(2005-02-02) -- Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whose failed presidential bid in 2004 established the power of the Internet as a campaign tool, seems poised to assume the leadership of the Democrat party, according to a report in The New York Times.
As the news broke, White House political advisor Karl Rove released a statement denying any role in Mr. Dean's election as DNC chairman.
"I have no ongoing contact with Mr. Dean, nor influence with anyone in the Democrat party," said Mr. Rove.
Asked to explain how the opposing party could rationally choose a man who dropped out of the White House race after one of the earliest primaries, Mr. Rove said, "It's not like they have a slate of winners from which to choose. Dean's probably the best candidate and he may do a good job if he can overcome his name recognition."
The DNC chairman is primarily responsible for transferring millions of dollars from wealthy Democrats and labor unions, to advertising agencies, political consultants and delicatessens. The chairman also does frequent media interviews explaining why Americans overwhelmingly support the ideology of candidates who lose elections.
Posted by: Korora ||
02/03/2005 12:00:29 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And I thought the next four years were going to be boring! Dean adds a whole new (crazy) dynamic that the LLL desparately need. Not matter if you wear a tin-foil hat, KKK sheets, or nothing at all, Dean is the man for the people and the party. Paid for by Conservatives for Boxer 2008.
#2
If Dean is picked to head the DNC it will be a real scream.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
02/03/2005 10:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Dean will actually be very good for the DNC. He has the wackos behind him but he recognizes that the Democrats meed to get votes from those with Confederate flags in the back window of their pick-up in order to win.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/03/2005 10:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Anyone who claims to be a metrosexual and then admits he doesn't know what that means is perfect for the DNC.
#6
An awful lot of people in the South see the Confederate battle flag as a symbol of the region, not a political symbol or a symbol of ones racial feelings. I think the symbolism of the Confederate battle flag is misread by most people, even in the South. A symbol such as the flag can have different meanings to different people.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
02/03/2005 16:23 Comments ||
Top||
#8
You remember the term Dixiecrat, JFM, for those loyal Southern Democrats. However, along with most of the rest of the country, they have been turning to the Republican party in recent years as better representing their socially conservative outlook.
#10
DNC Chair's role is first and foremost to raise money. If "Screw 'Em" Kos's favorite guy is now head of the party's fund-raising arm, it tells you all you need to know about where the party's new center of gravity is. Dreadful.
Republicans should not be too smug about this. It's truly dreadful for this country to have the main opposition party hijacked by people who openly sympathize with fascist neck-sawers and killers of our troops. Heaven help this country.
#11
Clairifcation of above: Dean as Chair means the party is now going to rely heavily on groups like Kos, DU, MoveOn etc for its fund-raising to the detriment of centrist donors. Very, very bad news for everyone.
From Policy Review, an article titled "Understanding Jihad" by Mark Gould, a professor of sociology at Haverford College.
.... My purpose here is to characterize the nature of value commitments within Islam. I contrast them with those dominant in Christianity, focusing on ascetic Protestantism — especially the contrast between Christian theology of salvation and Islamic theology of the Last Judgment. Unlike Christians, Muslims, untainted by original sin, believe themselves, with God's guidance, capable of acting in ways meriting salvation. In Islam, God gives men the will to act for good or evil, but he predetermines the outcome of their actions. I contend that the requirement to act in accordance with God's decrees, possible but nonetheless difficult to fulfill, thus attaining salvation, may be short-circuited when fulfilling the religious obligation of jihad. There, either one accomplishes good works (as decreed by God) or dies a martyr; if the former, one enhances one's chances of being sent to heaven at the Last Judgment; if the latter, one goes directly to heaven.
Thus, I argue that there is an authentic Islamic tradition that partially explains the predisposition to the use of force, in jihad, that is diffused widely among contemporary Muslims. Of course, this does not mean either that all or even most Muslims are disposed to use force, or that Muslims will use force in all situations or any particular situation. It does suggest, however, that contemporary activities cannot be explained in purely situational terms: for example, that Muslims are simply reacting to external impingement on Muslim lands. While the specific form of their reaction may be situationally constituted, the reaction itself must, in part, be explained by the logic of Islamic religious conviction. .....
In Islam, God's messengers, and most especially his last and final messenger, Muhammad, have told believers how they must act to be saved. God has requested nothing that believers cannot do. If they follow God's commandments (as enunciated in the Koran and the Sunna, the tradition), on the Day of Judgment God will judge them fairly, weighing the good against the bad. .... Certain customs in ritual and law were established as sacred; derivative from the Koran and from the Sunna, they constitute the shari'ah that regulates virtually all aspects of a Muslim's life. In the words of Islamist Sayyid Qutb, "The basis of the Islamic message is that one should accept the shari'ah without any question and reject all other laws, whatever their shape or form. This is Islam. There is no other meaning of Islam." .....
The concern with one's eternal fate is as manifest in Islam as in Christianity, but its manifestation is different. The Early Meccan suras — as Sells writes, "those learned first by Muslims when they study the Qur'an in Arabic" — focus on the Day of Judgment, on God's judgment of people in light of his commandments (which are codified in the later suras, in the Hadith and in the shari'ah). God is merciful, but believers are told to fear his wrath if they fail to conform to the duties he has revealed for them; thus Muslims are highly motivated to fulfill God's commandments, knowing that at the Last Judgment, "Whoever does an atom's weight of good will see it, and whoever does an atom's weight of evil will see it also". The structure of religious commitment is embedded in this eschatology. In Christianity, in contrast, a soteriology [salvation doctrine] of grace is enunciated; it requires deeds but centers more concretely in faith. The incarnation of God in Jesus, not in a text articulating a set of rules and regulations, embodies men's hopes, even as it increases their uncertainty. ....
One consequence of the differential emphases, on a soteriology of grace versus an eschatology of works, is that Christianity functions in terms of principles, while Islam emphasizes rules. Christianity evokes a set of values that regulate actions, but often does not specify them in legal detail. Rules are, in turn, subject to (in some forms of Protestantism) discussion and reevaluation. In contrast, Islam functions more in terms of precepts, which are, for most Muslims, not subject to lay interpretation, while for some the interpretation stopped over a thousand years ago. For almost all Muslims, the interpretive process stops at the point of revelation. While principles can be found in the Koran and the Hadith, more often than not, in those texts norms are manifest in legalistic regulations, e.g., social justice in the giving of charity. Traditionally these precepts have not been generalized into principles.
The shari'ah is God's legislation for Muslims everywhere. It constitutes, as Denny writes, the "Muslim commitment to justice and social order in a harmonious and disciplined community that knows no distinction between 'church' and 'state,' or religious and secular realms — these themes and others will be seen still to inspire and regulate the ways in which today's Muslims believe, behave, interact with others, and anticipate their destinies as servants of God". While shari'ah is much broader than "law," it is codified in legal terms. While law always embodies both rules and principles, Rahman notes that shari'ah emphasizes rules and is articulated within an interpretive framework deeply suspicious of innovations that might be legitimated through the evocation of principles.
Muslims have the obligation to create a social world in which they can implement shari'ah, the social world in which it is possible to do good works, a social world that is all-encompassing, regulating most aspects of their lives; if jihad is necessary to construct that world, an Islamic state to impose actions in conformity with shari'ah, if not conformity with Islamic belief, jihad is viewed by many Muslims as a religious obligation. ....
Islam has been repeatedly the vehicle of an expansionist drive, and the evocation to jihad as a collective obligation of all Muslims — where jihad is understood, as the Islamists understand it, as an offensive war to impose shari'ah — has a history as long as the history of Islam. .....
In earlier work I have drawn the distinction between disorderly subcultures and subcultures of disorder.36 In the former, those who violate institutionalized norms legitimate their disorderly activities and, in consequence, regularize them. In a subculture of disorder, violations of institutionalized norms may occur, but only when they are seen to be advantageous. They are not legitimate, but rather, participants adopt a neutral attitude toward them. Like Mao's fish swimming in a sea, a relatively small cadre of revolutionaries, a revolutionary subculture, emerges out of and comes to be sustained by a larger subculture of revolution. Likewise, contemporary Islamists act within social orders where many are neutral towards their convictions and activities. Those in the "subculture of Islamism" might not participate in "jihad," but persons within a "subculture of Islamism" are not hostile to it.
Islamists share the conviction that they know how they must act to garner God's favor. One obligation, the neglected obligation that they assume, is jihad, war to impose shari'ah, first on their own societies and then on other societies. This obligation stems from an authentic tradition within Islam. They have not hijacked Islam; instead, they are working out their convictions, convictions with a history that reaches into Islam's formative years.
In the longer term, there is hope that Muslims in the West will work towards the generalization of their religious precepts into more abstract moral principles, principles capable of problematizing certain of the precepts. Muslims living in the West, in Europe and North America, can have no realistic hope of establishing Islamic states to rule the majority of the population. Perhaps, in this circumstance, they will work to accommodate Islam to the civil religion we find, for example, in the United States. In this civil religion, moral precepts from many denominations are found, but they are generalized from the denominational precepts that may be in force for believers, precepts that are not enforced politically. The resources for such an accommodation can be found in Islam, in its concern for equality and social justice. If this accommodation occurs, perhaps it will have an effect on the larger umma. Until then, it is clear that one of the Islamists' motivations to act stems from their understanding of their religious tradition, and it is just as clear that that tradition provides the resources to legitimate their actions.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
02/03/2005 7:06:19 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
02/03/2005 19:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I don't know about others, but quite frankly, I don't give a flying you-know-what about the nuts and bolts of jihad. All I know (and care) is that when non-Muslims are caught up in that BS, that's where I draw the line.
JUST FOUR MONTHS AGO, thousands of mourners thronged the Grand Mosque in Mecca for the funeral of a famous Sufi teacher. This was an extraordinary event, given the discrimination against all non-Wahhabi Muslims that is the state policy of Saudi Arabia. The dead man, 58-year-old Seyed Mohammad Alawi Al-Maliki, had been blacklisted from employment in religious education, banned from preaching in the Grand Mosque (a privilege once enjoyed by his father and grandfather), and even imprisoned by the Saudi regime and deprived of his passport. That so many Saudi subjects were willing to gather openly to mourn him--indeed, that his family succeeded in excluding Wahhabi clerics from the mosque during the memorial--says something important, not just about the state of dissent inside the Saudi kingdom, but also about pluralism in Islam.
It's hard to know which facet of Al-Maliki's identity his mourners were turning out to honor--if indeed these can be separated. He was, first, a Hejazi, a native of the western Arabian region that was an independent kingdom before the Saudi-Wahhabi conquest in the 1920s. Home to Mecca, Medina, and the commercial port of Jeddah, the Hejaz hosts an urban, cosmopolitan culture very different from that of the desert nomads. Al-Maliki's funeral was the first for a prominent Hejazi to be held in the Grand Mosque in decades.
He was also a leader of the Maliki school of Sunni Islam, a classical school of interpretation that the Wahhabis have forced underground in Saudi Arabia. Prior to the imposition of Wahhabi fascism, the Malikis, along with the other three main schools of Sunni Islam, had maintained a respected presence in the Grand Mosque for many centuries. Dialogue had characterized relations among these schools of Islamic thought.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
02/03/2005 1:34:54 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In a nutshell Sufis teach that your relationship with God is your personal business - they are the Islamic Reformation that never became institutionalized the way it did in the West. A Sufi SA - now thats a concept to play with.
#2
Phil, not that clear cut. In a general sense, it may be true. Perhaps because Sufism went through several centuries of evolution.
But let's not forget that Hassissins (Assassins) were a sufi outlet. Yes, it was almost 8 centuries ago.
You know why Soddies call OBL deviant? It is not just because they don't like the guy or something and that he is trying to get a rid of them. He managed to incorporate some sufi elements into his Wahhabi core beliefs, specifically some mystical parts that earlier sufis borrowed from Kabala. That is what scares Soddy Royals most, because they presume that he practices black magic and they are a superstitious bunch. The regular AQ members are 'deviants' because they are followers, not that there is the same assumption associated with them. If AQ simply targetted infidels, there would be no problem, that is the core of wahhabi doctrine and its major export article. But they see themselved in AQ crosshair and that makes Soddy Royals jittery. The gull of OBL to see them as kufars!
Sure, nurturing relationship with sufis may be helpful... but in the long run, it's Qu'ran that is at the base of Islamism. Sooner or later, even if the current Islamofascist spike is somewhat contained, it would bubble up again a few a century later, perhaps more virulent.
Islam has to be entirely replaced. How, that is a question many very smart people are pondering at the moment.
#3
Schwartz is himself a sufi and so his comments have to be understood in that light.
Yes, it is true that the Maliki (founded by Malik ibn Anas) school is more moderate than other Islamic jurisprudence (Hanifa, ,Shafi'i and Hanbal). However, the schools have many more similarities than differences (like I suppose Griffindor, Hufflepuff, etc.).
For example, all schools make a woman's word not count for much and a kufr's word not count for anything in court. All schools require death for apostates. All schools forbid the mandatory charity (zaka) from going to a kufr. Etc.
#4
is there some rule that all posts with discussions of jewish law go to the sinktrap? Or just ones by me? Since were talking about schools of law, etc, I really thought mine was relevant. Look for it in the sink trap.
#5
While I dont doubt that Steven Schwartz means well, I can't help but be irritated by him. This is a guy who went on some pompous worldwide quest for the truth about religion or some such thing which basically means that he went shopping for a religion that suited him and his preferences.
But what I find the most annoying about him is that he claims that sufism is the so-called "real" islam as opposed to wahhabism and it has become his cause to pin all of islam's problems on the Soddies.
The problem with this is that he can't possibly approach the subject objectively no matter how hard he tries. He has taken all thats is fine about islam and put it on one side, the white or "real" side and he's taken everything that's bad about it and put it on the black or "false" side. How very convenient for him but how very unrealistic.
At some point, Schwartz was a desparate man, desparately seeking to find a religion he could live with. He searched until he found his preferred brand, labelled this real islam regardless of any contradictory evidence and he has never looked back. Like a lot of modern Westerners he has gobs of intelligence and worldly experience and also good intentions, but he has no concept of what it is to truly conform to a religion nor does he seem to have any notion of the what the first step in any quest for truth must be. At no point in his own personal testimony of his conversion did he ever question his own basic assumptions. This seems like the very first step. But it seems like he simply assumed that he already had a good idea of what was right and he went out looking for a match, never questioning whether that beginning hunch or idea was really objectively right or the product of his unhappy subjective experiences.
I dont buy his line at all. Sorry. islam is built on flawed concepts. This doesn't mean that it is without merit, but what it does mean is that is has no place pretending to be the equal or superior of Christianity or Judaism.
#6
I remember many moons ago, LH, I was trying to engage you in conversation about aforesaid subject, and both our comments ended up in the sinktrap. Maybe its some anti-Boris thing -- use the English transliteration of yehuda too many times in a post and it gets flushed.
#9
At some point, Schwartz was a desparate man, desparately seeking to find a religion he could live with. He searched until he found his preferred brand, labelled this real islam regardless of any contradictory evidence and he has never looked back.
#11
I think concentrating on the theology alone is a mistake.
I think one thing being missed is the fact that there used to be interpretations of sharia that allowed urban civilization rather than fragmented tribalism, but somewhere around the thirteenth century (remarkably coincidental with some of the Mongol, Morgul, and Turkish incursions) the prevailing interpretation of sharia switched to sommething that caused a much more fragmented society to prevail.
And I think that's what needs to be fixed.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
02/03/2005 12:52 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Another thing I've found striking is the way Arabs simultaneously idealize their nomadic bedouin background and treat the actual bedouins still extant as eighth-class citizens. Kinda like a politician in D.C. who idealizes "American Rugged Individualism" in speeches but looks down on actual cowboys working in the cattle industry and living in trailer parks in rural New Mexico.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
02/03/2005 12:54 Comments ||
Top||
#13
As usual, Liberalhawk bypasses any substantive comment he could make in reply and focuses instead on personal attacks.
I thought the important thing that I said was about how and in what manner is a proper search for truth begun? I stated that it properly requires that all of ones basic assumptions should be called into question and subjected to scrutiny and challenge.
Why do I say that? Because I am a convert to Christianity who studied a lot of other religions BUT i began with the idea that everything I knew or assumed could be wrong. I played out every possible idea to its furthest conclusion including considering long and hard islam's world view and entertaining long and hard whether it could be true.
My point is that no quest for truth begins with a shopping list. Its not a search for a match that suits us. We must questions ourselves before we begin and search out how our experiences have biased us and affected us.
This is what I did, not because I am better or smarter than anyone else, but through the grace of God I was led to first question myself and every notion that I had about what religion should be like. That one of the reasons I am confident in my "choice" although I dont consider my decision to be entirely my choice since I consider myself rescued from error with a sudden profound experience of insight. That insight was the end of a process begun by questioning myself most of all and doubting everything. Since then, I've come to realize how applicable this method could be for anyone seeking some objective truth as best as we are able. It is the best method and most people simply skip this vital first step.
I just thought that i would point out that Schwartz never questioned his gut or his initial reasoning. He never seems to have accounted for his upbringing in a religiously divided and confused household or for how that upbringing might have skewed his vision. My position therefore is that is conversion and his opinion of islam is therfore also necessarily skewed and decidely unobjective.
#14
Point the third: does anyone really think that OBL, or Mullah Omar, if they were really in charge (or back in charge), would be all that devoutly religious themselves, or would they be more like everyone thinks the royals today are?
Being religious isn't all that hard when it consists of redefining it at will so you're always right... and before he dropped off the radar screen (and likely died) OBL was writing his pronouncements in verse. As if he were the second coming of the prophet. (Not just the Madhi).
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
02/03/2005 12:58 Comments ||
Top||
#15
And that's all I have to say for now; I have to go eat and get back to work, and I'll be back sometime this _evening_. Try to keep this from turning into a Monster Raving Loonie thread, OK? :-)
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
02/03/2005 13:01 Comments ||
Top||
#16
"Try to keep this from turning into a Monster Raving Loonie thread, OK? :-)"
I'll do my best ;-) Anytime someone starts talking msytical experiences, like me for instance, its going to sound flaky to other people even if it certainly does not to me. So I think I'm going to pull back a bit and try to stuff my personal admissions back in the can as best I can. Thanks for the reminder.
Back on track. I still say that Sufism isnt the answer because by itself its insufficient. It has an oppostional sort of existence. Its opposed to mainsteam islam but dependent on it. Without mainstream islam it becomes the islamic version of liberal protestantism having triumphed over more literal forms of Christianity. It will wither and die away, too limp to keep on living. It seems a noble option for now to those inclined to it but its triumph would spell the end of islam as liberalism has spelled the end of many mainline protestant bodies particularly in Europe. All religions exchange vitality and vigor when the most liberal form is adopted.
Phil,
I think that islam was urban and sophisticated until it killed off its host cultures, the refined Persians, Byzantines and the Jews of the Diaspora. Once these populations dwindled to the point where they no longer had much influence on culture, islam also began to degrade. It began to degrade because it was dependent on itself and its own resources and it slowly strangled initiative, innovation, and creativity out of islamic civilization. The trouble was with islam becoming too dominant in that region and with its wiping out the competition to it to the point of irrelevancy. I know that when any civilization ios attacked by barbaric hordes that this does quite a bit of damage, but I have to disagree with you about the Turks being part of the blame. To the contrary, they are often credited with a revival of civilization among muslims and with uniting disparate fueding tribes into a nation.
#17
1. I dont necessarily agree that there is one best way to approach a PERSONAL spiritual search. In any case, whatever the philisophical merits of one approach or the other, theyre not really on topic here, and certainly not relevant to the political points Schwartz is making.
2. There was, AFAIK, no decline in the number of Jews in the Islamic world at the time Islamic civ dried up. And the Persian and Byzantine influences had dried up much earlier.
3. The turks certainly unified a large part of islam politically, but ive never heard that they revived it culturally. Oh, BTW, there were Turks invading and gaining political dominance long before the Ottomans created unity.
ASFAIK, (I like that) civilizations don't start and stop on a dime. The original inspiration could fuel a civ for many years. There is no denying the influence of Persian and Byzantine knowledge and civ on islamic culture. muslims got quite a bit of mileage out of it but in the end islam lacked the internal to keep it going.
Also, while the two empires mentioned ceased to be fairly early, for a very long time there existed sizable populations of Christians and Zoroastrians who were still culturally Byzantine and Persian. You will note that islamic decline hastened in porportion as these populations along with the Jews, went into serious decline. The less of these cultures there has been in the ME, the worse the ME has become. Right now these populations are near neglible in numbers.
And where do they now thrive? In the West. It seems for all the talk about some enlighten islamic attitude to other religions particularly the Jews, the proof is in the pudding. Practically wiped out in the ME. Thriving and free in the West.
I tend to put more stock in how things actually turn out even if it takes thousands of years to turn out that way, then I do by high-minded talk and an initial period of where the ideal is practiced to a great extent. If someone talks a good game but can't stay in it, I think less of them than those who had a rough start but eventually finishes strong.
While Christianity has a worse historical record of persecuting Jews for instance, there was nonetheless mettle and teaching sufficient to overcome our failings. Islam started out seeming to be better towards the Jews but lacked the mettle and teaching sufficient to prevent the utter decay in that relationship to the point where almost no Jews live now in muslim dominated lands.
Please don't get mad at me. I'm not taunting you. Just think about this for a second. i'm not asking you to suddenly start loving Christians or something. Just give it some serious thought. I'm talking look at the whole picture and not some highminded talk. Who turned out better at tolerance although we began in the worse position and who overcame their failings? I wonder if this could count for something in your view?
#19
It seems for all the talk about some enlighten islamic attitude to other religions particularly the Jews, the proof is in the pudding. Practically wiped out in the ME. Thriving and free in the West.
That would prove that Anglicanism is is more enlightened than Lutheranism, since Jews are thriving and free in the UK, Canada, Australia and US, while wiped out in Germany. Russian Orthodoxy somewhere in between.
BTW, did you know the blood libel was first spread in the mideast by Syrian CHRISTIANS?
turned out better at tolerance although we began in the worse position and who overcame their failings
Ah, but the game isnt over yet - we dont KNOW how Islam will turn out. And we have policy decisions to make RIGHT now that will have an impact on how Islam turns out.
Pardon, I dont think Christianity "turned out right" because of the mettle of its teachings, but because of its historical circumstances, which were different from Islam's. If you want details, read Bernard Lewis.
Im not asking you to suddenly start loving muslims. Im just asking you to look at history more broadly, and not to judge evolving religious civilizations based on their original texts.
what you dont seem to understand is that religious civilizations evolving or not base themselves on their original texts! Those original texts and the examples of their founders are the foundations of those civilizations. If the foundation is faulty then what do these civilizations derive from them when they return to them as they will again and again.
To say as you do that the original texts dont matter and should be disconnected from the ensuing religion is just nonsense. I have to wonder what is your concept of a religion if it does not find its source and renewal in its original texts and examples?
I honestly dont see why you tell me about who started the blood libel. Do I have to list every failing and every crime committed by Christians in order for you to stop acting as though I am unaware of them? Is this supposed to surprise me? Silence me? What the? How do I have to put it. Do I have to say that Christianity is entirely bankrupt and false and horrible, a religion which no good person could possibly believe because of its crimes in history? Would that finally satisfy you? well you'll be waiting a long time.
And what were these historical cirsumstances? where did they come from? They arose in a culture saturated and entirely dominated by Christianity. Did these circumstance come out of thin air? That, i'm afraid is a completely flawed way to look at history and takes no account of religious influence on any opposition that arose to Christianity nor does it take into account or give any merit to the faith's eventual response no matter how long in coming. I'm sorry but I am not impressed with Bernard Lewis. He is not infallible and many smart people take issue with his interpretation of history. And that is his interpretation. History is not a science even if it might begin with hard data. It takes that hard data and attempts to interpret it. Frankly Lewis seems to be seriously lacking in accounting for the power of religion on a society if he thinks that Christianity was basically tied up and forced to capitulate without it having the least efect on the outcome of current Western history. Its preposterous. It makes no sense whatever. If we are going to say that then we have to subtract all religious influence whether positive or negative out of the equation of history entirely.
Anyway, Peggy, one thing you might want to look into... I can't seem to find the link anymore, but I once read a fascinating article on the different developmental paths Christianity took in both the Eastern and Western halfs of the Roman Empire, even going back to the time of St. Paul. The article suggested that St. Paul was writing different things to different people regarding things like gender roles in the Church, in order to fit in more with the cultural differences between the Eastern Mediterranean region and the Western one.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
02/03/2005 18:48 Comments ||
Top||
#22
LH,
I've been thinking about your last post while I was working out and I think I can summarize Lewis' argument and yours via Lewis.
Lewis' argument goes something like this. All religions are history makers except for Christianity. Christianity is nothing but history's victim and its irrelevant to Western history except for all the bad stuff.
On this you base your argument which is as follows. Nothing matters about Christianity especially anything that might show it has some redeeming value. Any positives about it are pure accident and irrelavant to any discussion. It doesn't matter how it started (It was pacifist like its founder). Its texts dont matter unless we are talking about the so called Jew hating stuff and how it turned out doesnt matter. All pure accident. Christianity just layed there and stuff happened to it. Nothing positve about it has anything to do with its theology. Lots of things matter about islam on the other hand. A brief golden period makes all the difference. A couple of verses which seem very religiously tolerant makes all the difference with islam. How islam might possiblly maybe turn out also matters. How it is in the present and how it got there is nothing at all to worry about. Your faith that this period is just and abberation is complete. Further, you can state with perfect confidence that in spite of the two religions being very different in how they began and where they are now, not the least of the differences being the standards applied to them, nonetheless you can predict that the outcomes will be exactly the same.
I am always interested in differing opinions about even my religion. I would read it if you could find it. I'm not sure how new the idea is though. I think I've heard similar theories before although not this exact idea that he was writing different things to different regions. Paul was a pragmatic man, I'll agree. He had a very definite idea of what mattered about the Gospel and to an extent he might well have taken a loose attitude to prevailing customs if these didnt contradict with the fundamentals.
The prevailing idea in the Church is that Paul was writing to specific situations in specific cities. Corinthians, from which came the most infamous of Paul's recommendations about gender, was addressed to the church in Corinth which was apparently particularly wayward. I have heard better arguments than this that satisfy me about his attitudes and why he wrote different recommendations to different places. By and large the letters that the whole church came to use lean decidedly in favor of strong and active roles for Christian woman in that community and evidence seems to bear that out. Christian women had an honored and respected place in early Christian life.
One last thing. There were some things Paul was adamant about and some things that he made clear were recommendations. He would explain his reasoning in these cases and the early church respected his authority so these recommendations carried more weight than mere opinion. Typically, a conservative church like mine tries to respect the specific recommendations rather than tossing them out as inconveniences. But the whole of Pauls output is also taken into consideration. The result is a good and sensible balance IMO.
#24
Actually Peggy, that looked a little like a personal attack.
If you'll stick around a while, you might find that LH is quite accomplished as a Talmudic scholar. Which applies directly to your point about evolution of religion, and the "original text" under discussion.
The practice of Talmudic law has made Judaism quite a different thing, for the most part, from that described in the Torah. This was, in fact, largely due to the social and historical environs of the evolving religion, and a lively debate between the various schools of Judaic jurisprudence.
LH is quite right that we don't know quite what Islam is going to turn out. But the continuing adherence to a literal interpretation of the orignial original texts, and the ascendancy of particularly traditional schools of Shari'a interpretation, does not bode well.
I think that I pretty fairly summed up LH's argument. If I say that Christianity's positives are due to theology, he returns by saying that the positives are accidents. Re-read his comments and I think you will see what I am talking about.
I don't doubt that he knows quite a bit about Judaism and I have learned from him and I respect his knowledge on the subject. His opinions about my faith are another matter entirely.
I also know something about Judaism because I have tried to study it from Jews. Writers mostly since I haven't figured out a good way to approach rabbis in person yet. There really aren't a lot of good options here in Dallas. I am currently reading "The Prophets" by Abraham Heschel and I am quite impressed with it. I am coming to love and appreciate the Hebrew prophets more than ever because of him. Its a wonderful book. A bit heavy and in depth but its also warm and emotional and full of love for God and his Word. If thats your kind of thing, I recommend it.
#26
I didn't see LH use the words "accident," I saw him allude to Bernard Lewis for potential further reading, and then I saw you put a lot of words in his mouth.
You probably don't want to get into my "kind of thing," but I'd advise caution if you're interested in speaking with a Rabbi. Your background and interests might, ah, interject a bit of a bias into a personal discussion that could turn it into a debate.
My mentor was a wishy-washy, secular Jew with strong Socialist leanings. He took issue with Heschel on the basis of defining a successful prophet in terms of the correctness of the message and its rendition---rather than the reception and legacy of the message. There are lots of failed prophets with great messages and oratory skills. Sabbatai Zvei was one such until he capitulated to the Turks and renounced his message.
#27
Always enjoyable to hear folks argue religion. Reminds me of the times when I was about 12 and my buddies and I would argue who would win in a *real fight* - Sgt Slaughter or the Iron Sheik?Hulk Hogan or Andre the Giant? Batman or Siderman? Bo or Luke Duke? A shark versus a crocodile? Bwhahahaha.......
#28
Peggy: I can't definitively speak for LH, but what I suspect he was trying to say, and which is what I believe, is that Christianity was never really monolithic to begin with, and as it spread to different parts of Europe at different times the result was a plethora of different "Christianities." Even before the major schisms.
The paper I wish I could find about Paul said that he wrote what he did to Corinth because Corinth was in the Hellenistic sphere of influence rather than the Latin sphere of influence, and in the Hellenistic sphere, more or less, women had less rights or public influence than in the Latin half of the empire. (I think it also mentioned the Jews as being an exception to this general rule; LH can correct me on that if he's still reading).
The article also listed a large number of semi-Islamic customs that were common in the Hellenistic area but not in the Latin area, which seemed to hint that Islam reinforced more-or-less lousy cultural trends that were already present in the area in which it came to prevail.
BTW, I take it you're in Dallas? Do you ever go elsewhere in Texas?
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
02/03/2005 21:45 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Hell, er Hey! I used to be religious and write fatwas. But ya know what happened? They all started coming out like municipal resolutions or ordinances. It is kinda like talking like Donald Duck. Do that for a while and it takes over your head. Must.not.write.fatwas.any.more.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/03/2005 21:52 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Nice, AP! I work with a guy that talks like Scooby Doo... and laughs like him, and walks like him... matter of fact, it's kind of creepy when he's coming at me on a forklift.
#33
Er, in Halacha, Jewish law, a gentiles word is not good in court,except when he is testifying on a matter of his technical expertise. A non-observant Jews word isnt good either. The notion being that your word is good cause youre afraid of the next worldy consequences of perjury, and you cant assume anyone but an observant jew believes in those consequences. A gentiles word IS good on matters of technical expertise, cause its assumed a craftsman wants to protect his reputation for competence,and so will testify truthfully about matters of his craft. This does not prevent Orthodox and Conservative Jews from living peacefully in secular societies. Again, it is a mistake to focus purely on texts and/or legal doctrines and ignore how groups are actually functioning today. While many Sufis ARE very conservative, they are NOT engaged in the kind of war that the Salafis are. In practical terms, they are the enemies OBL and the Salafis. Salafism may not be Islamic modernism, but it doesnt possess an ideology or a structure to fight Islamic modernism as Salafism does.
And religions dont get replaced as a general rule in the modern world. They get diluted, forgotten, etc. Like Christianity in western Europe.
#34
Er, in Halacha, Jewish law, a gentiles word is not good in court,except when he is testifying on a matter of his technical expertise. A non-observant Jews word isnt good either. The notion being that your word is good cause youre afraid of the next worldy consequences of perjury, and you cant assume anyone but an observant jew believes in those consequences. A gentiles word IS good on matters of technical expertise, cause its assumed a craftsman wants to protect his reputation for competence,and so will testify truthfully about matters of his craft. This does not prevent Orthodox and Conservative Jews from living peacefully in secular societies. Again, it is a mistake to focus purely on texts and/or legal doctrines and ignore how groups are actually functioning today. While many Sufis ARE very conservative, they are NOT engaged in the kind of war that the Salafis are. In practical terms, they are the enemies OBL and the Salafis. Salafism may not be Islamic modernism, but it doesnt possess an ideology or a structure to fight Islamic modernism as Salafism does.
And religions dont get replaced as a general rule in the modern world. They get diluted, forgotten, etc. Like Christianity in western Europe.
I honestly dont see why your post would end up in the sinkhole. But,while I respect Judaism greatly, I have to say that where I disagree with judaism is pretty much at the same points and for the same reasons i disagree with islam although I disagree with islam a lot more since it is based on a garbled understanding of Judaism. mo didnt study Judaism, he just picked up on what he liked about it and went from there. It shows.
I think Judaism's saving grace is two fold. One Judaism has no pretensions to universality in the sense that anyone but those born into Judaism are expected to follow Jewish law and Jews do not seek to turn non-Jews into Jews. The second is that Judaism is only properly the state religion in a limited geographic area. Jews do not have and never had any ambitions to make Judaism dominant throughout the world nor have they attempted to place the whole world under Jewish governance. Whatsmore, a gentile living in Israel would be subject to some kind of secular law as they are now in Israel and ideally they are only expected to follow a basic moral code such as do not murder, lie, cheat, steal etc. I know of no Jewish laws that bring gentiles under some form of Jewish religious code as in the dhimmi laws of islam where gentiles must live subject to Jews and face may onerous restrictions.
The problem with islam is that it tries and fails to imitate Judaism but on a universal scale undesired by Judaism. islam is a whole different animal than Judaism. I hope that you dont find that out the hard way someday.
I honestly dont see why your post would end up in the sinkhole. But,while I respect Judaism greatly, I have to say that where I disagree with judaism is pretty much at the same points and for the same reasons i disagree with islam although I disagree with islam a lot more since it is based on a garbled understanding of Judaism. mo didnt study Judaism, he just picked up on what he liked about it and went from there. It shows.
I think Judaism's saving grace is two fold. One Judaism has no pretensions to universality in the sense that anyone but those born into Judaism are expected to follow Jewish law and Jews do not seek to turn non-Jews into Jews. The second is that Judaism is only properly the state religion in a limited geographic area. Jews do not have and never had any ambitions to make Judaism dominant throughout the world nor have they attempted to place the whole world under Jewish governance. Whatsmore, a gentile living in Israel would be subject to some kind of secular law as they are now in Israel and ideally they are only expected to follow a basic moral code such as do not murder, lie, cheat, steal etc. I know of no Jewish laws that bring gentiles under some form of Jewish religious code as in the dhimmi laws of islam where gentiles must live subject to Jews and face may onerous restrictions.
The problem with islam is that it tries and fails to imitate Judaism but on a universal scale undesired by Judaism. islam is a whole different animal than Judaism. I hope that you dont find that out the hard way someday.
I honestly dont see why your post would end up in the sinkhole. But,while I respect Judaism greatly, I have to say that where I disagree with judaism is pretty much at the same points and for the same reasons i disagree with islam although I disagree with islam a lot more since it is based on a garbled understanding of Judaism. mo didnt study Judaism, he just picked up on what he liked about it and went from there. It shows.
I think Judaism's saving grace is two fold. One Judaism has no pretensions to universality in the sense that anyone but those born into Judaism are expected to follow Jewish law and Jews do not seek to turn non-Jews into Jews. The second is that Judaism is only properly the state religion in a limited geographic area. Jews do not have and never had any ambitions to make Judaism dominant throughout the world nor have they attempted to place the whole world under Jewish governance. Whatsmore, a gentile living in Israel would be subject to some kind of secular law as they are now in Israel and ideally they are only expected to follow a basic moral code such as do not murder, lie, cheat, steal etc. I know of no Jewish laws that bring gentiles under some form of Jewish religious code as in the dhimmi laws of islam where gentiles must live subject to Jews and face may onerous restrictions.
The problem with islam is that it tries and fails to imitate Judaism but on a universal scale undesired by Judaism. islam is a whole different animal than Judaism. I hope that you dont find that out the hard way someday.
I honestly dont see why your post would end up in the sinkhole. But,while I respect Judaism greatly, I have to say that where I disagree with judaism is pretty much at the same points and for the same reasons i disagree with islam although I disagree with islam a lot more since it is based on a garbled understanding of Judaism. mo didnt study Judaism, he just picked up on what he liked about it and went from there. It shows.
I think Judaism's saving grace is two fold. One Judaism has no pretensions to universality in the sense that anyone but those born into Judaism are expected to follow Jewish law and Jews do not seek to turn non-Jews into Jews. The second is that Judaism is only properly the state religion in a limited geographic area. Jews do not have and never had any ambitions to make Judaism dominant throughout the world nor have they attempted to place the whole world under Jewish governance. Whatsmore, a gentile living in Israel would be subject to some kind of secular law as they are now in Israel and ideally they are only expected to follow a basic moral code such as do not murder, lie, cheat, steal etc. I know of no Jewish laws that bring gentiles under some form of Jewish religious code as in the dhimmi laws of islam where gentiles must live subject to Jews and face may onerous restrictions.
The problem with islam is that it tries and fails to imitate Judaism but on a universal scale undesired by Judaism. islam is a whole different animal than Judaism. I hope that you dont find that out the hard way someday.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
(2005-02-02) -- Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whose failed presidential bid in 2004 established the power of the Internet as a campaign tool, seems poised to assume the leadership of the Democrat party, according to a report in The New York Times.
