Letter to Dr. Laura - a good laugh!

[LuvRPgrl]

You've studied Christian theology extensively enough to excuse anything that looks a bit funky in all that old dogma. Now, how about showing the same level of studiousness and rationalization in regard to Islam? Why not look at some of the more inflammatory or bizarre statements in Islamic teachings "IN CONTEXT," as you say?.

Please show where I have said anything ANYTHING negative about ANYTHING in the Koran.

And if you're not willing to, then stop complaining that not everyone is willing to stretch themselves as far as you in rationalizing Christian errors and problems through history. .

My problem with the Koran is that it was written by one man, and he was a war mongering pediophile.

I'm curious your view on other Christian behaviors over time (since you said we should judge a religion by what its followers do, and hence condemn Islam). The Inquisition? The burning of heretics at the stake? The Salem witch trials? Colonialism justified via "spreading the word to the heathens"? Irish Catholic terrorism towards Protestants? All those endless religious wars in Europe? The intense political correctness that makes is nearly impossible for an atheist to run for office in the U.S.? The Catholic heirarchy's toleration of pedophile priests?.

You seem to be making up things that I "supposedly" said. Please provide a quote where I claimed you judge a religion by what its followers do.

(Just to be clear--I am NOT saying Christianity is a "bad" religion. I don't believe there are any bad religions. I believe religion is a human institution, and like all human institutions it fails and goes astray. As a Hindu, I believe God calls to people through many paths, and a popular path is Christianity.)

Mariner.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So Leviticus chapter 11 and 13 were meant to not be permanent, but chapter 12 was? That's a bit ridiculous, don't you think? You're just picking and choosing the parts you want to be permanent law. You don't fool me.

I dont need to fool you, you do that to yourself quite well.

Yep, some laws were general, some permanent, some to the Jews, some universal.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

And christians blow up homosexual night clubs.

Yea, I read about that everyday.

Secularists blow things up too. Enviormentalist whackos do also.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Dillo, I do understand your point. Of course I don't want to justify current Muslim violence. I've repeatedly condemned it.

Here's a very useful word that people around here might want to start using: Islamist. Conservative columnist David Brooks used it today in the NYT to express much of the same frustration people here have been aiming at all Muslims--but more accurately. I'll agree with everyone here that Islamists are in a very bad place right now, doing stupid things.

Here's how I see it. Our battle is not with any army or any religion. Our battle is two-fold:

1. We have to convince moderate Muslims not to become Islamists.
2. We have to bring Islamists into the political process, contain and control their violence, and help them learn to co-exist with other belief systems.

In order to accomplish these things, we should change some elements of our approach and our language:

We should immediately make a public commitment to the Geneva conventions and give prisoners in our custody lawyers, with exceptions being made only in the most extreme instances, e.g. an Al Qaeda operative whom we have reason to believe knows where Osama bin Laden is or of an imminent attack. Even that person should be interrogated with the most effective known techniques--which are NOT torture, as even many military interrogators have bemoaned.

By showing that we treat prisoners fairly and give them a political process, we show that we stand for justice and are not anti-Muslim. Today's NYT reports that 45% of the inmates at Guantanamo are likely innocent, and only 8% are Al Qaeda. Every day we hold them, we bring down our image and lose a step in the hearts-and-minds war.

We should make a careful distinction between Islamists (i.e. conservative, fundamentalist and often violent Muslims) and Muslims as a whole, and do everything we can to show our positive side to the latter group. For example, we could help more after the Pakistani earthquake. We should completely desist from putting down Islam as a religion, and recognize that the real enemy is fundamentalist zealotry and violence, which Christians are also prone to. Where there are legitimate grievances, we should address them, rather than seeing this as capitulating to the enemy. This more humble approach should replace the chest-thumping, cowboy metaphor language that Bush is prone to.

I could go on about specifics, but I hope you see my point: playing into Christian "us" versus Muslims "them" is the way to make things worse, not better.

Mariner.

Uhhhh, so , in order to get people who saw innocent peoples heads off while taping it on video to become less violent, we need to treat prisoners fairly and give more aid to Pakistan.

You are loonie. You think you can "reason" with such people? Incredible. Your ivory tower is showing

 

[Mariner]

I would say it differently-- we should do these things in order to gain the political support of moderates, which will not directly "get" the extremists, but will reduce their support among the population.

I'll do a little research and then respond to some of your other points.

Mariner.

 

[Mariner]

the quote where I thought you had said we SHOULD judge a religion by its followers' actions, but in fact you said the opposite:

"You dont judge a religion by what some or many of its followers do, you judge it by what it preaches. You judge the followers by what they do."

I apologize that I mis-remembered that. Your statement is interesting, but I wonder if you really agree with it. The thing is, the vast majority of Muslims would say that the extremists are misusing Islam. So by your own logic, we can't then judge Islam by what its followers are doing. Therefore, you should stop saying bad things about Islam, and say bad things about extremists instead--exactly what I've been arguing for.

As for my saying you said negative things about the Koran--well, 1. if you read my statement you'll see I said "Islam" not the "Koran," and 2. You only need to look inside your very own post to see you condemning the Koran, or at least its author:

LuvRPGirl: Please show where I have said anything ANYTHING negative about ANYTHING in the Koran.

LuvRPGirl: My problem with the Koran is that it was written by one man, and he was a war mongering pediophile.

Mariner

 

[LuvRPgrl]

the quote where I thought you had said we SHOULD judge a religion by its followers' actions, but in fact you said the opposite:

"You dont judge a religion by what some or many of its followers do, you judge it by what it preaches. You judge the followers by what they do."

I apologize that I mis-remembered that. Your statement is interesting, but I wonder if you really agree with it. The thing is, the vast majority of Muslims would say that the extremists are misusing Islam. So by your own logic, we can't then judge Islam by what its followers are doing. Therefore, you should stop saying bad things about Islam, and say bad things about extremists instead--exactly what I've been arguing for.

As for my saying you said negative things about the Koran--well, 1. if you read my statement you'll see I said "Islam" not the "Koran," and 2. You only need to look inside your very own post to see you condemning the Koran, or at least its author:

LuvRPGirl: Please show where I have said anything ANYTHING negative about ANYTHING in the Koran.

LuvRPGirl: My problem with the Koran is that it was written by one man, and he was a war mongering pediophile.

Mariner

I do not use the words in the Koran to condemn the religion.

I go by the fact that the author is a phoney, not a phrophet, to condemn it as a false religion. I dont not try to prove its a false religion based on what is written in the koran, but by who wrote it. I really dont know what the koran says, I dont even care.

 

[theHawk]

You're missing out LuvRPgrl, theres alot of great things in there. Like muslims can take the women (even married) of their enemies during wartime and make them their wives (slave girls). Muslims will NOT renounce this because it is written in the Qur'an and EVERYTHING in the Qur'an was written by one person....who got the word from Allah himself.

 

[Mariner]

bigamy. Every religion can look at the beliefs of every other one and find things to laugh and cry about. That's exactly why the founding fathers were smart enough to establish a secular state with freedom to worship in America. If we want to spread our beliefs worldwide, we need to be ready to let others worship in their own strange ways. There are two ways to go--the intolerant, "My religion is right and your religion is stupid," or the multicultural, "You worship your way and I'll worship mine." When a religion gets out of hand, e.g. the Islamists trying to overtake Islam, we should condemn the extremists, not all the practitioners of the religion.

Let's apply your logic to Hinduism, LuvRPgirl. The Koran is "bad" in your eyes because it was written by one person, while the Bible was written by several. Well, the Hindu texts were written by thousands of people, so does that make them better than the Bible? Of course not.

BTW why do you keep saying Muhammed was a pedophile?

Mariner

 

[Nienna]

bigamy. Every religion can look at the beliefs of every other one and find things to laugh and cry about. That's exactly why the founding fathers were smart enough to establish a secular state with freedom to worship in America. If we want to spread our beliefs worldwide, we need to be ready to let others worship in their own strange ways. There are two ways to go--the intolerant, "My religion is right and your religion is stupid," or the multicultural, "You worship your way and I'll worship mine." When a religion gets out of hand, e.g. the Islamists trying to overtake Islam, we should condemn the extremists, not all the practitioners of the religion.

But where is the line drawn for "out of hand?" I tell you, I'd consider it "out of hand" if my husband brought home another wife, even though that is not violent.

The laws and customs of a country are BUILT on their religious beliefs. You codify into law what you believe to be right or wrong. This is why "multiculturalism" is doomed. There is not a consensus on morality, therefore, there can be no unity in the government.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

*sniff sniff*

Yeah, that's about 7... maybe 8 years old. Congratulations, you've made it to the late 90s.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You're missing out LuvRPgrl, theres alot of great things in there. Like muslims can take the women (even married) of their enemies during wartime and make them their wives (slave girls). Muslims will NOT renounce this because it is written in the Qur'an and EVERYTHING in the Qur'an was written by one person....who got the word from Allah himself.

I dont argue against Islam as a true religion of the one true God based on the Koran because I dont know the book well enough. But I do know there are some things about Mohamed they dont deny that confirm without a doubt that he is not above Jesus and would not be a phrophet God would use.

I dont say you are wrong either, Im sure, based on the information about mohamed and the reason he had the Koran written (to unify the arabs) that the Koran is full of shit. MARINER, Im not saying it is, Im saying I feel confident it probably is.

Mariner, why are you still repeating the LIE that the fathers founded this country on secularism? THIS HAS ROUNDLY BEEN REFUTED AND PROVEN FALSE. You, nor anyone else who makes that claim answered how the guys who went to their respective States and wrote laws designated an officially state sanctioned religion, could be making a secular govt.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

bigamy. Every religion can look at the beliefs of every other one and find things to laugh and cry about. That's exactly why the founding fathers were smart enough to establish a secular state with freedom to worship in America.

FALSE. The FF instituted STATE sanctioned/sponsored religions, how can that be secular?

If we want to spread our beliefs worldwide, we need to be ready to let others worship in their own strange ways.

Which is what we do.

There are two ways to go--the intolerant, "My religion is right and your religion is stupid,"

WHich is what Islam is doing

or the multicultural, "You worship your way and I'll worship mine." When a religion gets out of hand, e.g. the Islamists trying to overtake Islam, we should condemn the extremists, not all the practitioners of the religion.

You keep repeating that, why? WHO is condemning all of the practioners? WHO? PLEASE QUOTE, IF YOU CAN, THEN STOP MAKING THE CLAIM.

Let's apply your logic to Hinduism, LuvRPgirl. The Koran is "bad" in your eyes because it was written by one person, while the Bible was written by several. Well, the Hindu texts were written by thousands of people, so does that make them better than the Bible? Of course not.

IF that was the only criteria I used to establish the truth of a book, that would be true, but please, again, quote where I said that.

Singular author disqualifies its authenticity. Multiple authors doesnt guarantee it.

BTW why do you keep saying Muhammed was a pedophile?

Mariner

because he married a 6 year old and consumated it when she was 9, bizarre even at the time it occured.

I have come to the conclusion you just carry on conversations with yourself. You dont respond to much of what others post.

 

[Mariner]

Yes, many Muslims are being intolerant of the West. They have real problems to deal with. The Arabs and Ottomans lost giant empires and feel like "has beens." Their glory days in science and mathematics were hundreds of years ago. Most of all, I think, they have a major problem that church and state are not separate. Religion then gets mixed into their politics, so that more fundamentalist/conservative/zealous leaders quickly gain traction while moderate/rational/secular type people are made to look impious. That's been the mechanism of Islamist progress in the Muslim world. Sadly, the Islamists point to anti-U.S. "successes" in terrorism to show that they are "strong," i.e. able to stand up to the world's only superpower.

Re: the Founding Fathers. Yes, they were all Christian (or at least professed it). They had varying forms of Christianity and were extremely aware of the importance of tolerance, since so many of the Europeans who came to America had the specific purpose of fleeing persecution or seeking religious freedom. I'm referring to the Establishment Clause in the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This single clause could be the difference between Islamist states and true, open-minded Muslim democracies, if they would adopt it and the thinking that goes behind it. I pray that they do.

As for Muhammed and pedophilia. I'm no expert, but I don't think child marriages were unusual at that time. In many parts of the Muslim world, they are still common, e.g. Pakistan. I'm not going to defend this practice for one second, but I don't think it's the same as pedophilia; his parents arranged the marriage. In any case, how do we know that God's compassion was not so vast that he chose to appear to a pedophile, just as a prostitute had a major role in Jesus' story, to the point that she was later conflated with the Magdalene?

The ancient Greeks were openly pedophilic and yet their scientific, philosophical, and literary traditions form the basis of all Western culture. Once more, I wouldn't defend their pedophilia, but I wouldn't throw out their better ideas on its basis either.

Re: who is putting down all Muslims as opposed to the extremists--lots of people here at USMB, e.g. all the "they all want to kill us"-type threads. And you:

LuvRP: "I go by the fact that the author is a phoney, not a phrophet, to condemn it as a false religion."

(You ignore that Muhammed considered himself the next prophet after Jesus, part of a long, ongoing prophetic Jewish-initiated tradition.)

If there's a point you've made that you think I haven't adequately "heard," just call my attention to it.

Mom4, I agree we have to draw a line between extremism and religion. I said that in my post--"we should condemn extremists." A useful line might be incitement to violence against others. By that criterion, most Islamists and some Muslims who support them would deserve our censure (as would the I.R.A. and those U.S. Catholics who supported them). The vast majority of Muslims (and the vast majority of Catholics) would not.

Mariner.

 

[dilloduck]

Yes, many Muslims are being intolerant of the West. They have real problems to deal with. The Arabs and Ottomans lost giant empires and feel like "has beens." Their glory days in science and mathematics were hundreds of years ago. Most of all, I think, they have a major problem that church and state are not separate. Religion then gets mixed into their politics, so that more fundamentalist/conservative/zealous leaders quickly gain traction while moderate/rational/secular type people are made to look impious. That's been the mechanism of Islamist progress in the Muslim world. Sadly, the Islamists point to anti-U.S. "successes" in terrorism to show that they are "strong," i.e. able to stand up to the world's only superpower.

Re: the Founding Fathers. Yes, they were all Christian (or at least professed it). They had varying forms of Christianity and were extremely aware of the importance of tolerance, since so many of the Europeans who came to America had the specific purpose of fleeing persecution or seeking religious freedom. I'm referring to the Establishment Clause in the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This single clause could be the difference between Islamist states and true, open-minded Muslim democracies, if they would adopt it and the thinking that goes behind it. I pray that they do.

As for Muhammed and pedophilia. I'm no expert, but I don't think child marriages were unusual at that time. In many parts of the Muslim world, they are still common, e.g. Pakistan. I'm not going to defend this practice for one second, but I don't think it's the same as pedophilia; his parents arranged the marriage. In any case, how do we know that God's compassion was not so vast that he chose to appear to a pedophile, just as a prostitute had a major role in Jesus' story, to the point that she was later conflated with the Magdalene?

The ancient Greeks were openly pedophilic and yet their scientific, philosophical, and literary traditions form the basis of all Western culture. Once more, I wouldn't defend their pedophilia, but I wouldn't throw out their better ideas on its basis either.

Re: who is putting down all Muslims as opposed to the extremists--lots of people here at USMB, e.g. all the "they all want to kill us"-type threads. And you:

LuvRP: "I go by the fact that the author is a phoney, not a phrophet, to condemn it as a false religion."

(You ignore that Muhammed considered himself the next prophet after Jesus, part of a long, ongoing prophetic Jewish-initiated tradition.)

If there's a point you've made that you think I haven't adequately "heard," just call my attention to it.

Mom4, I agree we have to draw a line between extremism and religion. I said that in my post--"we should condemn extremists." A useful line might be incitement to violence against others. By that criterion, most Islamists and some Muslims who support them would deserve our censure (as would the I.R.A. and those U.S. Catholics who supported them). The vast majority of Muslims (and the vast majority of Catholics) would not.

Mariner.

You ever think that the real problem with certain theocracies is with the religion that is running the government. Especially religions that do NOT denounce violence. A Christian riot today in the United States is about as far fetched as is gets.

 

[Nienna]

Mom4, I agree we have to draw a line between extremism and religion. I said that in my post--"we should condemn extremists." A useful line might be incitement to violence against others. By that criterion, most Islamists and some Muslims who support them would deserve our censure (as would the I.R.A. and those U.S. Catholics who supported them). The vast majority of Muslims (and the vast majority of Catholics) would not.

Mariner.

You are neatly side-stepping the point of my post. The point wasn't drawing the line between religion and extremism. The point was that it is IMPOSSIBLE for conflicting religious groups to occupy a united government. When conflict arises, whose beliefs should take precedence? We see this in the clash between Christianity and secular humanism in our culture today. In many cases, it is impossible to reconcile the differences between the two, much less between three or four religions.

Religious freedom in America is not about compromising religious beliefs in the law. It is about allowing others to practice their religion so long as it does not conflict with the ability of others to practice Christianity. There has to be a moral foundation, germane to all our laws. In this country, it is Christianity.

 

[Mariner]

completely disagree with you. I certainly accept that historically speaking, Christianity played a role in the development of Western law, which had other roots too--Greek democracy, for example. But one of the wonderful things about that development was that it reached a point of self-awareness which permitted tolerating all respectful religions equally. The Constitution does not say "Congress shall make no law that offends Christianity." I don't see why different religions can't get along. They do every day at my workplaces around Boston and in the city of Cambridge, which is chock full of religious and ethnic diversity.

If it weren't for this extreme and rather wonderful tolerance--the best thing about the U.S., in my opinion--this country would very rapidly lose its technical and moral edge. America's success has always been fueled by passionate new arrivals from overseas--many of them non-Christian.

As I've mentioned on other threads here, my cousin studied at MIT. Half his class were non-U.S. citizens. At Harvard Med, where I teach, 1/6 of the class is of Indian descent. Throughout the U.S., American-born students occupy only about half of the crucial technology positions in graduate schools. The 5% of the population who are scientists and engineers are estimated to generate 50% of our GDP. Many in that 5% are not Christian, and would not be here if Christianity were the state religion. If we moved the country in the direction you're talking about, our history as technological leaders would be over, what to say of our wonderful melting pot, the multicultural respect for all that we reach at our best. The world needs us to show that this is possible.

I wouldn't want to live in a country that privileged one religion over others--mine or anyone else's. I often wonder why Christians, as the majority religion in this country and worldwide, so often take a victim stance, as if you're still being persecuted by the Romans, rather than having won over that Empire and dominated Western culture for 2000 years... ? I say, celebrate your accomplishments, and enjoy the diversity you have helped to create!

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't see why different religions can't get along. .

Ok. YOu're an idiot. Look around. Muslims believe in torching embassies, killing people, making Islam the law of the land, and conversion by force. DO you NOT see why Islam just can't get along? Or should we be so tolerant that we go ahead and make islam the state religion? WOuld that make them happy?

I'm glad Indians are doing so well, Mariner. I guess that 400 years of enculturation from the brits is paying off.

 

[Mariner]

I was talking about different religions in the U.S., in response to Mom4.

As for Indians and the British--yes, the British left some good institutions--education, the railroads, etc. But India was a wealthy country--the wealthiest in the world--for 1500 or more years before the British arrived. At that point, the British Empire had 3% of world GNP. India had 17%. The British raped the country, leaving it destitute and therefore prone to overpopulation. So it's a complicated legacy, some good, some bad.

Indians like my parents were drawn to this country by its multiculturalism--that was the point I was trying to make.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I was talking about different religions in the U.S., in response to Mom4.

As for Indians and the British--yes, the British left some good institutions--education, the railroads, etc. But India was a wealthy country--the wealthiest in the world--for 1500 or more years before the British arrived. At that point, the British Empire had 3% of world GNP. India had 17%. The British raped the country, leaving it destitute and therefore prone to overpopulation. So it's a complicated legacy, some good, some bad.

Indians like my parents were drawn to this country by its multiculturalism--that was the point I was trying to make.

Mariner.

It's pretty ugly to gloat about the racial compostion of you classes, especially when we whites are being told we're evil unless we let everyone else at the table first.