Deconstructing "Progressive " thought

[Infanteer]

Edward's comments get to the heart of the matter.  I once read a pretty good piece by a Muslim woman who complained that her religion was too "Arabized" and that it took too many trends of 8th century nomads along with the legitimate teachings and words of the Prophet.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>If you look at the most religious region on Earth right now, the Middle East, you would have trouble characterizing it as sane and just.

Islam, in the abstract, is not really worse than most other religions - and pretty much all of the otherwise benign political ideologies - with respect to rights and how people should behave toward others.  Their codes of human rights are acceptable to enlightened; the problems lie with narrow definitions of who qualifies as "human".  Islam's definition is very narrow.

Islam, in the concrete, is emphatically a problem when measured up against the progress of other religions and irreligious ideals of human rights.  Religions originate as aspects of cultures; religions _are_ culture.  To speak of a separation of a religion from its cultural bases is pointless until such time as the cultural codes are actually excised.  We can imagine something that is Islam shorn of its Arabic chauvinism, but that something is by definition not Islam.

 

[a_majoor]

Islam, in the concrete, is emphatically a problem when measured up against the progress of other religions and irreligious ideals of human rights.  Religions originate as aspects of cultures; religions _are_ culture.  To speak of a separation of a religion from its cultural bases is pointless until such time as the cultural codes are actually excised.  We can imagine something that is Islam shorn of its Arabic chauvinism, but that something is by definition not Islam.

I don't entirely agree. Islam as practiced in Indonesia and some of the smaller sects like Sufi Islam have ejected Arab chauvinism, but are still recognizably Islam. This does not negate the Religion as Culture argument.

 

[Kirkhill]

I have referred to the Kipling poem "The Stranger" before - and found it wanting in something.  Notably disagreeable is his last stanza calling for separation.  When looking for an on-line version to reprint in this discussion I found another poem of his "Two Races" which seems like a bookend to "The Stranger".

Kipling ascribed to genetics the differences that we are all commenting on here and ascribing to religion, particular or general.  Despite the unfashionable allusions to racism and eugenics I think that Kipling fairly describes some home truths.  Beliefs matter.  And if you are raised with differing beliefs to your neighbour there will be difficulties communicating.  It seems to me it doesn't really matter if you put your faith in Jahweh, Eloi or Allah; in King or Parliament; in Church, Court or your own right arm.  If you don't have the same belief system as the person you are talking with there will be misunderstandings.

As it seems unlikely that everybody will subscribe to the same belief system we are stuck with the old liberal sins of toleration and latitudinarianism - and letting every man "gang tae hell his ain gait".

Of course that is easier if distance is maintained - and failing a voluntary maintenance of distance by both parties then the other guarantor of a good neighbour is a good fence.

Here are Kipling's poems intertwined:

The Stranger  Two Races


The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk--
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

I SEEK not what his soul desires.
  He dreads not what my spirit fears.
Our Heavens have shown us separate fires.
  Our dooms have dealt us differing years.

The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wonted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell.


The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control--
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

Our daysprings and our timeless dead
  Ordained for us and still control
Lives sundered at the fountain-head,
  And distant, now, as Pole from Pole.

The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.


Yet, dwelling thus, these worlds apart,
  When we encounter each is free
To bare that larger, liberal heart
  Our kin and neighbours seldom see.

(Custom and code compared in jest-
  Weakness delivered without shame-
And certain common sins confessed
  Which all men know, and none dare blame.)

E'en so it is, and well content
  It should be so a moment's space,
Each finds the other excellent,
  And-runs to follow his own race!

This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf--
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.

 

[Nemo888]

Islam, in the abstract, is not really worse than most other religions - and pretty much all of the otherwise benign political ideologies - with respect to rights and how people should behave toward others.  Their codes of human rights are acceptable to enlightened; the problems lie with narrow definitions of who qualifies as "human".  Islam's definition is very narrow.

I highly recommend you actually read the Koran, especially the later chapters. Your very Western idea of the Koran as allegory or metaphor is heretical and is punishable only by death. It is the only religion I know of that is pro genocide and thinks murder and warfare are excellent ways to spread the faith.

 

[Kirkhill]

I highly recommend you actually read the Koran, especially the later chapters. Your very Western idea of the Koran as allegory or metaphor is heretical and is punishable only by death. It is the only religion I know of that is pro genocide and thinks murder and warfare are excellent ways to spread the faith.

My reading of the Bible finds ample evidence, especially in the Old Testament, of support for those lines of thinking.  And even the New Testament provided cover for the Crusades.

The followers of Mohammed are only different from the followers of Christ, Buddha or Stalin in that they are the same.

 

[wannabe SF member]

My reading of the Bible finds ample evidence, especially in the Old Testament, of support for those lines of thinking.  And even the New Testament provided cover for the Crusades.

The followers of Mohammed are only different from the followers of Christ, Buddha or Stalin in that they are the same.

I disagree with this assertion, while it is true that the old testament is filled with genocide and atrocities of all sorts, it is supposed to be seen as a necessary preface to the new testament, a set of stories designed to teach you specific lessons necessary to better understand the teachings of Christ. In the end, that is what the bible is, a way to present the fundamental teachigs of Christianity.

The Qu'ran is, on the other hand, a book of law. It is not meant as a guideline but as a universal code meant to prescribe everything from justice to inheritance to the way to treat unbelievers. I will admit that you can also find these things in Leviticus and numbers but nowhere is the emphasis greater than in the Qu'ran.

 

[Kirkhill]

Inky, I appreciate the difference in interpretation, but doesn't that go to the heart of the issue?

If you are building a control panel or a house or a ship there are books of regulations that must be followed.  Unfortunately, with the best will in the world the designer's interpretation of what the regulations require is often at odds with the local inspector at the point of use.  And if that inspector is satisfied you are still likely to have to adjust again to satisfy another local interpreter in another locale.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I highly recommend you actually read the Koran, especially the later chapters. Your very Western idea of the Koran as allegory or metaphor is heretical and is punishable only by death. It is the only religion I know of that is pro genocide and thinks murder and warfare are excellent ways to spread the faith.

That's my point.  Your status is fine if you're an Islamic male; not so much, if you are not.

 

[Brad Sallows]

My reading of the Bible finds ample evidence, especially in the Old Testament, of support for those lines of thinking.  And even the New Testament provided cover for the Crusades.

The followers of Mohammed are only different from the followers of Christ, Buddha or Stalin in that they are the same.

The difference is that the modernized followers don't abide by those lines of thinking, and even the traditionalists do not seem to wish to put the modern heretics to death.  Islam can not make the same claim.  Islam is still at the "exactly one and only one set of rules" stage.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The difference is that the modernized followers don't abide by those lines of thinking, and even the traditionalists do not seem to wish to put the modern heretics to death.  Islam can not make the same claim.  Islam is still at the "exactly one and only one set of rules" stage.

Which is why I continue to believe that all of the Islamic world needs a religious reformation which I think is a necessary precursor to a socio-cultural enlightenment - which is needed in much of the Muslim world.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I highly recommend you actually read the Koran, especially the later chapters. Your very Western idea of the Koran as allegory or metaphor is heretical and is punishable only by death. It is the only religion I know of that is pro genocide and thinks murder and warfare are excellent ways to spread the faith.

Perhaps you should actually read the Koran... then you would know that it's actually a relatively enlightened document that proposes the equality of men and women amongst other things.  You would probably also note that Jesus is noted as a respected messenger of God, and actually mentioned more than Mohammed.  Finally, you may also note that "Jihad" in Islam is used more often to speak of the internal religious struggle of individuals in finding their faith than in the western connotation of a "holy war" also.

As for it being the only religion that you know of that is pro-genocide, you may want to review christian history, namely the crusades, the Reconquista and the Spanish Inquosition, the majority of the history of the treatment of native peoples in the America's, Africa, and Asia by christian preachers, and finally the role of the pope in the Nazi Holocaust. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

>As for it being the only religion that you know of that is pro-genocide, you may want to review christian history

Why?  Are Christians pro-genocide right now?  No?  Then what is your point?

"Tu quoque" only works well if both parties are guilty of the same misdeeds at the same time.

 

[Kirkhill]

The problem I have is that for many/most of us "religion" has come to mean "church/synagogue/mosque" and not "belief".  Another problem the discussion faces is that "religion" has come to be identified with "the book".  The Masons and the Courts allow people to swear on their sacred book (Koran, Bible, Talmud or Bhagavad Gita etc) using "the Book" as a totem.  In most instances though, especially historically, the person doing the swearing has/had never read "the Book" and in many instances were actively discouraged from doing so. "The Book" was a prop for the interpreters who used it and use it to support their ability to lead and direct followers in the directions they, the "interpreters" wish them to go.

For me the continuing problem revolves around those three groups of people: the leaders, the led and those that wish to be left alone.  Ideology be damned.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

>As for it being the only religion that you know of that is pro-genocide, you may want to review christian history

Why?  Are Christians pro-genocide right now?  No?  Then what is your point?

"Tu quoque" only works well if both parties are guilty of the same misdeeds at the same time.

Srebenica ring a bell?  The point is that Christians are as guilty of any genocides in the name of religion as muslims.  So I guess my point is that the quoted quote is ridiculous if the implication is that islam is the only religion which has used violence to spread itself.

 

[Nemo888]

Perhaps you should actually read the Koran... then you would know that it's actually a relatively enlightened document that proposes the equality of men and women amongst other things.  You would probably also note that Jesus is noted as a respected messenger of God, and actually mentioned more than Mohammed.  Finally, you may also note that "Jihad" in Islam is used more often to speak of the internal religious struggle of individuals in finding their faith than in the western connotation of a "holy war" also.

You did not read it obviously. I did. Legally speaking women are worth one third of a man. The Koran is everything Mohammed did, so obviously almost every page mentions him. Jesus is mentioned less than thirty times. 

This is where the truth is not what people want to hear. I’ll be quick and blunt like ripping off a bandage. Mohammed was a trader. Had some sort of crazy vision in the desert and tries to be a mystic holy man. He is laughed at and ridiculed. Eventually they throw him out of town and tell him to never come back. He turns to crime. He convinces some bandits that it is the will of God he lead them. He told them it was honourable to attack caravans (like the ones he used to drive) during the cycles of the moon agreed upon to be safe.  Ambushing defenseless merchants funds his fledgling army. The wars go well. Remember pillaging is how you pay your army back then. He returns to the city that threw him out and has everyone murdered who ever said a word against him.

Srebenica ring a bell?  The point is that Christians are as guilty of any genocides in the name of religion as muslims.  So I guess my point is that the quoted quote is ridiculous if the implication is that islam is the only religion which has used violence to spread itself.

Islam is the only religion to actively condone genocide. Buddhism, Christianity and Hinduism do not. Talmudic texts have acts of genocide in them, but never actively condones those acts or names groups to wipe out. The Koran does. People not "of the book" are to be exterminated. Sorry if that shocks you.

My reading of the Bible finds ample evidence, especially in the Old Testament, of support for those lines of thinking.  And even the New Testament provided cover for the Crusades.

The followers of Mohammed are only different from the followers of Christ, Buddha or Stalin in that they are the same.

There is not one case in the huge collected works of the Buddha, perhaps 70 times larger than the bible, where he condones war or murder. That is probably why the Muslim invaders where able to wipe them out so easily. If not for those genocides Buddhism would be the worlds largest religion. Afghanistan was a prosperous kingdom, the treatment of women awed Chinese travelers so much that they journaled about it and the country knew peace when Buddhism reigned there.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Srebenica ring a bell?

Yes.  Is it your contention that it is representative of a widespread doctrine of Christianity?

 

[TheNewTeddy]

Evil is not limited to one religion, gender, or race.

There are passages of the bible that one can interpret to condone murder as well. It all depends on interpretation, and nothing about "being muslim" makes one more likely to interpret religious passages as being pro-murder.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Evil is not limited to one religion, gender, or race.

There are passages of the bible that one can interpret to condone murder[/u] as well. It all depends on interpretation, and nothing about "being muslim" makes one more likely to interpret religious passages as being pro-murder.

Yes, indeed, but "we," Jews and Christians in the West, had reformations (the plural matters - there were more than one, especially for the Jews) which led to enlightenments (also plural - and the earlier, Scottish one is far more important and 'better' than the later French/continental one) which allowed most of us to interpret our sacred texts and to reconsider their meanings or lessons in the lights of our socio-cultural norms. Many of our fellow human beings who live in Muslim lands have yet to enjoy the benefits of either religious reformation or socio-cultiral enlightenment.

 

[Kirkhill]

Nemo888 - I was not commenting on the works or the leaders.  I was commenting on the followers and their need to have something to follow.

And I agree, as seems often the case, with ERC on the reformation/enlightenment and their centrality in the difference between "the west" and "the east".

I am having difficulty determining cause and effect though.  Did the Reformation and subsequent Enlightenment cause our Western attitudes or did our Western attitudes cause/permit the Reformation and Enlightenment?

My own developing opinion is that the attitudes preceded the events and that the attitudes themselves have something to do with Germanic notions of elected kings and mayors; the freedoms that accumulated in the low countries, the valley of the Po and the Rhone-Meuse connectors due to the ability of the citizenry to make money;  the inability of central authority to control the polyglot nation of the seas - Vikings, Corsairs, Sea Beggars and Sea Dogs and Huguenot adventurers like Champlain; and Britain's place as a combination of religious refuge and really large "nest of pirates" as some unfortunate Frenchman or Spaniard described us. 

At all events, for a period of centuries, Britain was seen as a safe place for dissenters from central authority and for holders of capital. 

I believe that a contributing factor was that the "authorities" learned to "hold the reins lightly" much as, again - my belief, had the emperors of the empire that was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.  Every HRE that tried to operate that consortium of mercantile states as an empire came to grief.  The longest tenured dynasties were the ones that let the states/cities go their own ways so long as they didn't disturb the peace and sent in their taxes on time.

There is something about the cultures of the Tiber and the Ardennes that seems to demand they buck against that tendency and try to impose an order on the world, rather than learning to accomodate disorder.

I don't know enough about the internal politics of the rest of the world to be able to be as firm in my belief but I suspect that the Arab Mecca/Medina is to Turkish Mameluke-Ottoman Islam what the Frankish Ardennes were to the Hohenstaufen-Habsburg HRE.   

Is Beijing  Mecca or Istanbul?