1

I am reminded of this discussion by G. K. Chesterton:

Men fight hardest when they feel that the foe is at once an old enemy and an eternal stranger, that his atmosphere is alien and antagonistic; as the French feel about the Prussian or the Eastern Christians about the Turk. If we say it is a difference of religion, people will drift into dreary bickerings about sects and dogmas. We will pity them and say it is a difference about death and daylight; a difference that does really come like a dark shadow between our eyes and the day. Men can think of this difference even at the point of death; for it is a difference about the meaning of life.

Men are moved in these things by something far higher and, holier than policy; by hatred. When men hung on in the darkest days of the Great War, suffering either in their bodies or in their souls for those they loved, they were long past caring about details of diplomatic objects as motives for their refusal to surrender. Of myself and those I knew best I can answer for the vision that made surrender impossible. It was the vision of the German Emperor's face as he rode into Paris. This is not the sentiment which some of my idealistic friends describe as Love. I am quite content to call it hatred; the hatred of hell and all its works, and to agree that as they do not believe in hell they need not believe in hatred. But in the face of this prevalent prejudice, this long introduction has been unfortunately necessary to ensure an understanding of what is meant by a religious war. There is a religious war when two worlds meet; that is, when two visions of the world meet; or in more modern language when two moral atmospheres meet. What is the one man's breath is the other man's poison; and it is vain to talk of giving a pestilence a place in the sun.

I thought it particularly poignant how the girl talks of how her love will be more than words, describing what we would call an act of unfathomable hate. Perhaps, in the light of Chesterton's above comment, this is not so strange. It would seem that we, in the West, have a rather determined enemy.

May God have mercy on us all.

2

This is one of the most horrifying things I've ever seen.

3

The devaluation of life in that subculture is appalling.

4

"It would seem that we, in the West, have a rather determined enemy."

Yet to be determined is whether the west will be up to the task of defending itself. So far the record is not encouraging. All that has made our culture great is threatened not only by suicide terrorists and IED's, rather it is the self imposed sharia of political correctness and timidity to confront the reality of our enemies culture that are the greater threats.

May stout hearts and courageous souls continue to risk all for our freedom on the battlefiels, and may we be ever faithful to them.

May we all say no more to the intellectual and cultural assaults launched on us daily.

5

Does anyone wonder, just a little bit, why these people blow themselves up? Killing people, and especially innocent people is truly sad, and if one were to weigh which side of this conflict has had more civilians killed and imprisoned, it may tell another side. The Iraq Study Group, that everyone has forgotten, pinpointed correctly the urgent need to correct the current situation in Isreal/Palistine. Scott has a good point, we should see the reality of the situation and America should proceed as the Country that loves Freedom, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

6

Russ Does anyone wonder, just a little bit, why these people blow themselves up?

Yes, because they hate Jews more than they love life.

7

Joe, Not for a second would I condone suicide bombers but is that it, "they hate Jews more than they love life." How do you know they don't love life? Are they inhuman?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anomalous/sets/522872/

I'm not into an argument on this one, I just ask one to look at the whole situation.

8

Russ,

Joe never said that they didn't love life - only that they hate Jews even more. As to why they hate Jews so much, there are rather obvious reasons, and perhaps some deeply rooted, ancient, less obvious ones as well.

I respect their willingness to die out of their love for their homeland and their relentless hatred of the people they see as its invaders (yes, even its civilians). And I'm horrified at the same time that this hatred is so all-consuming as to make a mother choose a suicide attack rather than a life nurturing her children. It's particularly uncanny to know that many of them would love to see you and I dead, without ever meeting us.

9

Scott,

I sometimes wonder who is the worse enemy of the Christian in the West - the Muslim or the Secularist. We have much in common with the Muslims (faith in God, desire to see his justice done in the world, etc), as well as Secularists (a common history, love for liberty, the democratic heritage). But both are really at our throats right now. The less fanatical Muslims and Secularists are willing to live and let live, and the more fanatical ones would have us convert or die. It's like being between the hammer and the anvil.

10

Wonders,
That was a very nice post and I apologize for putting words in Joe's mouth. There might be a chance you misunderstand the Secularist, (And I wonder if you mean me included). What was Jesus aiming at with his story about the good Samaritan, the Palestinian of today?

11

I don't think I misunderstand secularism - at least not horribly so. Many of my friends and coworkers are secularist in their thinking. And I strive to understand Islam as well. The reason I speak so strongly against secularism is that it leaves no place for historic Christianity in its vision for the world. You see, Christianity is the proclamation of Jesus as the Lord of the World - including even our public life. Secularism, at its very core, must redefine religion as an essentially private and personal matter. We Christians respond that a man can no more have a private religion than he can have a private sun and moon. Feel free to correct me where I mischaracterize secularism, but I think this is pretty clearly what the conflict between Secularists and Christians is over.

As to the parable - you are my neighbor, as is Richard Dawkins (who would have me branded as a child-abuser for taking my kids to church with me), as are the kind and hospitable Muslims I've met, as is Osama Bin-Laden and the woman in this video. We Christians are called to love even our worst enemies - to say nothing of mere ideological opponents.

12

Rob,

I do think part of Russ' point should stand. I'm sure they see their lives, and that of their children, as incredibly precious. Unless I very much misunderstand Hamas, it is not the devaluation of life that we are seeing here, so much as the intensity of their hatred.

13

Wonders,
You describe the parable correctly but there's more I was aiming at. The Samaritan, was one who would have been considered the enemy but turned out that he was good. He was no Bin Laden, though yes, the Bible says love your enemy. The Samaritans, I'm led to understand, still live in Lebanon.

14

"I don't think I misunderstand secularism - at least not horribly so. Many of my friends and coworkers are secularist in their thinking. And I strive to understand Islam as well. The reason I speak so strongly against secularism is that it leaves no place for historic Christianity in its vision for the world. You see, Christianity is the proclamation of Jesus as the Lord of the World - including even our public life. Secularism, at its very core, must redefine religion as an essentially private and personal matter. We Christians respond that a man can no more have a private religion than he can have a private sun and moon. Feel free to correct me where I mischaracterize secularism, but I think this is pretty clearly what the conflict between Secularists and Christians is over."

On the contrary...your failure to understand the concept of secularism is both undeniable and complete as well as self evident. Your statement that your Jesus is the "Lord of all the world" is the very paragon of self righteous arrogance that characterises religionists so well. There is a reason why secularists wish for religion to be kept private and away from positions of leadership and its a reason that even religionists themselves will agree with...no one wants to be forced to live their lives according to the unproven and unprovable spiritual beliefs of someone else...not secularists,not jews,not muslims,not athiests,not agnostics,not pagans...not even christians. And so,secularists prefer to fall back on things everyone can agree with as a means of creating a functional society. and the only thing we can truly all agree on (or most of us anyway) is that there is a physical world all around us which operates according to seemingly predictable and constant rules...and that it...as soon as you go beyond that,you enter into the realm of constant disagreement which makes it utterly impossible for people of even slightely differing mindset to cooexist peacefully...now i realize that one of the main argument used by christians and other fundamentalist religionists at this point is to point out that everyone cant all be right at the same time...but in so doing,they always seem to overlook the glaring flaw of their reasoning...namely that while it is impossible for everyone who disagree with one another to all be right,it is entirely possible for ALL OF THEM TO BE WRONG...

As to the parable - you are my neighbor, as is Richard Dawkins (who would have me branded as a child-abuser for taking my kids to church with me), as are the kind and hospitable Muslims I've met, as is Osama Bin-Laden and the woman in this video. We Christians are called to love even our worst enemies - to say nothing of mere ideological opponents.

I m sorry to tell you this but there is nothing but barely conceiled loathing in your statement.

15

Ludwig you wrote;

"Your statement that your Jesus is the "Lord of all the world" is the very paragon of self righteous arrogance that characterises religionists so well."

and then;

"We Christians are called to love even our worst enemies - to say nothing of mere ideological opponents."

These two statements are contradictions. To be a Christian is to foremost believe that Jesus is one with God and as the Bible makes clear is Lord over everything, including this world.

16

Ludwig

I just read your post again and realized you were not making the second point...my apologies.

However you said

"and the only thing we can truly all agree on (or most of us anyway) is that there is a physical world all around us which operates according to seemingly predictable and constant rules..."

How do you come by this assertion? What proof do you have to support this contention?

17

Your statement that your Jesus is the "Lord of all the world" is the very paragon of self righteous arrogance that characterises religionists so well

He is not mine, Ludwig. He is who he is. If anything, I am his - and I am grateful he's willing to have such an arrogant prick as myself in his company.

But you haven't really made the case that I misunderstand secularism. On the contrary, by your strong reaction, you confirm that the issue of whether religion can be made a private matter only is at the heart of our dispute. You accuse me of misunderstanding secularism, but I think it more accurate to say that I disagree with secularism.

Perhaps you are wasting your breath though - I doubt there's much hope for someone whose misunderstandings are as deep, undeniable, and self-evident as myself. But if there is any hope for me, you will need to show me why, as a Christian, I should not consider Jesus to be Lord of the World. I'm just having trouble seeing how that doesn't mean ceasing to be Christian in any real or historic sense.

And perhaps, though granted you will also be sorry to do so, you can explain to me why the desire to learn to love all people, including my enemies, constitutes nothing but loathing.

18

The Samaritans were the secularized Israelites, the ones that turned their backs on the Jewish faith when the kingdom was split between Samaria and Judah, the ones that embraced political correctness of their age.

Just to put the parable in context...

19

As long as we're putting the parable in context, we might as well point out that the priest and the Levite were forbidden by the law of Moses to come near an apparent corpse, lest they become unclean.

20

"But you haven't really made the case that I misunderstand secularism. On the contrary, by your strong reaction, you confirm that the issue of whether religion can be made a private matter only is at the heart of our dispute. You accuse me of misunderstanding secularism, but I think it more accurate to say that I disagree with secularism."

Fair enough....but let me ask you this then...why do you believe that secularists prefer to keep religion as a private affair? from your post,it seemed that you were implying that secularists have some dark nefarious reason for doing so..maybe i was wrong so in the interest of clarity,please tell me why in your opinion we believe the way we do.

"And perhaps, though granted you will also be sorry to do so, you can explain to me why the desire to learn to love all people, including my enemies, constitutes nothing but loathing."

your gratuitous attack against Richard Dawkins is a good indicator

21

"The Samaritans were the secularized Israelites, the ones that turned their backs on the Jewish faith when the kingdom was split between Samaria and Judah, the ones that embraced political correctness of their age."

If the samaritains were indeed secularists,they weren the progressist people of their time,which in my opinion is very commendable...the difference between secularists and religionists is that the former always leave open the possibility that he or she may be wrong while the later considers any lapse in faith,no matter how reasonable to be heretical.

22

Fair enough....but let me ask you this then...why do you believe that secularists prefer to keep religion as a private affair? from your post,it seemed that you were implying that secularists have some dark nefarious reason for doing so..maybe i was wrong so in the interest of clarity,please tell me why in your opinion we believe the way we do.

Very well - I will tell you why I think you think what you think (even if you don't think so). :-)

My theory is that it goes back to the wars of religion in Europe in the 17th century. Before then, what was called Christendom was largely united - yes with some inevitable wars between nations, but more or less nations like England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, the Italian states understood and respected each other. The Church was able to insist that rulers not wage total war with each other, and the worst suffering of the period came with more natural evils, like the Black Death. (All this is not to idealize the Middle Ages - there was indeed corruption in the Church and backwardness in many of their customs)

Then came the Reformation, which I (as a Protestant) see as largely a good thing. But it had some horrific consequences in subsequent generations. All of Europe erupted into war, and these wars were far crueler and more destructive than before. Particularly the 30 years war in Germany was terrible beyond description. The respect that had kept barbarism somewhat in check in the middle ages was gone, as they no longer saw each other as fellow Christian nations, but as evil apostates vs. the only true faith. As such, horrors like the wholesale extermination of civilians became more prevalent, as the zeal that had once helped keep unity became a tool for carnage. All I can say is I sure am glad I wasn't born in the 17th century...

Treaties were finally signed making provisions for Protestants and Catholics to exist with some measure of tolerance and coexistence. People clung to the notion of the state as the benign peacemaker between competing religious views. Some order had to be kept, people couldn't just keep killing each other over these new divisions. So, in the wake of all this, Europe began to recover - and secularism was born.

This is why I think people in the West began to relegate religion to the private sphere, though I doubtless have misunderstandings which (if not undeniable, complete, and self evident) are substantial.

23

I confess that I have little of Christ's love in my heart for Richard Dawkins. I consider this an area of growth that the Lord and I must continue to iron out.

To try to understand why I said what I said, take a look at this article on his site:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,118,Religions-Real-Child-Abuse,Richard-Dawkins

Here he very directly compares traditional Catholic upbringing with child abuse, saying that in many cases it is far worse than sexual abuse. If he knew my own beliefs, and my own practice, I'm sure he would concede that my abuse of my children is less severe - more comparable to mutual masturbation with my son than violent rape. Read the article.

Dawkins then signed the following petition, which he laudably later retracted after public outcry:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16. In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians. At the age of 16, as with other laws, they would then be considered old enough and educated enough to form their own opinion and follow any particular religion (or none at all) through free thought.

And yet, I am serious, Ludwig - I truly believe that my God wants me to love this man - to hope and pray for his good. Jesus said "Father forgive them" for the soldiers as they nailed him to the cross. If I am to serve such a king, I need to follow his example. And, believe me, it sometimes isn't easy.

24

That there is hate in the ME is I think a consensus, Israeli children writing on bombs to be dropped on Palestinians and Palestinians blowing themselves, and whoever els they can, up. This subject is at the heart of many problems we need to at least try to fix. If we stick together we can force the president to change his foreign policy. His current policy only plays into the hands of bin Laden, and all other Sunnis.

25

Wonders for Oyarsa

Well i think that in spite of yourself,you ve actually exposed the dangers of religious zeal run amok,which it always does when its the law of the land. Secularism is a barrier against that but as i stated before,that barrier also protects christians. The only reason you oppose secularism is due to the fact that you are in the majority and as such,you believe that you should be allowed to impose your beliefs on others and you see secularists are interlopers who interfere with your "god given mission" to spread the word to the "unbelievers". But if you were in the minority,like in China or the Middle East,you wouldnt really have any problem with a philosophy that keeps you from being extinguished by the will of the disagreeing majority.

And there was never any time when christians all lived in harmony aross europe...the so called "christian holy empire" has been at war on and off for pretty much all of its existance. And the reason for that lies in the nature of your religious belief...namely that you consider them universal and all encompassing and as such you are enjoined by them to either convert those who dont believe as you do,or "neutralize" them. There is no provision in your christian dogma that allows for the possibility that you might be in error and so since you are convinced you are absolutely right you are therefore convinced that anyone who disagrees with you is absolutely wrong. In that,Christianity and Islam share a common trait and even though at this moment both religions differ somewhat in the manor through which they resolve these diferences,centuries ago their methods were the exact same. A free society cannot be constructed around such an irrational mindset and thats why secularism is a vital key element of any civilisation where individual freedom is to have any importance because it tells individuals of differing beliefs "since neither of you can prove beyond reasonable doubt to the other that you are right,agree to disagree on those beliefs and let us come together to see what we can actually all agree on".

26

The only reason you oppose secularism is due to the fact that you are in the majority and as such,you believe that you should be allowed to impose your beliefs on others and you see secularists are interlopers who interfere with your "god given mission" to spread the word to the "unbelievers".

Is that why I oppose it... I always thought it was for other reasons - but I suppose I can't compete with the elegance of simplicity.

27

Joe,

Have you considered going though responses and creating a post: "The Naive American"? It might be an eye-opener.

Collin

28

Wonders,

"As long as we're putting the parable in context, we might as well point out that the priest and the Levite were forbidden by the law of Moses to come near an apparent corpse, lest they become unclean."

Making that point, Wonders, upsets the whole point of Jesus's parable. What are you about?

The point is, a lawyer wants to prove his faith by defining limits of his duty. He asks who is my neighbor.

.

29

Russ,

I didn't have any particular point - nor do I think the standard interpretation of the parable off-base at all. I just have been exposed to some scholarship that (I think) rightly points out that more is going on.

A friend of mine discussed it in more detail at Sibboleth:

In Luke 10 the immediately preceeding and following stories are about the listening to the authoritative teacher--Jesus. So how do we figure out who our neighbor is that we're supposed to love (and in so doing love God)? Not by going to the Law's definition (Jew & sojourner in your midst) but by going to Jesus and allowing him to tell us: Jesus said, go do likewise, become a neighbor to the person who needs you.

30

If the samaritains were indeed secularists,they weren the progressist people of their time,which in my opinion is very commendable...the difference between secularists and religionists is that the former always leave open the possibility that he or she may be wrong while the later considers any lapse in faith,no matter how reasonable to be heretical.

Now let's put that into perspective... the difference between religionists and secularists is that the former always leave open the possibility that he or she may be wrong while the later considers any lapse in faith (yes, that's right folks... the secularists practice a dogmatic faith), no matter how reasonable to be heretical.

This is why secularists can brook no public expression of religious belief... it flies in the face of their own religion.

31

"This is why secularists can brook no public expression of religious belief... it flies in the face of their own religion."

and what is the religion of secularism?...do you even know what the word means...i think you dont because if you did,you probably would not refer to it as a religion.

32

"Is that why I oppose it... I always thought it was for other reasons - but I suppose I can't compete with the elegance of simplicity."

what other reason could there be aside fromn your unyelding belief that you as a christian religionist are absolutely right and that i as a non christian secularist, am absolutely wrong? Tell me, Wonders out of curiosity...have you ever enternained the possibility that we humans might all be wrong? that none of us "get it"? If you did,you might better understand how a secularist thinks.

33

Hi Ludwig,

Do you suppose you would mind calling me something other than a "religionist"? "Traditional Christian" will do just fine. If there are any names you would like me to refrain from using, I will do you the same courtesy.

As to your question. I have no doubt that we are all wrong about a great many things. I don't suppose the notion that there is a core truth and purpose in the universe, but that we cannot discover it, is up very high on my list of "doubts I entertain". Far higher is the more materialist idea that there is no purpose at all, but the blind interaction of matter and energy. I ultimately reject the materialist picture, but not without recognizing the considerable strength it does have.

And, to answer you directly, I do not think that "I" am "absolutely right" and that you are "absolutely wrong". I do, on any given topic, probably think myself right and you wrong on any number of issues. I probably agree with you on a good many things as well (I take it neither of us is a big fan of slavery?). And there may even be some things that we disagree on that you might convince me that you are right and I am wrong on - though a less polemic tone on your part might make that more likely.

But there is a bit of a sticker. I do believe the man Jesus of Nazareth to be embodiment of the creator of the universe, and as such, one to whom I owe my allegiance. You'll probably be hard pressed to talk me out of this particular loyalty - any more than you (are you married?) would likely be talked into leaving your wife by someone on a blog discussion.

As for other reasons to oppose secularism - perhaps I don't think the secularist state has proven itself to be the benign peacemaker it was supposed to be. Perhaps the image of guillotined heads, of mindless trench warfare for king and country, of horrific totalitarian atheist regimes bringing Hell on Earth to half of the world, are far fresher in my memory than the Wars of Religion or the Middle Ages. Perhaps I see our current climate in the culture wars of the USA as a lot of angry energy spent without much real vision to direct it. Or maybe I'm just one of THOSE - you know, those blind lemming "faithheads" who check their brains at the door. You be the judge.

34

Ludwig,
I agree with your ideas. Wonders, while well intentioned and very intelligent, has tunnel vision.

35

Hey Ludwig,

Let me ask you this. The founders of the American Republic said "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed ... with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." I took out the God reference to give you a chance to agree with it. So do you, more or less?

Now, suppose I come along and say this:

No, that's wrong - men are not equal, some races are naturally inferior. What's more, pursuing individual happiness is not important - what is important is the purification of the human race into a great new creature. What's more, liberty is dangerous because man can be a selfish lazy bastard, and so strict rules should be imposed to keep him in place.

So how does the benign peacemaker, the great neutral secularist state deal with such a thing. Does it say - "no, you are wrong!" What if the majority believe it to be right? Is it OK then? Or are you going to have the "irrational" audacity, the "tunnel vision", to say that the above statement is (dare I say it) "wrong".

36

"Let me ask you this. The founders of the American Republic said "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed ... with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." I took out the God reference to give you a chance to agree with it. So do you, more or less?"

Well there is no direct reference to God in that historical statement...only an indirect reference to the unnamed creator of us and it was left vague on purpose to serve a very secular purpose...but i do agree with it as is is conducent to a society based on individual freedom

"No, that's wrong - men are not equal, some races are naturally inferior. What's more, pursuing individual happiness is not important - what is important is the purification of the human race into a great new creature. What's more, liberty is dangerous because man can be a selfish lazy bastard, and so strict rules should be imposed to keep him in place."

That doesnt sound much different from levictian doctrine

"So how does the benign peacemaker, the great neutral secularist state deal with such a thing. Does it say - "no, you are wrong!" What if the majority believe it to be right? Is it OK then? Or are you going to have the "irrational" audacity, the "tunnel vision", to say that the above statement is (dare I say it) "wrong". "

Well i cant speak for anyone else of course but this secularist would say "If thats what you believe ,fine. But until you cant prove that belief to be true beyond a reasonable doubt,any attempt to turn that belief into the policy of our society will be done over my dead body"...secularism isent perfect...nothing is. But given that its one of the key difference between western and eastern societies,i d sya it has a pretty good track record.

37

"But given that its one of the key difference between western and eastern societies,i d sya it has a pretty good track record."

America does pretty well as a rule. By every measure this war that the evangelicals are behind is the worst policy mistake in U.S. history. The joke is the W.H. thinks they're "nuts." and has nothing but contempt for them.

38

Russ, that is a comment a troll would make.

39

Well i cant speak for anyone else of course but this secularist would say "If thats what you believe ,fine. But until you cant prove that belief to be true beyond a reasonable doubt,any attempt to turn that belief into the policy of our society will be done over my dead body"...secularism isent perfect...nothing is. But given that its one of the key difference between western and eastern societies,i d sya it has a pretty good track record.

Ludwig, I think you are a bit confused here. We didn't look at the evidence and "prove" that all men are created equal, and possess these rights. On the contrary, these "truths" are held to be "self-evident". They are the starting point for forming the society. To the ideology I described in my post, that you rightly decry, THOSE truths are held to be self-evident.

And they can't coexist in the same framework. Either one is right, or the other, or neither, but not both completely. Now, you laudably say that you're not going to coerce the people who believe such things into submission - you respect their dignity as human beings thinking through life to the best of their ability. But when they act on these premises, you (also rightly) say that you'll fight them tooth and nail. And this is because you believe their vision to be a bad one, and yours (ours?) to be a good one.

You can't pretend that, as a secularist, you just look at the plain hard facts, and everyone else has ideology. That is the absolute paragon of self-deception. The first step to respecting (if not agreeing with or capitulating to) other views is to recognize that you have views of your own.

40

smmtheory writes:
38
Russ, that is a comment a troll would make.

Yes, maybe, but to be compared to a mass murderer, bin Laden, is all fine and dandy. Your right though, I've said mote than I need to and should go elsewhere.

41

Ok, yes this is terrible.

Over here we a kindly old demagoue and pope of evangelicalism, James Dobson and the National Council on Policy, supporting our war machine.

42

Russ, are you offended by something I said? Of course I don't think you look like Bin Laden - you seem like a decent friendly guy (from what one can tell on a blog post).

Can't someone not say that they think certain ideas and movements are dangerous, while still respecting the people who hold them?

43

Wonders, If that was your intent, I have no problems with it, although I disagree with the premise our ideas are dangerous. Thanks

44

Over here we a kindly old demagoue and pope of evangelicalism, James Dobson and the National Council on Policy, supporting our war machine.

WTF does this mean and what does it have to do with anything?

45

and what is the religion of secularism?...do you even know what the word means...i think you dont because if you did,you probably would not refer to it as a religion.

Ludwig,
You said this - no one wants to be forced to live their lives according to the unproven and unprovable spiritual beliefs of someone else... in response to Wonders, and yet this is what secularists would have Christians do, live according to unproven and unprovable spiritual beliefs that secularism could protect everybody from religious despotism (never mind the fact that the underlying tenets of modern secularism have been adopted from a Christianized philosophical system).

Yes, I can see where and how you would think I do not know what the word means. It's a funny thing what happens when something goes from being a secular viewpoint to secularist viewpoint. A sort of distinctive doctrine gets worked in there, and people start zealously defending and/or promoting that doctrine, saying some contradictory and sometimes even derogatory things about non-parallel doctrines.

46

ucfengr,

It means that like the Islamic countries, we have our very own fundamentalist leaders, such as kindly old James Dobson, supporting war and torture.
The Counsel for National Policy is a secretive group consisting of religious right leaders, business leaders, and well-known neo-cons (see www.policycounsel.org/18856/index.html). James Dobson is believed to be a member of the group. This is a group of prominent individuals who espouse your ideology (you really should know about these people).

47

"You can't pretend that, as a secularist, you just look at the plain hard facts, and everyone else has ideology. That is the absolute paragon of self-deception. The first step to respecting (if not agreeing with or capitulating to) other views is to recognize that you have views of your own."

I never said i dont have views and beliefs of my own...my belief is freedom...you could even call it a religious belief,if you absolutely must because that the one thing i consider sacred above all others. But by that in dont just mean my freedom...i mean everyone's freedom...which also means by default that i believe someone's freedom ends where someone else's begins. I do believe that we are all born with an equal human dignity and i dont believe that we are born to be servants to any man...or any god. Yes i do believe in something you could call a god but i dont believe for an instant that this god sits over us as some sort of a judge or ruler that wants us to do this but not do that...in fact,a god that wants anything is a contratiction in terms...to me,god is the source from which everything comes and to which everything,without any exception,returns. I reject emphaticaly the concept of sin...in fact, i find it insulting to human dignity...i dont believe we re perfect to be sure but nor do i believe we were ever meant to be or that we fall short of some god's expectations of us. I dont believe for an instant that god care one iota as to weather or not we love it,hate it,fear it or even believe in it. it all goes back the the "god wanting things" contradiction. now obviously,my beliefs conflict with yours on many levels but with secularism,we can live side by side and even find some common ground to work on. Secularism is not about telling you that you cant say "god bless" out loud whenever you feel like it...its mostly about public and governing policies because making a religious belief the law of the land is a direct assault on anyone who doesnt share that belief. There have been many religious governements in the past (and many in the present),weather christian,muslim,jewish,pagan, and the result is always the same...a constant state of oppression.

48

JohnW -

The sort of political issues Dobson is concerned about is sanctity of life issues and family values (sort of like Joe's prime concerns).

Whether in pursuing these (I think laudable) goals, he has ended up political allying himself with some less-than-great ones is certainly a point that can be debated. Indeed, you seem to write on nothing else - I do realize that you think our war an injustice both in purpose and execution. But even granted this, it does not make Dobson an Osama Bin-Laden.

49

It means that like the Islamic countries, we have our very own fundamentalist leaders, such as kindly old James Dobson, supporting war and torture.

Oh, I understand now. They have Osama Bin Ladin and Moqtada al Sadr and we have James Dobson. So we are the same as Iran and Al Queda, because we have folks like James Dobson who advocate the murder of Muslim woman and children, just like their religious extremists. It makes perfect sense.

The Counsel for National Policy is a secretive group consisting of religious right leaders, business leaders, and well-known neo-cons. This is a group of prominent individuals who espouse your ideology (you really should know about these people)

Hmm, a secretive group that has a website highlighting their activities. Does anybody see a disconnect here?

This is a group of prominent individuals who espouse your ideology (you really should know about these people)

You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about groups I should know more about. Maybe you need groups to tell you how to think, but I am capable of forming my own opinions, thank you.

50

There have been many religious governements in the past (and many in the present), weather christian, muslim, jewish, pagan, and the result is always the same...a constant state of oppression.

This simply isn't true - especially not the implied converse (that irreligious governments have proven themselves measurably different). Honestly, how can you say this with a straight face, in the wake of Stalin's Russia, or the reign of terror in the French Revolution? Take your pick of the worst Christian-influenced government of the last 2000 years - say Spain at the height of the Inquisition - and it can't hold a candle to the Khmer Rouge.

The fact is that pretty much every society in the world before the enlightenment had a strong religious presence in its public life. And life during that time was not unequivocably horrible. Things were bad at times, things were better at other times - its a lot of history, filled with joy and sorry, good and evil. And I strongly assert that removing religion from public life has NOT proven to be the solution to the problems it claimed to be, but rather that the countries that did this most zealously have done greater evils than the religious ones ever did (which is an impressive amount of evil).

I see the modern secularist saying - "Look folks, we know you religious people have messed things up really bad in the past. You can't get along even with each other. Why don't you just sit in the corner over there and let us run the show. We'll be nice, we promise." Sorry...just not buying it.

51

Wonders,

Yes, I do think the Iraq war is injustice in both purpose and execution. Absolutely-guilty as charged.
You are quite right, James Dobson, is quite different than Osama Bin Laden. Dobson doesn’t advocate violence. His tactics are very different. Dobson uses the goodwill and trust he has developed over the years with his teachings about child raising to advance political agendas. He is quite the political power broker. I know he says he doesn’t care about political power-he supposedly was dragged kicking and screaming into the political arena over deep concerns about moral values, etc. etc. I don’t buy it. Case in point: Dobson’s recent protests about evangelical statements in favor of showing concern for global warming and a mild evangelical statement against the torture of detainees. Seems he is concerned Evangelicals are not towing the conservative line….

Sorry, we don't have an evangelical Pope.

52

Again, JohnW - this may be a valid critique - I am in no place to seriously argue on this point. Just understand that the term "fundamentalist" is thrown around often without much care and perspective, and it hurts your chance of having your voice heard by folks like me if you also do it.

53

I do think the Iraq war is injustice in both purpose and execution.

Just out of curiosity, what purpose and execution would you have found just?

James Dobson, is quite different than Osama Bin Laden.

Then why did you feel compelled to make the comparison? Dobson uses political power to try to democratically effect the country, is their something wrong with that? Or is that only appropriate for people who share your beliefs?

54

Sorry, we don't have an evangelical Pope.

The Pope might beg to differ with you on that.

55

"This simply isn't true - especially not the implied converse (that irreligious governments have proven themselves measurably different). Honestly, how can you say this with a straight face, in the wake of Stalin's Russia, or the reign of terror in the French Revolution? Take your pick of the worst Christian-influenced government of the last 2000 years - say Spain at the height of the Inquisition - and it can't hold a candle to the Khmer Rouge."

But it is true...heres juste a few exemple for you to digest http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

And please be so kind as to make appropriate comparaison...the Kmer rouge and the Satlin regime had at their disposal tool of easy and mass killings that were not available centuries ago. If Spain,to use your exemple,had had machin guns,tanks,heavy bombers or,god forbid,the h bomb available to them during the crusades or the inquisition,there is no doubt whatsoever that they would have used it...REPEATADLY precisely because they were absolutely convinced of the righteousness of their cause and that God was on their side...hell,just read the bible and do a count of the sheer number of genicides suposadly perpetrated at the behest of the judeo-christian God...look at the countless massacres done in the name of Allah. Also,bear in mind that centuries ago,there were not as many people to kill. If you include these factors,the availability of mass killing technology and the per capita numbers,i m sorry to inform you that christian governements of the past do not compare favorably to communist regimes of the 20th century. I would also point out that communism in Russia,Cambodia and China was very similar to a state religion in its application,where the leaders of the regime were in fact the object of worship. there was nothing secular about them at all.

"The fact is that pretty much every society in the world before the enlightenment had a strong religious presence in its public life. And life during that time was not unequivocably horrible. Things were bad at times, things were better at other times - its a lot of history, filled with joy and sorry, good and evil. And I strongly assert that removing religion from public life has NOT proven to be the solution to the problems it claimed to be, but rather that the countries that did this most zealously have done greater evils than the religious ones ever did (which is an impressive amount of evil).
"

once again,this is belied by a comprehensive study of history.

"I see the modern secularist saying - "Look folks, we know you religious people have messed things up really bad in the past. You can't get along even with each other. Why don't you just sit in the corner over there and let us run the show. We'll be nice, we promise." Sorry...just not buying it."

I would not have put it quite like that but that sounds about right...let me tell you what modern religious people are saying in return " Look,we know you think we messed things up pretty badly in the past and even though we think you are grossly exagerating because you are mostly driven by your carnal lusts and you hate God,if it makes you feel better,we promise not to do it again *wink wink nudge nudge*" Sorry....not buying it..and you know why?...because the instruction manual you have is the exact same they had...so why should i believe that you will act any differently if left to run thing?

56

You can't have it both ways, Ludwig. You can't hold religious people accountable for every atrocity committed in the entire world before 1789 if you aren't willing to own up yourself to the anti-religious ones since then. What's more, if the Khmer Rouge, the Stalinist regime, and the French Revolution were religious, the word loses all meaning in this debate.

I was deliberately ignoring war in my discussion - since that is always ugly no matter what. I was speaking of things that governments did to their own subjects - the inquisition being the worst thing I could think of Christians doing. And the inquisition was a horrible thing, and naturally I don't think it representative of actual Christian teaching, anymore than you want to be categorized with Stalin. But the Khmer rouge wasn't high-tech at all. Sure, they had guns, but just as many people would have died if they had done it all with machetes (think of Rwanda). Nor would more have died in the inquisition if they had guillotines or gas-chambers rather than burning people at the stake. But the reign of the Khmer rouge left a fourth of the population dead, while the inquisition averaged out to about 100 people per year.

It's silly to play body count - obviously we both agree that these actions are atrocious. My point is that secularism is no silver bullet - that the problems of humans governing themselves with justice and equity is as old as time. I think we need to learn from the wise insights of our traditions, listen to fresh voices, and welcome all to the public square. If we are to respect freedom and human dignity, we must do so by finding grounds for this within our own beliefs (secular and otherwise), not imposing a "no religious views allowed" sign on public life.

57

Lud, if you want to compare apples to apples and appropriate comparison would be the Spanish Inquisition and the French Reign of Terror. The technologies available would be similar. Most modern historians credit the Inquisition with between 3000 and 5000 execution between 1560 and 1700. The Reign of Terror is credit with between 20,000 and 40,000 deaths and lasted less than a year. Even if you were to inflate the Inquisition number by a factor of 10, they were pikers compared to the French. So your assumption that the Inquisition would have been worse if only they had the technology is not born out.

58

"You can't have it both ways, Ludwig. You can't hold religious people accountable for every atrocity committed in the entire world before 1789 if you aren't willing to own up yourself to the anti-religious ones since then. What's more, if the Khmer Rouge, the Stalinist regime, and the French Revolution were religious, the word loses all meaning in this debate."

I am not holding religious people of today accountable for the actions of their religious forebear...i am merely observing that the source of their world view,the bible,is the same today as it was centuries ago...furthermore,i dont have to own myself up to the actions of any groups or individuals,especially when their beliefs are vastly different from my own. Neither the Khmer rouge,nor the stalinists were secularists...they enforced athiesm as the law of the land both publicly and privatly,which in my opinion is every bit as bad as enforcing christianity or Islam as the law of the land. How many secularists have you ever heard in the US saying that churches should all be closed and christians rounded up? I find the comparaison to be both obviously false and insulting.

"I was deliberately ignoring war in my discussion - since that is always ugly no matter what. I was speaking of things that governments did to their own subjects - the inquisition being the worst thing I could think of Christians doing. And the inquisition was a horrible thing, and naturally I don't think it representative of actual Christian teaching, anymore than you want to be categorized with Stalin. But the Khmer rouge wasn't high-tech at all. Sure, they had guns, but just as many people would have died if they had done it all with machetes (think of Rwanda). Nor would more have died in the inquisition if they had guillotines or gas-chambers rather than burning people at the stake. But the reign of the Khmer rouge left a fourth of the population dead, while the inquisition averaged out to about 100 people per year. "

If you want to make an apt analogy,you should then compare the Khmer Rouge with the reign of LouisXIV. Louis was basicaly starving his people so that he and his queen Elisabeth and their court could lead a life of decadent luxury. The people had one simple choice open to them...overthrow these tyrants or die slowly but surely. The church was lumped together with old Louie because they had been complicit to the tyrany of so caled God ordained kings,reaping the benefits of croniesm to europe's nobility for centuries. how many people die as a result of Louie's decadent reign? and who in their right mind would view King Louie as anything BUT A DEVOUT CHRISTIAN?

"It's silly to play body count - obviously we both agree that these actions are atrocious. My point is that secularism is no silver bullet - that the problems of humans governing themselves with justice and equity is as old as time. I think we need to learn from the wise insights of our traditions, listen to fresh voices, and welcome all to the public square. If we are to respect freedom and human dignity, we must do so by finding grounds for this within our own beliefs (secular and otherwise), not imposing a "no religious views allowed" sign on public life."

I told you before and i ll tell you again...secularists are not opposed to public display of religious expression...we re opposed to making any religious creed or doctrine the law of the land because we ve been down that road before and we know where it leads...

As a side note,i would like to respond to your earlier claim of harmony is past christian societies before the enlightenment by remind you that the religious expression that was tolerated was christianity...pagans and non christian believers were always quickly rounded up and given the choice between conversion,exile or death...sometimes,that choice was made for them. bear that in mind.

59

"Lud, if you want to compare apples to apples and appropriate comparison would be the Spanish Inquisition and the French Reign of Terror. The technologies available would be similar. Most modern historians credit the Inquisition with between 3000 and 5000 execution between 1560 and 1700. The Reign of Terror is credit with between 20,000 and 40,000 deaths and lasted less than a year. Even if you were to inflate the Inquisition number by a factor of 10, they were pikers compared to the French. So your assumption that the Inquisition would have been worse if only they had the technology is not born out."

The inquisition was only ONE aspect of past christian tyrany and its greatest crime was not the number of people it killed but the exponentially larger number of people who lived in abject terror of being the next ones to experience the inquisitors faith-based teachings first hand. They were the state terrorists of their day.

60

How many secularists have you ever heard in the US saying that churches should all be closed and christians rounded up? I find the comparaison to be both obviously false and insulting.

Indeed - and how many Christians do you here saying that atheist organizations should be all shut down, and non-Christians rounded up? Neither of us want any of this, Ludwig, nor should we. I know you don't want to be associated with these horrors (nor do I want to be associated with the inquisition) - I don't ultimately want to play this body-count game. My point is simply that you can't sustain this simplistic "religion in public life bad, religion not in public life good" picture - it falls flat.

and who in their right mind would view King Louie as anything BUT A DEVOUT CHRISTIAN?

*raises hand* If being a devout Christian means taking absolutely no interest in what Christ said, then I'm not quite sure what the word "devotion" means.

I told you before and i ll tell you again...secularists are not opposed to public display of religious expression...we re opposed to making any religious creed or doctrine the law of the land because we ve been down that road before and we know where it leads...

I don't think any of us in America want an established "Church of America". I doubt you could come up with a proposal that the American churches would unite to fight against more strongly. England does have a state church, and (strangely enough, considering all the "always" rules you've noted) life there today isn't a living Hell. But that wouldn't work in the States.

What we do want is to bring the wisdom and vision of our deepest convictions about life, the universe, and everything into the public square to inform and shape our policies. Granted, people in this country don't all agree - that is what debate and negotiation and respect is for.

61

Louis was basicaly starving his people so that he and his queen Elisabeth and their court could lead a life of decadent luxury. The people had one simple choice open to them...overthrow these tyrants or die slowly but surely. The church was lumped together with old Louie because they had been complicit to the tyrany of so caled God ordained kings,reaping the benefits of croniesm to europe's nobility for centuries. how many people die as a result of Louie's decadent reign? and who in their right mind would view King Louie as anything BUT A DEVOUT CHRISTIAN?

On the other hand, the food scarcity may have been caused by the revolutionaries as they prepared to overthrow the royalty. You are showing your prejudice, though, because King Louis was by most accounts a popular monarch who was not unobliging to the social, political, and economic reforms of the Revolution. Doesn't sound like a tyrant to me. And there's not too many accounts of a great deal of starvation related death associated with his rule.

Oh, and this is especially important... The Church was against the Revolution because it had turned the clergy into employees of the state and had required that they take an oath of loyalty to the nation (secularism at it's finest, eh?). About half of the clergy, mainly in western France, refused the oath, making themselves known as refractory priests or non-jurors.

62

"Indeed - and how many Christians do you here saying that atheist organizations should be all shut down, and non-Christians rounded up? Neither of us want any of this, Ludwig, nor should we. I know you don't want to be associated with these horrors (nor do I want to be associated with the inquisition) - I don't ultimately want to play this body-count game. My point is simply that you can't sustain this simplistic "religion in public life bad, religion not in public life good" picture - it falls flat."

Well,athiests are routinely bad-mouthed by evengelical christians and are among the most mistrusted group in America...try to get elected to office as an Athiest and you ll see what i mean. I dont think that christian are discussing rounding up Athiests AT THIS TIME but the condemnations against non believers are still there in your bible...how long until some left behind type christian folks decide to make those prophecies of the book of revelation come true,just to see if that'll make their Jesus come back sooner? Many passages of your bible are downright evil...i for one would feel a lot better if you guys repudieted some of this stuff. I would also like for us to clear something up...when you speak of religion as part of "public life" what do you mean exactly? maybe i m not understanding you. would you care to elaborate?

"I don't think any of us in America want an established "Church of America". I doubt you could come up with a proposal that the American churches would unite to fight against more strongly. England does have a state church, and (strangely enough, considering all the "always" rules you've noted) life there today isn't a living Hell. But that wouldn't work in the States."

England's church does not have any legal power of governance...furthermore,they are not evengelical literalists...they dont for instance deny the theory of evolution or irrationaly denounce it as a plot hatched by Satan like many US evengelical groups do. from what i understand they view the bible as being mostly allegorical.

"What we do want is to bring the wisdom and vision of our deepest convictions about life, the universe, and everything into the public square to inform and shape our policies. Granted, people in this country don't all agree - that is what debate and negotiation and respect is for. "

You mean the sort of wisdom and vision that used to declares homosexuals to be criminals that warrented their arrest and imprisonement (a step down from the biblical solution to the homosexual question i ll give you that) or that made it illegal in some states for an athiest to hold public office? Forgive me if i m not reassured or impressed by the track record of your religion's "wisdom".

63

England's church does not have any legal power of governance...furthermore,they are not evengelical literalists...they dont for instance deny the theory of evolution or irrationaly denounce it as a plot hatched by Satan like many US evengelical groups do. from what i understand they view the bible as being mostly allegorical.

I don't know that the church in the west has EVER had any legal power of governance. Clergy have been strictly forbidden to hold public office. It's just often had a great deal of influence. But that's not what you said - you made no exception for certain varieties of religion - you said they always bring nothing but oppression.

64

When you speak of religion as part of "public life" what do you mean exactly? maybe i m not understanding you. would you care to elaborate?

I think religion, when practiced rightly, should act as the conscience of the state. What I mean by that is that it should be at the forefront of pushing for justice for voices that are too weak to cry out, of keeping the jingoism of "my country right or wrong" in check, of pushing the policymakers to ask the "why" questions.

For instance, if the Earth is God's good creation, then we have a duty to care for it and the creatures on it. We shouldn't have unchecked development just because the developer lobbyists (and even a lot of the citizens) find it convinient. This sort of moral vision can influence environmental policy. I'm not saying the church should have an official congressional veto or anything of the sort, but rather that its vision should be heard and should influence policy by those who share it.

In fourth-century Rome, the emperor Theodoric massacred a whole stadium full of civilians, in disproportionate retailiation for some disorder in that city. The bishop Ambrose, wrote a letter to Theodoric, condemning his actions, and declaring that he, by his actions, was in rebellion against God and out of communion with the church. Though he had the power to kill Amborse, the Roman Emperor knew who had the moral high ground. He actually humbled himself, repented of his atrocities, and spent weeks laying face down in penance for his sins. Ambrose held no office, but he courageously took the most powerful man in the world to task for his evil. Can you imagine, say, Sadaam Hussain doing this upon being confronted for his actions toward the Kurds?

Anyway Ludwig, I can see that this is going nowhere. You seem to have nothing but loathing and disdain for Christianity, whereas I love it passionately. I'm desperately trying not to be offended by the steady stream of insults and caricatures of my friends, family, and neighbors. Do keep in mind that there are real people behind these comments.

But I am curious - why? Why the hatred? Why is the picture of Christianity in your mind so unabashedly evil? What's your story? What interaction have you had with us Christians in the past that have given you such a negative view?

65

Man Christianity is the only way go. Everyone else is crazy. I now believe that any war against people who are not christians is justified.

66

"I think religion, when practiced rightly, should act as the conscience of the state. What I mean by that is that it should be at the forefront of pushing for justice for voices that are too weak to cry out, of keeping the jingoism of "my country right or wrong" in check, of pushing the policymakers to ask the "why" questions."

I dont really see how christianity can accomplish this,then the core teaching of christianity is that we re all wretched creatures that deserve swift destruction which can only be avoided by subjugating oneself to the christian god,essentially begging forgiveness for the crime of being "born in sin". The philosophy of original sin for instance is one of the most misunderstood and misused part of the bible in my opinion. The story goes as this...Adam is told that there is a fruit in the garden that he must not eat,lest he will die on that very day. Then along comes the talking snake,the craftiest(wisest) creature of all creation,come along and tell Eve that no,eating the fruit will not kill them but rather,they will gain the wisdom of understanding the difference between good and evil. Then God comes along and expell the both of them from the garden,decreeing that theirs would be a life of hardship from then on. Christian teach this story as an act of defiance of God's rule, for which Adam,Eve,the talking snake and the rest of us are all justly punished. But there is another much more correct way to look at this story...as an allegory of growing up...of going from the innocence of childhood where everything is fun and games to the wisdom of adulthood,where life gets harder and more complicated. and thats it...no ridiculous guilt trips to incite folks to repent the fact that their are not perfect...no pathetic threats of "eternal damnation" should they refuse to do so. If thats how christianity was taught,i would have absolutely no problem with it.

"For instance, if the Earth is God's good creation, then we have a duty to care for it and the creatures on it. We shouldn't have unchecked development just because the developer lobbyists (and even a lot of the citizens) find it convinient. This sort of moral vision can influence environmental policy. I'm not saying the church should have an official congressional veto or anything of the sort, but rather that its vision should be heard and should influence policy by those who share it."

But what happens when the religion explicitely teaches that its ok to persecute some people,like homosexuals and pagans for instance,decreeing that their are to be killed wherever encountered. Obviously we dont do that anymore (as a direct result of secularism in my opinion)...but in accordance to christian teachings we used to. How then can christianity be used as a conscience,when it advocates the unconcienable.

"In fourth-century Rome, the emperor Theodoric massacred a whole stadium full of civilians, in disproportionate retailiation for some disorder in that city. The bishop Ambrose, wrote a letter to Theodoric, condemning his actions, and declaring that he, by his actions, was in rebellion against God and out of communion with the church. Though he had the power to kill Amborse, the Roman Emperor knew who had the moral high ground. He actually humbled himself, repented of his atrocities, and spent weeks laying face down in penance for his sins. Ambrose held no office, but he courageously took the most powerful man in the world to task for his evil. Can you imagine, say, Sadaam Hussain doing this upon being confronted for his actions toward the Kurds? "

That was Theodosius...Theodoric was a Visigioth pagan king. Theodosius did repent for his actions,albeit under the threat of excommunication...which was a good thing indeed...But then Ambrose and Theodosius screwed it all up by making christianity the church of the state and declaring all pagan worship illegal,essentially making it open season on all non-christians from then on. oups...bad exemple huh?

"But I am curious - why? Why the hatred? Why is the picture of Christianity in your mind so unabashedly evil? What's your story? What interaction have you had with us Christians in the past that have given you such a negative view?"

I dont hate christianity but i do have very little love for evengelical literalist whom i do consider to be very dangerous amd irrational people because they blithly fail to realize that their book,when taken at face value,is incompatible with a society predicated on the laudable concept of individual liberty.

67

Man Christianity is the only way go. Everyone else is crazy. I now believe that any war against people who are not christians is justified.

Yeah... Because that's exactly what we think...

*rolls eyes*

68

I dont really see how christianity can accomplish this,then the core teaching of christianity is that we re all wretched creatures that deserve swift destruction which can only be avoided by subjugating oneself to the christian god,essentially begging forgiveness for the crime of being "born in sin".

But this is just a parody of what Christianity teaches. Historic Christianity tells us two essential things about ourselves - the first of which is that we are beings created "in the image of God" - the creator's signature on his creation. Our core vocation is one of loving and masterful care of the world we live in, in addition to glorious creativity to make the world even more marvelous than it is already. Every one of us is loved by God, no person, no matter how evil, lacks this essential dignity and value, no person, no matter how small, no matter how mentally injured, small, handicapped, or in any way incapable, lacks this core sanctity of life, and is therefore never to be treated as simply a means to an end.

But, as you've mockingly parodied, there is a dark corollary to our essentially good nature. And this is that this tremendous privilege and power we have by being human also lends itself to far worse abuse that we would be capable of otherwise. We are capable of horrific evil, and the Bible testifies (in the language of myth...not allegory) that some key choices of our forebearers have twisted our good nature into a shadow of what it was meant to be. The goodness is still there, but no aspect of our nature is free of corruption. What's more, our role as the signature on God's creation has had an impact on creation itself, bringing the curse of death and decay.

So the Genesis story can't be allegorized into a mere growing-up story - rather, in rich mythology, it testifies to the goodness of creation and the wonder of our nature, as well as the fact that things have gone horribly wrong. We, disagreeing with some people, see death and decay as essentially bad things in themselves (even if some good can come of them). We see things as having gone wrong, and thus we are motivated to try to help set them right (and most would agree that there are indeed wrong things with the world that we should attempt to right).

But what happens when the religion explicitely teaches that its ok to persecute some people,like homosexuals and pagans for instance,decreeing that their are to be killed wherever encountered. Obviously we dont do that anymore (as a direct result of secularism in my opinion)...but in accordance to christian teachings we used to. How then can christianity be used as a conscience,when it advocates the unconcienable.

I don't think you can really say Christianity explicitly teaches such things. You can say that Christianity teaches that homosexuality is damaging to human sexuality, and that idolotry does us great harm in making whatever gods suit our fancy. But did you know that there is even a strain of Christian tradition that is radically pacifist? Though I disagree with Christian pacifism, I admit they can make a fairly strong argument from scripture. At any rate, we all agree that in Jesus, not least on the cross (the symbol of our faith), we see that the authority of the king of all the world is not exercised in a bullying or hectoring manner, but in the way of self-sacrificial love, of forgiveness, of turning the other cheek, of going the second mile, of dying to bring life to those who hate you.

That was Theodosius...Theodoric was a Visigioth pagan king.

Sorry about the mistake - it was late. ;-)

I dont hate christianity but i do have very little love for evengelical literalist whom i do consider to be very dangerous amd irrational people because they blithly fail to realize that their book,when taken at face value,is incompatible with a society predicated on the laudable concept of individual liberty.

Ludwig, I dislike Left Behind theology and wooden literalism as much the next guy - precisely because I think it hinders us from really getting to what the Bible is trying to say to us. But the evil twin of this is the "allegorical" interpretations that try to make the Bible say something its not. One of the reasons I took up blogging was to Blog the Bible - wrestling with the wonderful and the ugly parts, and trying to see what the big picture it is painting for us.

But you're simply wrong that taking it at "face value" is incompatable with shaping a free society, if by that you mean taking its core message to heart. Yes, if you take short segments out of the Old Testament, without reading them in context of the whole, you would say all sorts of silly (and ugly) things. You just have to read the whole thing.

But I think you are sliding into bigotry here toward mainstream evangelicals. Probably the best contemporary picture of the average evangelical, is (oddly enough), the good Ned Flanders. He's funny, annoying, irritating, awkward, and the like. But in the real world we'd prefer to have him as our neighbor rather than Homer - he's always willing to do a favor or lend a lawn mower, etc. These aren't wicked insidious people - they tend to be quite good folks to know. The reason they are so politically active right is that they see the society at large as growing ruthlessly hostile to them as parents trying to raise good children, getting together for traditional celebrations of goodwill and thankfulness to God, and lauding institutions that hold them and society together. If this threat was removed, if the left would embrace the sanctity of life and the dissolution of traditional marriage, the evangelical support for militant conservativism would dissolve.

Of course I don't expect you to agree with them, or me. But please stop demonizing them - they're generally really hospitable people who make good neighbors and compassionate and loyal friends.

69

Getting back to the subject of the video...

Truly appalling, but I noticed something that I'm not sure what to do with.

The rooms this oppressed little girl lives in, who's mother is so desperate to gain her freedom, are furnished exquisitely better than mine!

Wherever this was filmed, it was a wealthy house.

What kind of connection does that make with the intended audience? Do they share a similar lifestyle?

How could such a place exist among a people so downtrodden that they would need to blow up themselves and any innocent bystander?

Granted Israel is not perfect in its policies but how can anyone see this and not conclude that any such organization should not be in a position of leadership or in a position to air this on any station of any kind.

The KKK should not be allowed to air an infomercial on TV, nor should this. I pray this child is not raised in such hatred for anyone.

Are there things worth fighting for and defending... absolutely. But if this is how you have to recruit to your cause,... that says a lot.

Sadly, the commercial doesn't just target the current generation, but the future one. In essence, they expect to be fighting this way for a while--where is the potential, or the hope for peace in that?

In this way of thinking, it will only end when one or the other is totally wiped off the earth--maybe both.

Pursuing Answers to Questions of Faith & Life,

Kelly

70

Russ couldn't be more wrong.

The good Samaritan acted in love toward someone who would have considered him (if he were able) untouchable. The "Palestinian" of today is, in most cases, a traditional Muslim. That means that if he and his progeny desire to kill innocent Jews (and Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, animists, atheists, agnostics, et al), it is because their god and false prophet command it.

Mohammed said (among other venomous things): "I have been ordered to fight until the people confess that no one has the right to be worshiped but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet."

It is not some "tiny minority of extremist, fundamentalist, radical Islamo-fascists" who have hijacked a great world religion, it is Allah and his apostle requiring the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

71

How could such a place exist among a people so downtrodden that they would need to blow up themselves and any innocent bystander?

The problem is, they are not so "downtrodden" that they need to kill innocents. Many are well-off or wealthy.

They kill for Allah.

Granted Israel is not perfect in its policies but how can anyone see this and not conclude that any such organization should not be in a position of leadership or in a position to air this on any station of any kind.

And what does that say for the "tiny minority of extremists"? That Jihadists are rising to power throughout the Muslim world by means of the democratic process tells you all you need to know about the myth of the moderate Muslim.

The KKK should not be allowed to air an infomercial on TV, nor should this. I pray this child is not raised in such hatred for anyone.

Hatred of Jews, Christians, and other "Infidels" is standard Islamic curriculum because it is a fundamental teaching of that religion's "sacred" texts.

Sadly, the commercial doesn't just target the current generation, but the future one. In essence, they expect to be fighting this way for a while--where is the potential, or the hope for peace in that?

This has been going on for almost 1400 years. The perfect word of Allah and the example of the Ideal Man (Mohammed) require the faithful to wage offensive warfare against the Infidel to make the world Islam. The only hope for peace under traditional, Qur'anic Islam is the kind that comes when all dissent is either converted, enslaved, or dead.

In this way of thinking, it will only end when one or the other is totally wiped off the earth--maybe both.

That's what Mohammed said: "I have been ordered to fight until the people confess that no one has the right to be worshiped but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet."

72

Amillennialist,

I realize much of what you say is the case. My post was primarily directed towards those who (if still reading at that point) excused such a video or who would give reasons why they would be motivated to make such a video. Some are so blindly Pro-Palestinian that they refuse to acknowledge things that are flat out wrong.

I favor Israel, but I never want to be that blind. When they do wrong, they need to be called on it. Would you agree?

Pursuing Answers to Questions of Faith & Life,

Kelly

73

I agree.

I hope you tell the truth about Islam. There are many good resources online.

Besides Jihad Watch, my site has some useful information (see the sidebar there).

Regards,

Amillennialist

74

By the way, Kelly, all of what I say about Islam is true.

With what do you disagree?

Regards,

Amillennialist