Princess: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all intrinsically intertwined. The Jews basically believe that the Old Testament is it, and are still waiting for the messiah. The Christians think they got theirs with Jesus, and added the New Testament. The Muslims felt that Jesus was but a great prophet, but the culmination of God's word came with Mohammed and his Quran. They all worship the same God, they just all disagree on who was the greatest prophet, who was the son of God, etc. If anything, I actually think that the muslims are the most advanced in that regard, if only because they had 600 years of extra history to build upon. They do hold the Christian and Judaic prophets in high regard, though. The argument should thus be reduced to the level of that between Judaic and Christian theologians - one would think. But alas, the true heart of the problem lies in an area that no one wants to discuss... The Islamic world is several hundred years behind the Judeo-Christian world in terms of cultural position. That is the real root of the disagreements.
treeman, that's what I thought about the religions, but I didn't want to say it and miss something. Thanks for clearing it up. While the Islamic world today is behind culturally, they were the leaders of the world for so long. They translated Greek texts first. They used algebra and advanced math. They were the knowledge center of the world until Europe came in and the Industrial Revolution began. Sad that such a great empire was reduced to almost nothing. Nowhere in here do I even see the word "peaceful." Neither religions are perfect and he isn't claiming in this statement that either one is. Both religions have a way to promote their religion (jihad or crusades, but I would not compare the two exactly). Both religions have ONE God. Both Gods promote peace. As I said before, Islam was the most tolerant religion of its time. I'm sure you can look to both books and find examples of violence and peace in their respective Gods. The only thing I see wrong with his statement is that he says "requires." The jihad is one of the 5 pillars, but my professor said it's not required that you die for God in Islam. She's hasn't said why, but I'll ask.
Hmm... Princess, you're ignoring the connotations of the statement. Either the statement has an implication, or it does not. If it has an implication, then it's implying that Christianity is more peaceful than Islam. If it doesn't have an implication, then why say it? The only way you can defend the statement is to neuter of it of being meaningful. I don't ingore the New Testament. Most of the New Testament doesn't bother me. However, I've heard Ashcroft quote the old testament. He doesn't get a pass whenever it's inconvenient. Many people are like that: they like to quote the Old Testament, then ignore it's oddities and contradictions when they're embarrassing. Any statement requires context. In a perfect mathematical world, statements do not really have context. Unfortunately, in this world, they do. Any statement is a combination of semantic, "hard" meaning... and contextual, "soft" meaning. I'll agree with you that if you take the "hard" meaning of Ashcroft's statements, then there isn't really a problem. But I think that arguing that a context doesn't exist is an uphill battle in any circumstance, much less this one. Especially when the statement becomes largely meaningless otherwise. Ashcroft stated what he believed to be a fact. Why? To simply have one more fact on the record? For no purpose? Was he merely being academic? Probably not. The statement was promoting Christianity over Islam as a more compassionate, less violent religion. What does it mean to die for a religon? It means to fight for a religion. It means violence. Ashcroft was nearly necessary implying this. Not, I say "nearly." There is an interpertation of his statement that circumvents my understanding of it. But the key question is: is it likely? No. To render that statement unbigoted, you have to eviscerate almost any meaning of it. I find such to be making excuses.
Okay...(deep breath before wading into a discussion about religion AND politics...Now if I could only work out a way to include a woman's weight, my grandfather would be turning in his grave in reproach...) 1) The primary issue, as I see it, is where do you seperate church and state, and moreover where you should be seen to do so. The fact that Ashcroft, being a Christian, avows a clearly biased statement is hardly surprising in it's content, however it may be in it's context. Any monotheistic religion is, by definition, founded on the belief that all other beliefs are wrong. This was the reason the Romans originally had a problem with both Judaism and Christianity, and it hasn't altered to this day...Religion is a source of conflict only when and where it has to exist in opposition of others. Therefore, if Ashcroft is truly a Christian, it is hardly surprising that he believes that his religion is correct, and any other is not. The fact that his facts and representation of this bias are wholly without substantiation is merely a side effect of having a necessarily myopic view of the issue. What IS important, and noteworthy, is that a representative of the government would use the forum his office affords him to issue this statement, which is neither representative of facts, nor of the premise of a government founded upon the freedom of religion. While it is an important distinction that this is a freedom of equality, not neutrality ( ie. we are not legally bound to remain without conviction contrary to another belief) that freedom is restricted, as are all others, when it denies another the same freedom. In other words, comission loses out to omission, when in opposition. What is more, Ashcroft made this error in protocal and representation at a very sensitive and emotionally charged time, betraying a divergence of priorities from those assigned to his position. I have no problem with those for whom faith is the overriding factor in their lives, in fact I somewhat envy their conviction, but when you assume public office or a position of representative nature, you are bound to uphold the law and fulfill your position first and foremost, unless we have become a theocracy without my knowledge. Either leave your faith at the door, practically speaking, excercise judgement in your statements, or don't take a position which requires what you cannot do. And, lastly, I don't see how the supposition that Ashcroft has previously said that Islam is a peacefull religion has any bearing on the significance or ignorance of this statement...If I'm a public official, and have many times said that I believe that racism is wrong, that fact will hold little water were I to call a black man the N-word, or a Jew the K-word, or whatever...And for those who are trying to argue semantics, stateing that he never actually said one was 'superior', or that one was 'peaceful' and one wasn't...please. Even the court of law recognizes inference, and in this case it is blatent. For example, let's say I go up to a woman who works under me and say " How would you feel if I were to say to you that I want to sleep with you so bad I'd promote you if you agreed?" Now, technically, I never offered anything, just asked her opinion on something...but is it sexual harrasement? You bet...So please don't be so sophomoric to suggest that his distinction between one religion sending it's sons off to die vs. another who dies for them isn't blatently biased and insulting to Islam...if you do I might be compelled to suggest the difference between you and a person who doesn't is that you have altered the relative altitudes of your cranium and your rectum to such a point as they appear indistinguishable, whereas the other person has maintained a more traditional means of carrying themself...AND YOU CAN'T BE OFFENDED.
haven: The implication is that Christianity is more peaceful than Islam - my words, not his. I can vouch for that with the fact that our crusades ended in 1450, while theirs (jihad) are still ongoing. They haven't learned to stop killing people yet. Again, my words, not his. How are we to know what implied meaning he meant for the interviewer? Yes, we all understand what he meant... But he's a politician, and this was print. He was ambiguous enough, and here we are, arguing... No s*it, sherlock. See above. Guess what? Christians believe that their interpretation of things is a fact. You and I both know that it's highly cubious at the least, but they believe it to be fact. And as long as it rides with scripture, it is dogmatic fact, no matter whether or not it's actually true. Religious people see no difference. Surprise, surprise - a Christian AG presents his faith as more compassionate than that of the motherf*kers he's tracking - who have just murdered 3,000 of our countrymen. If anything, you should be surprised that he's not being more forceful. Did I mention that ALL of our current enemies fit a certain profile? And that they are ALL muslims? How surprising that Ashcroft would point out their primary motivator to a public interviewer... He's probably tired of dumbasses like some here wanting to just let everyone pass thru the bomb-sniffers (metaphorically speaking)... To render that statement bigoted, haven, you have to be looking for anything to do so. If you want to s*it on Ashcroft, then it doesn't take much to do it. But you really need to find something beter. At least find something that's not dogmatically true both ways. JAG: Don't get offended so easily. You obviously do...
Bottom line: Islam - there is no higher honor than martyrdom. A martyr recieves even better treatment in Heaven than a prophet does. The honor extends somewhat to the family of the martyr. End result? You've got parents telling their kids to go blow up Israeli school busus. Christianity - Jesus already died for your sins. You have a duty to defend God, but because of the importance that Western Civilization places upon offspring, no one is telling their kids to "Go kill a muslim for God" anymore. That stopped about 600 years ago. Ashcroft was just stating dogmatic truths. We don't have to agree with them... but they are there. And the main problem is that Islam is several hundred years behind the 'peace curve' in relation to the West. That is the real problem.
Grrr... I made a nice, long post and it got ruined by a crash. Oh well. I don't feel like re-writing it, so to sum up: 1. If we're speaking of Dogma, the Bible and Koran are both violent in parts, and peaceful in others. You can't escape the contradictions. 2. Christianity still celebrates martyrdom. See all the outpouring of sympathy for missionaries, etc. Christian martyrdom is probabl yless violent because most prominent Christian nations are further developed. (If one believes that religion plays a determinant role in national development, that's one thing... I think religion is white noise). 3. It being a "matter of belief" doesn't exempt Ashcroft from bigotry/criticism. That's an unpleasant trend, imo... in this country. Someone gets criticized, so they chalk it up to belief or opinion. Sorry, I don't think it gives you a free pass. Bottom line, Ashcroft made a statement that can't be reconciled with the text of the two documents that are integral to each faith. He should be censured for this.
haven: Not trying to escape any contradictions. I never said that the OT wasn't violent - it is. Extremely. But the NT is decidedly peaceful in tone and substance... That Jeebus thing again. We're talking about Christianity here, not Judaism (I think...) What the F* are you talking about? Missionaries are not martyrs. One goes to preach, the other goes to kill. This is probably one of the dumbest statements I have ever seen you make, haven. Christianity stopped 'celebrating' martyrs when the Pope stopped exonerating murderers - when the Crusades ended. You should be the posterboy for free speech. It could have your mug and this quote, with the caption "This is why we need Free Speech" under it... You are a Thought Copper waiting to happen. I don't even think you realize it. No, Ashcroft made two statements that were dogmatically true. If he is to be censured, then every single priest, minister, preacher, Imam, cleric, mullah, etc needs to be censured as well. You will say, "But he's a government representative!" I say the man's human first. He's got a right to his religion. When he starts imposing that religion upon the rest of us, then he should be censured, removed, tarred, feathered, etc. Until then, he can say what he wants. You're a Thought Cop waiting to happen, haven. And you don't even realize it.
Damnit, I wanted to quit, but I felt I had to respond to this. I refer to when Christians missionaries die of disease/violence, etc. Quite celebrated. Of course, such are more peaceful martyrs... but they're still martyrs... and it's still dying for a cause. My argument continues that Christian martyrs generally die less violently because the West is more developed. Thought Copper? Pffft. I can think of people as fools without wanting them arrested. The idea that people should be arrested for stupidity is absurd. What Ashcroft said is absurd and bigoted and one should recognize this. That just means I'm not a complete relativist. Incidentally, you keep arguing for the superiorit yof the NT. If Ashcroft wasn't a hellfire and brimstone-type throw-back Christian, that argument would work for him. However, he isn't. Such an assertion works for liberal Episcoples and Methodists... not Baptist-types. You seem incapable of making subtle distinctions on this issue.
haven: Aahh... So now someone can get the flu and become a martyr? Not unless he's marching in Allah's Holy Brigade on the way to Meggido... Disease... Pleez. I think you know the difference I'm talking about. Better off ignoring a point than throwing something lame like that back. OK. Do I really need to point the logical fallacies in this post? You're OK with whatever anyone's thinking. You don't want to persecute anyone for their thoughts. But Ashcroft should be censured for his thoughts. He is somehow the exception. Oh, and you're a 'complete relativist' (if that's humanly possible - it's not), so no one should ever be censured for their thoughts... Well, personally I do think that as far as religions go, the NT is a great philosophical building block. Lord knows the rest of the world's religions could use something like it. I thought that your basic accusation was that Ashcroft was a "a hellfire and brimstone-type throw-back Christian"? If that's not it, then what exactly is your problem with him? And don't tell me that you're still scared that he'll impose unwanted ways on you - ain't adoin'. What's the beef, then? (That was my problem with him before you 'forced' me to defend him. And I am not a Baptist, BTW. I belong to no organized religion, although I do believe in God.)
This is terrible, Treeman. Let me point out one thing that's emblematic of your difficulties arguing in this thread. Has he? Perhaps so, but he was adamantly opposed to including NK in the "Axis of Evil" speech, and troubled even with the addition of Iran. You don't even know what a martyr is! Ha! A martyr doesn't have to die in a crusade. A martyr just has to sacrifice his life for his religion. Are you totally losing your mind? Ashcroft should be "censured." That involves us all laughing at him and saying, "what a moron." That's it. You've done this plenty in this thread, so you're being a hypocrite. And whne did I claim to be a complete relativist? I said I *wasn't*. Are you having trouble reading? You've somehow created a case to defend Treeman Ashcroft, not John Ashcroft. What you've done, is overlayed his own beliefs/positions with your own... and defended the combo. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Treeman Ashcroft's positions may or may not be defensible. John Ashcroft's are not.
haven vs. treeman round 2 of the Best Poster on the BBS tourney coming soon. . . this makes for great television
Didn't really want to step into this as I am trying to work more and waste time less, but a couple of points: A martyr is someone who dies for a particular principle or cause, not necessarily a religion, although it is used in that context a lot. How are Ashcroft's statements unreconcilable with the text of the NT & the Koran? He obviously is talking NT since he mentions God sending his son. The Koran spawns the idea of supreme honor in heaven for you and maybe your family if you die in his cause. That is different from Christianity where how you die is not really important for entrance into heaven and makes no difference upon your station once you're in heaven. What isn't factual about that?
Just once I would like to see haven and treeman have a political/int'l relations lovefest and join forces to attack someone else's views about Costa Rica's military aggression (let's see who says something about that). If Ashcroft wants to be "dogmatically correct," he should not be talking about Islam in monolithic terms. He should clarify that he is really talking about fundamentalist Islam, which was a 20th century addition. There are so many different sects that often believe radically different things that, if one wants to be accurate, it is silly to lump them all together. please note: this is not directed towards anyone except Ashcroft, so if John is reading this, please try harder in the future. Thank you.
Shall I write it again? When I went to Lutheran school from K through 12, I was told repeatedly in religion class that the Hari Krishnas down the street from us were put there (much like the dinosaur bones) by the devil to lead us away from the one true God. They said the same thing about Buddhists, Muslims and practically every other religion. The only religion different was Judiasm and they just said they were misguided (but still going to hell, of course). So, in essence, they weren't evil, just stupid. I was saying that I found Ashcroft's comments to be indicative of Christians I knew when I was growing up. I know many Christians who aren't like that too. I also know musicians who don't smoke weed and dogs that don't bark. I guess that must be true for everyone as well.
Why do actions and words coming from other countries seem to always get rationalized, and "understood", while when it's someone we don't agree with in the US, it's all so simple -- they're a "bigot"? I probably could've worded that better. Like for example, another country can't be "evil", we just don't agree with them...or, they have a different background, or "you don't face what they do on a daily basis". However, when we don't agree with someone in the US, they're automatically a "bigot" or a "racist". Anybody have any thoughts on that? Why do some always give the benefit of the doubt to people from other countries, but never to those from this country? And now here is the point where the textbooks and big words come out, and I leave...
Freak: I think, for the most part, you are right. We have a tendency to go to the extreme when it comes to others - they are either evil or they are misunderstood (and mistreated). Very likely, neither is true. Some just choose to defend their actions while other derride. By the same token, we have the tendency to be either overly critical or overly protective of our own people. In the case of Ashcroft, if you don't really agree with his personal beliefs to begin with, it is likely that he gets criticism. However, those who do agree will go easy on him most of the time as well. I think that is just the nature of having an opinion. If you believe something, you tend to extend that belief outward and project it onto other people one way or the other. It works that way for everyone.
Some interesting distinctions you're making...So, when we send our young men to go out and kill in the name of Democracy ( ie. Vietnam, etc.) does that mean Democracy is an inherantly violent form of government, or the U.S. is an aggressive expansionist country..oh, and about the U.S., if you want the dogamtic text which supports it, try reading about Manifest Destiny at some point. And, no,most Americans don't use Manifest Destiny as an excuse to justify attacking it's neighbours, anymore ( see Panama, etc.) as most Muslims don't see the Koran as an excuse to attack other religions...There are fanatics everywhere, and the Koran, the Bible, and many other monotheistic religious texts have been intepreted by others to justify aggression...it doesn't mean it is endemic to one religion over another... oh, and the 5 fundamentals of Islam... 1) Observe Ramadan 2) Acknowledge Allah as God 3) Pray 4 times a day facing Mecca 4) Give to charity 5) If financially possible, go on at least one pilgramage to Mecca... That's it, period. No mention of Holy War in it's precepts, Their religious text DOES contain such language, so does the Bible, if you want to read it that way...
Yep, its always really about booty. I believe what Treeman meant was that Christianity is not a threat to expand as a bloc (for many reasons). Islam still is although they are not currently unified. This type of expansion is consistent with the Koran, but not with the NT. Which is not to say that I think Ashcroft should be saying these things. Although is the uproar because he drew a comparison with another religion or because he made faith based expressions? I would say that you would be hard pressed to find a lot of politicians or officials that HAVEN't made faith based proclamations.
