter and I guess I wonder why not.
George, it happens all the time. An opinion or a question and it's as though it went into thin air. You see it on the screen and wonder if others haven't. I think most folks are centered on other discussions and not really "here". Or literally not here with holiday stuff. This is a great book, with much to ponder. Guess we'll just have to be content with what we managed to lodge in our brains and be content.
Lou
Persian
December 11, 2003 - 04:16 pm
GEORGE - your earlier #892 was thoughtfully presented; much I agree with, but wonder even if individuals (or communities) are "poor and destitute" whehter they still cannot have hope and faith.
IMO, hope and faith are part of one's family/cultural training and background, as well as one's own belief. Some people can deal with adversity (being poor and destitute) in a better way than others. They have more aggressive personalities (said the Irish Lass!), utilize their curiosity to find sources of help for themselves, and then take advantage of whatever their society might offer to assist them in lessening their deprivations. Others are more hesitant, not inclined to reach out in an assertive manner and often find themselves "left by the wayside."
I'm not sure that organized religion (in any of the faith based ones we've discussed)would address everyone's need. Thus, faith to me can be separate from religion; hope comes from deep in the heart and an awareness of what is truly possible, as opposed to what is simply not possible. And in this aspect, family plays an enormous role, whether from a solid parental foundation or from a struggling single Mom-head-of-household structure.
In refering to the fact that "there were no religions" in the time of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, would you not consider that the pagans had their own religion? Or were you just referring to the 3 which we have been discussing. Certainly Jesus as a Jew would have considered that he (and his family) were part of a religion. I've often wondered whether it was Jesus's intention to simply expand Jewish thought and practice or to truly create a new religion (Christianity).
Guess I'll have to wait to have that question answered.
I'm in the midst of reading through the bibliography in Kimball's book and making some notes. And also I'm waiting for the phone to ring and my son to tell me where he is at this point in his journey back to the USA for a 2 week home leave from Iraq.
Lou2
December 11, 2003 - 04:20 pm
my son to tell me where he is at this point in his journey back to the USA for a 2 week home leave from Iraq.
The only thing better than this is a PCS... and I guess that's not likely for a while... Enjoy, enjoy, enjoy!!! What more could a mom ask???
Our navy son comes here the 23rd... is out of harm's way now in Aussie land. Thank the Lord.
Lou
Bobbiecee
December 11, 2003 - 05:38 pm
Lou, where is your son having his R&R, in Perth?
Bobbie
Lou2
December 12, 2003 - 04:55 am
Bobbie, He is involved with a crew swap... and will go to Japan next. He didn't say where they were/are... He was in Alice for a couple of years earlier... He says: Interesting place, Australia... Ya'know Mate... LOL
Lou
tigerliley
December 12, 2003 - 04:57 am
Lou2 there are some good websites on the BBC newspaper web page under religion , about Islam which you might find interesting.....
Lou2
December 12, 2003 - 04:58 am
Thanks so much, Tigerlily, I'll give them a look see...
Lou
Bobbiecee
December 12, 2003 - 05:07 am
Lou....I lived in Alice from Feb '62 to December '81, where 'owyagoinmatearight' is the greeting, and the answer is 'no worries, mate, she'll be right.'<g> From what you said, I've figured out what his position is in the services. But no worries, I'll keep stumm.<g> I'd also assume he'd be in WA somewhere at present. Yes, Oz is interesting, my country of choice.
BTW, the rest of you, I have been reading all the posts. Some great posts, many deep thinkers.
Bobbie
Ann Alden
December 12, 2003 - 08:44 am
Glad you are joining us in "Walking the Bible". Its certainly lighter than many available books but what has me interested are the links that are up in the header. Would you please sign up, if you haven't already, in the Proposed Discussions folder?
I feel that the Natural Law which we all become aware of as we grow older and wiser really makes us aware of what our duties are in keeping our personal faith active. I think hope is a natural and might be called 'positive thinking'. I like that the author that you quoted made us aware of the effect we have on others just by being a good or bad follower of the religious laws and carrying those beliefs out into the public arena. All of us could be more aware that what we do and say at anytime affects others in a positive or negative way. Being a faithful example of our proclaimed religion or way of life does let people know that we practice what we preach.
George
I feel that Kimball is only pointing out the obvious and that we can agree with him or not. I agree with his comments about "most people through the millennia, thier religious tradition has been a fact of birth. While manty people in the West today approach religions with the idea of choosing one or none, the reality is more complex. Our ways of seeing and interpreting the world, of framing issues, and even of ASKING QUESTIONS are strongly tied to the social, religious, geographical, and historical circumstances into which we were born and raised." You mentioned that you are Jewish and will always be questioning as that is a tradition in the Jewish faith. I was born an Irish Catholic and have questioned and challenged that religion since I was 6 years old. Just could't buy what they claimed as truth!!
By the way I heard an old quote of Ben Gurion's yesterday pertaining to Zionism and what he thought it should be. "Zionism should be about protecting the Jews and that's all." Not being familiar with Zionism, I wondered what he truly meant. I did learn that Zionism started early in the 20th century but that's about all.I plan on reseaching it a little.
Lou2, so glad your service sons are coming home for the holidays. I know you will have a most happy time together! Enjoy yourselves!
Speaking of the air loss of comments, did anyone see the titles that I put up about Iran and the Middle East? I wondered if any of you had read them or know anything pertinent about the authors. I am just starting the one about world religions. Reading has become a real treasure here during the busy holidays. I go to bed early just so I can read.
Bobbiecee, so glad to see you back and hope you will continue to join us as your comments are always thoughtful.
TigerLily, your church sounds similar to two that I know of which are located in the downtown areas of their cities, one being Atlanta (they have a daily soup kitchen plus finding jobs for those that can work plus clothing so many) and one is in Toronto, where they not only do the above things but have turned their church over completely to serving the community. The inside of their church is a welcome open area, more like a community center. No pews or chairs, but lots of play areas, meeting areas, posters up about what is going on, a crib or two, just a very welcoming place. Their soup kitchen is open daily and is in their basement.
It was a joy to visit these churches. The warmth and caring just filled the air.
Lou2
December 12, 2003 - 09:48 am
By the way I heard an old quote of Ben Gurion's yesterday pertaining to Zionism and what he thought it should be. "Zionism should be about protecting the Jews and that's all." Not being familiar with Zionism, I wondered what he truly meant. I did learn that Zionism started early in the 20th century but that's about all.I plan on reseaching it a little.
What fun!! I get to share something I've learned in From Beirut to Jerusalem... Zionism is/was the movement to establish Isreal, the nation. I'm not sure if it's more than that... protecting the nation? I don't know that... This book reads like an adventure story, but is teaching/informing every minute. Descriptions of political and religious groups... and their impact on the country and area... a one chapter history of Isreal... and the different motivies of groups for establishing it... I didn't know that 2 homelands were mandated by the UN... one for the Jewish people, that became Isreal... and the other for the Palestinians... which ended up being divided and annexed by Jordan and Egypt....
Ann, I saw your list of books you are reading. Impressive.
Lou
tigerliley
December 12, 2003 - 12:06 pm
Yes Ann....this church has opend my eyes somewhat and given me a chance for service which I otherwise might not have found.....Once a month some of us serve the needy, poor, or whoever at a place called "Loaves and Fishes".....not just my church but many others and service organizations take turns.....no one is turned away.....no questions asked.....we are also sponsering a refugee family from Liberia who have been living in a camp for 10 years! 5 little ones and another on the way.....It is a joy for me to help out with this family and believe me their love and joy is written all over their faces..... I truly believe that all faith traditions will come to respect and understand each others faiths more in this century.. I like to think this is God's plan and the joke has been on us!!!!
georgehd
December 12, 2003 - 12:34 pm
During the 19th century there was a spread of nationalism throughout the world and particularly in Europe. At the same time, the Jews of Europe were experiencing rising anti-semitism. There were serious progroms in Eastern Europe after 1881; hence the large numbers of Eastern European Jews who emigrated to the US around the turn of the century. Jews living in Europe were seeking liberty, democracy and equality but were not achieving it. Making a fairly complicated history extremely simple, Theodore Herzl, seeing the plight of the Jews suggested that a Jewish Homeland be created to which Jews could go and live a free and Jewish life. Palestine was the ancient home of Israel and for many Jews it represented the only place to establish such a homeland. There was little hope of success until the British Government (then in control of Palestine) issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and this document endorsed the idea of a National Jewish Homeland in Palestine. Nothing was done until 1948 when the UN created Israel.
Ben Gurion was the first Prime Minister of Israel and he had gone to Palestine from Poland during or just before World War 1. He was a pioneer in every sense of the word. He believed in the working man and felt that Jews who came to Palestine had to be prepared with a vision of a land "of milk and honey" and a desire to create such a land.
Zionism then is the name of Jewish nationalism. As a movement it has had many interpretations, some religious and some secular. The term has been often used in a hateful way by those who were anti semitic and those who simply wanted to destroy Israel.
I tried unsuccessfully to find Ann's quote. What I am finding most interesting is in reading about the History of Zionism while at the same time reading about the History of the Middle East from the Islamic perspective.
The role of the British and to some extent the US in creating the mess that we now have in the Middle East is rather shabby. The British wanted to keep their empire and their access to oil while at the same time promising the Jews of Europe a new home. They constantly played off one side against the other.
By the way other homelands were suggested for the Jews, in Africa and South America. What was apparent was that no one except the United States wanted these people prior to World War 2.
Please be clear that there is a difference between Zionism (a political and social philosophy) and Judaism (a religious and social philosophy).
Lou2
December 12, 2003 - 01:08 pm
From Beirut to Jerusalem is right, the reader... ME... got it wrong.
Zionism then is the name of Jewish nationalism.
Thanks, George for correcting me... as you said, interesting reading about these religions and cultures at the same time... this has been a month... Hindus and Gandhi and now Palastine and Isreal... such rich reading.
Lou
Jonathan
December 12, 2003 - 09:19 pm
George, never think that your questions or suggestions go unanswered. Depend on it. Your posts are read and pondered by who knows how many in this new world of ours. From my experience replys often come back to one in indirect ways. Posts following yours may show an association of thought set in motion by your questions. It's in the nature of this new form of communication and interacting.
Why don't you get a discussion going on the life and times of Theodore Herzl? I might be interested.
Jonathan
georgehd
December 13, 2003 - 08:28 am
Jonathan, I tried to email you using the address you supplied to Senior Net. It was returned.
Ann Alden
December 13, 2003 - 10:40 am
Thanks for the explanations of Zionism. Over the years I have heard it denigrated here in the US and did know a teeny little about it. Why does it upset so many Americans? Nationalism, hmmmm!
tigerlily
Yes, helping those who are helpless to help themselves does make one feel more useful. You might be interested in reading a book about a whole town in Iowa where they have taken their duties to immigrants to heart. I will try to find the title for you.
Jonathan, I am not aware of the man that you mentioned, Theodore Herzl. Is he an author or an Israeli political person? The name is so familiar, I must look it up.
Ann Alden
December 13, 2003 - 01:41 pm
Here's the title of that book about refugees coming into middle America, "The Middle of America:The worlds immigrants come to our town" by Mary Pipher. And here's a link to an article about the book and the situation in Nebraska.
The Middle of EverywhereWe read this book last year in our library group and everyone was just so impressed with it. Thought, if you have time, it might appeal to you.
Ann Alden
December 13, 2003 - 02:02 pm
Here is another interesting article from today's CSMonitor:
New approach to helping the worldBobbiecee
December 13, 2003 - 05:50 pm
That is an interesting article, Ann, and I would like to see it come about. However, what I seem to be seeing happening in the world at present is that there appear to be more people in both the Islamic and Christian faiths who are becoming more radical and fundamental. I've always said that most wars have been fought in the name of religion and it appears to be getting worse rather than better. I would like to see a change come about before the fundamentalists of both religions destroy the world with nuclear weapons. I haven't seen that change occurring yet, having read all the world news today and feeling quite discouraged about what I've read.
Bobbie
tigerliley
December 13, 2003 - 06:23 pm
Ann.....I am going to check my libraries catalog....it does appeal to me.....
georgehd
December 13, 2003 - 08:03 pm
Lou2
December 14, 2003 - 11:31 am
Persian and George I'd like to thank you and everyone else for the thoughtful and insightful comments during this book discussion. Ann, thank you for all your time and efforts as discussion leader. I know it's time consuming for you. Hope to meet you all again in another challenging book...
Lou
georgehd
December 14, 2003 - 12:35 pm
We certainly have had some excellent discussion here and I hope that at some point it will continue and include some of the original members of this group. We have much to learn about the history of the Middle East and its religions. The continuing conflict between Islam and Christianity has deep historical roots and that conflict is, unfortunately, not likely to end soon. Certainly the news today is encouraging and we can only hope that peace will come to Iraq and eventually to the region. Tom Friedman has had a number of articles about his view of the effect of a more democratic Iraq on the region. On the negative side, the building of the wall in Israel and the maintenance of the settlements on the West Bank, can only, IMO, continue the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Note that this conflict is one of nationhood and not really of religion, though the two countries are of different faiths. One of the issues that will become more and more difficult in the region is the control of water which has always been in short supply.
georgehd
December 15, 2003 - 05:07 am
For those interested, in the book Islam, What went Wrong, (Bernard Lewis) there is an excellent chapter on Islam and secularism. It is lengthy and somewhat complicated but highly worthwhile for those who are trying to understand what is going on in the Middle East.
Persian
December 15, 2003 - 05:40 am
I've been out of town for a couple of days,while we welcomed home my son from Iraq for a two week home stay, but wondered whether this discussion was going to continue until the new one begins on Jan. 5th or if it will close down now. There certainly will not be a dearth of issues to discuss if it continues.
GEORGE - the chpater to which you refer is excellent and provides a better understanding for the general reader. Hope other posters will take the opportunity to read through it, if not the entire book. Lewis simply cannot be beaten on this topic!
georgehd
December 15, 2003 - 01:08 pm
Mahlia, I am assuming that this discussion is basically closed. There does not seem to be too much interest in the Feiler book so I so not know if that is a sure discussion yet.
You and I have suggested a number of books that could be of interest and Jonathan has suggested a discussion of Zionism or Theodore Herzl. These topics may be too narrow and not exactly right for this discussion. I personally would love to read the Gnostic Bible book which you recommended. Happy holidays and enjoy your family.
georgehd
December 16, 2003 - 05:45 am
The Johns Hopkins Magazine had the following lead story (in part)
"Will we ever stop killing each other in the Name of Religion" by Chaplain Sharon Kugler
"I have an abiding hope that we will and reason to believe that it is possible. Here is why.
"As member of one human family, the best and worst of us are often revealed through our religious urges. At our worst, we feed a corrupt belief that we alone have the corner to truth. We cling to the conviction that no other community of believers can enlighten 'our way'. Difference becomes threatening, leading to a compulsion to defend 'our way' with a severity that defies reason and gives way to fanaticism. Sadly, such behavior fractures creation. It can breed alienation, senseless violence, and destruction.
"At our best, we nurture a genuine spirit of love and compassion. Each major religion has some form of the 'Golden Rule' at the core of its self understanding. Seeking truth and promoting justice by embracing all of creation is the only road. It involves a daring commitment to take each other as seriously as we take ourselves. Only in doing so can we transcend our differences and affirm our best urges and inclinations."
She goes on to speak of positive experiences with her students at Hopkins.
tigerliley
December 16, 2003 - 06:39 am
Georgehd......that just about says it all doesn't it....by the way what is the John Hopkins's Magazine?
Persian
December 16, 2003 - 07:02 am
GEORGE - Chaplain Kugler has offered some encouragement to all of us as we ponder our world and how we (individually or collectively) can overcome some of the negative aspects. Thanks for posting her comments.
TIGER - here is a link to the Johns Hopkins Magazine, published by Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/1103web/bigques.htmlAnn Alden
December 14, 2003 - 06:24 pm
Just wanted to thank everyone who has been discussing this book since we reopened the folder. I do appreciate the fact that its somewhat difficult to return to discussion that has been on hiatus for four months.
Due to my continuing recovery, I am somewhat slower than usual in reading but things are progressing well.
Lou2
Thanks for joining us and do come back again whenever you want.
Persian,
Glad you will be here on Jan 5th for the new title.
tigerlily
Hope you will return along with the many lurkers like
Bobbiecee!
Your post was so thought provoking and I do agree that the article is what I would call, "motherhood and apple pie" journalism. The world is a frustating place and other than living our own lives as well as possible, helping others along the way, giving good examples, I am at a loss!
George
Thanks for those links to Zionism and Herzl. I have bookmarked them all and hope to read them soon. One thing that I wanted to ask you about is the Wall being constructed in Israel but that will have to wait until we see your smiling words in our next discussion or the one after that. Doesn't this wall remind you of the Berlin Wall? The Great China Wall? And, yes, the water problem! Oh, dear, and today I read about East Africa where the lack of water is causing them to starve even though the US has sent in millions of tons of wheat (which they have much trouble handing out to the natives) plus seeds which to plant. That is another good article in CSMonitor, with many pictures of the African natives. What a mess!
See you all on Jan 5th!
Marjorie
December 16, 2003 - 01:00 pm
The next discussion is
Walking the Bible starting January 5.
This discussion is being archived and is now Read Only.
"Whatever religious people may say about their love of God or the mandates of their religion, when their behavior toward others is violent and destructive, when it causes suffering among their neighbors, you can be sure the religion has been corrupted and reform is desperately needed." Charles Kimball 