Radio Ad for Firearms Training
See below Mason, TX. This is f-in hilarious!!!
A radio ad for a handgun training class that bars Muslims and Obama voters has sparked an investigation in Texas.
"We will attempt to teach you all the necessary information you need to obtain your [Concealed Handgun License]," the ad says. Then towards the end, it adds: "If you are a socialist liberal and/or voted for the current campaigner in chief, please do not take this class. You have already proven that you cannot make a knowledgeable and prudent decision under the law."
And then: "If you are a non-Christian Arab or Muslim, I will not teach you the class with no shame; I am Crockett Keller, thank you, and God bless America."
The ad ran for six days on KHLB, Mason's local station. It's also been heard tens of thousands of times on Youtube.
Keller, 65, has said in media interviews that he just regards the message is just common sense. "The fact is, if you are a devout Muslim, then you cannot be a true American," he told local news station KVUE, while fielding calls congratulating him for his stance. "Why should I arm these people to kill me? That's suicide."
"I call it exercising my right to choose who I instruct in how to use a dangerous weapon," he added.
But the state of Texas may disagree. The Department of Public Safety said in a statement that certified instructors of handgun training are required to comply with all applicable state and federal laws, and added: "Conduct by an instructor that denied service to individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion would place that instructor's certification by the Department at risk of suspension or revocation." The department has said it has begun an investigation.
It seems unlikely that Keller will back down, though. "I'm not going to do it," he told the local news. "I will give up my license to teach before I will teach them," he said, referring to Obama voters and Muslims."
And this us even better!!!!!!
SPARTANBURG COUNTY, S.C. -- The Spartanburg County Sheriff is known for speaking his mind, and at a news conference on Monday, he didn't hold back his anger and frustration after a woman was attacked in a park over the weekend.
Investigators said 46-year-old Walter Lance grabbed a woman who was walking her dog in Milliken Park on Sunday afternoon. They said Lance choked the woman, made her take off her clothing and tried to rape her. (Full Story)
Lance is in custody and was denied bond on Monday.
Share Unedited: Sheriff Wright’s News ConferenceSheriff Chuck Wright opened his news conference by saying, "Our form of justice is not making it."
He said, "
Carry a concealed weapon. That'll fix it."Read more:
http://www.wyff4.com/news/29638219/detail.html#ixzz1cWMrB6V2The woman apparently did as she was told.
Why would he need to carry a gun ?
Keller, 65, has said in media interviews that he just regards the message is just common sense. "The fact is, if you are a devout Muslim, then you cannot be a true American," he told local news station KVUE.
Interesting slant on the religious freedom proposed by the Founding Fathers. They thought it was so important they enshrined it in law.
Also, I assume that if Muslims are not true Americans they should be shipped back to the heathen hellhole that spawned them. They certainly cannot live free or own businesses or vote.
Yay! Pogroms! We don't see enough of those these days.
A true American? What a fucking asshole.
Keller, 65, has said in media interviews...
Whatever. You're gonna die in another 10 years. Attrition wins, fucker, and us rotten kids these days have no respect for the important principles of your generation.
This guy would be terrified of me then.
Whatever. You're gonna die in another 10 years. Attrition wins, fucker, and us rotten kids these days have no respect for the important principles of your generation.
Ah, but new curmudgeons are just waiting in the wings. I have come across a distressing number of them on other sites. And you rotten kids are going to get old and die, too, leaving the whole mess to yet another dissatisified generation. The beat goes on.
I actually wanna get a gun as the good sheriff suggests and take Keller's class and on the last day, inform him I voted for Obama. Then I'll shoot him with my 45 and claim self defense.
The woman apparently did as she was told.
Why would he need to carry a gun ?
*snort*
Dark. Funny, but dark.
..."The fact is, if you are a devout Muslim, then you cannot be a true American," he told local news station...
I proudly admit a great deal of ignorance concerning the Muslim faith, but, just how is that fact? Does it have to do with killing everything that ain't Muslim, or what? Serious question.
...He said, "Carry a concealed weapon. That'll fix it."...
It works. Just ask Texas. Open carry (visible weapon) works too.
that can't really be a serious question.
at least, it can't be a serious and complete question or you'd be confessing a great deal of ignorance about what constitutes American citizenry.
...
The plain fact it that his statement is not true. It is nonsense.
I proudly admit a great deal of ignorance concerning the Muslim faith, but, just how is that fact? Does it have to do with killing everything that ain't Muslim, or what? Serious question.
According to this ...
A muslim cannot be a loyal American citizen.
Wackiness abounds here. The site espouses a particularly rigid form of christianity, don't say I didn't warn you.
I haven't found a pro-Muslim rebuttal, but I only looked through four pages of Google search. (I'm wading my way through The American Muslim, but they have 20+ years of articles, and it's slow going).
I thought the only true Americans are the Native Americans, but then they really crossed over from Siberia. So is there a true American by ethnic or religious standards?
BTW, I'm pro concealed carry
that can't really be a serious question.
It was.
at least, it can't be a serious and complete question or you'd be confessing a great deal of ignorance about what constitutes American citizenry.
Educate me on American citizenry, and why I need to know the vagaries of a religion about which I do not give the first shit, and admitted that I knew nothing of. The question, as I asked it, was complete, and genuine regarding the subject I was asking about, as narrow as it may have been.
The plain fact it that his statement is not true. It is nonsense.
Never said it was or wasn't.
According to this ... A muslim cannot be a loyal American citizen.
---snip---
[ATTACH]35112[/ATTACH]
Thanks, wolf.
That's what I was wondering about. Kinda sorta.
Grav, it might be worthwhile to search out additional sources to your questions.
That one (bible.ca) seems a little off in a few important respects.
.
That's what I was wondering about. Kinda sorta.
4. Christians are allowed to make friends with non-Christians, but many choose, instead, to villify non-Christians. Do you seriously think that Muslims don't become friends with Christians and Jews?
5. Aren't Christians supposed to follow Jesus' teachings and God's law? Isn't that supposed to supercede man's laws?
I'd venture to say that the "many" in your #4 should be "SOME" or "very few."
4. Plenty of Christians believe you should render unto Caesar what is due to Caesar, but render unto God what is due to God - a bit of tax and service to the former vs lifelong duty, loyalty and obedience to the latter.
Then again, that was said by a man with a Jewish mother.
5. Catholics must follow the dictates of a man in Rome.
The heir to the throne of England could not marry one for years because their influence was considered so against the benefit of the realm and so pervasive.
And don't even start on Mormons and where their allegiance lies.
Or the Scientologists.
Grav, what I'm saying is there are fanatics in every part of life and most especially when it comes to religious views. You can distort aspects of the Old Testament as easily as you can the Koran. Take a walk through Leviticus sometime and wonder if you'd want to give those people firearms training. Or especially rock-throwing practice.
Unlike some (maybe many - I don't know) here I knew many, many Muslims.
No, I wasn't friends with them all. I was good friends some, and went out with them or ate at their houses regularly, because they were simply friends.
Some Muslims I sincerely disliked. But it was nothing to do with religion, it was to do with whether I clicked with them, or if I thought they were dicks - same as with Christians, atheists etc etc. They were from all over the world - Africa, Middle East, Pakistan, although most were second generation in England.
All had different backgrounds and ways of interpreting their faith.
And they all had a preference of Eastenders vs Corrie, Big Bro or nothing, chips & ketchup, chips & mayo, United vs City etc etc.
Yes - all the above are in British terms. Because they were almost all British (I did know some first generation immigrants, although they had opinions on the above too!)
They watched the same kids TV as me.
They went to the same schools.
They grew up and fell in love. And things were hard if they fell in love across cultural borders, same as they were in the 70s and 80s for people who fell in love across colour borders (or religion in N/I) or gender these days.
I'm not an expert on the Islamic faith, but I have been in close contact with it, and it is not evil. People make it evil. As they can do many things.
A Muslim can be an American in the same way a Jew can. Or a Catholic. Or a Communist.
It's about the beliefs you share. The experiences you share. And whether you are prepared to kill fellow citizens about it.
WSS^
Really, beautifully put Sundae.
Whoever wrote that revolting website and the chap refusing to give firearms lessons to muslims on the grounds of them being the 'enemy', should take a look at their nation's armed forces sometime. Can a muslim truly be an American? Go check out the graves of the American muslims who have given their lives in service to their country and then ask that question.
*shakes head*
but but but that ONE from Fort Hood ...
hehehehe
*whaps classicman upside the head*
Thanks for the input, Sundae. But, I felt that way beforehand. I don't really care what religion anyone follows. In fact, I'm to the point I don't really want to know. Personally I don't think you need a religion. I don't think that Heaven will be filled with just Baptists, and no Mormons, or Catholics, or Jews. I think one can worship God without having to follow guidelines set out by someone(s) hundreds or thousand of years ago. There have been more people killed in the name of religion, than probably died from all the diseases in history. I'm just too lazy to give that much of a damn about anything.
I might study up on Islam a little to have a somewhat better conversational grasp on the basics.
My original question (which was lost almost immediately, imagine that) just asked why the guy thought a Muslim couldn't be a true American. The link in Wolf's post gave me what I was actually looking for: What that guy (in the ad) was probably using as a basis for the statement he made. Truthiness don't enter into it. I don't believe everything I read/see on teh interweb.
BTW, I don't have anything against religion...I just don't like people.
Ok, I'm done now, carry on.
:)
I just thought of this:
Scenario: Man walks into a department store, kills 8 ppl cuz he got fired.
The News: "A man walked into a dept. store today and killed 8 ppl."
Notice it doesn't, and won't, say: "A Presbyterian man walked into a dept store and killed 8 ppl."
Scenario: Muslim man walks into a dept store and kills 8 ppl cuz he got fired.
The News: "A Muslim extremist walked into a dept store today and killed 8 ppl."
Every time. I've never heard, I don't think, a murderer's religion so much as mentioned in passing, unless Muslimness was involved.
Baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Mormons, Latter Day Saints, Amish (ok, maybe not the Amish), Apostolics all kill people, but, religion is never mentioned.
Why is that?
Now I'm done.
Yes Grav, and it wasn't too long ago the scenario could have been:
Scenario: Man walks into a department store, kills 8 ppl cuz he got fired.
The News: "A colored man walked into a dept. store today and killed 8 ppl."
Wasn't too long ago that it was ...
Scenario: Man walks into a department store, kills 8 ppl cuz he got fired.
The News: "An ex postal worker walked into a dept. store today and killed 8 ppl."
There was that story just this week about the Amish beard cutters.
Fuckin Amish. See if I'm willing to teach them how to cut hair...no sirree
There was that story just this week about the Amish beard cutters.
Here's the story, by the way.
I wonder what's the difference between a cult and any other form of religion.
Numbers.
Although seriously, IMHO "cults" are usually built around a single charismatic leader, and disintegrate shortly after their death. If it survives this and establishes itself as an ongoing cultural institution (or highly infectious meme) then I'd call it a religion.
We have to ask ourselves, would the Cellar survive without UT?
:grouphug::ipray::unsure::question:
Ergo, we are a cult.
Hey UT, your serene divinity, when was the last time someone logically proved that you are highly charismatic? :D
We have to ask ourselves, would the Cellar survive without UT?
Why is it that that was my first question as well... gee whiz I'm a cultist!
You've been cultivated.
:borg:
:grouphug:
It was.
Educate me on American citizenry, and why I need to know the vagaries of a religion about which I do not give the first shit, and admitted that I knew nothing of. The question, as I asked it, was complete, and genuine regarding the subject I was asking about, as narrow as it may have been.
--snip
Gravdigr,
I apologize for my harsh answer to your original question.
I'd put together another long answer, then the computer ate it. Here is the condensed version.
Our laws about the requirements for citizenship say nothing about a religious requirement. Furthermore, the first amendment to the Constitution specifically prohibits the creation of such laws in such circumstances.
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There certainly *are* requirements for citizenship, and some restrictions, but none of them have anything to do with religion, much less Islam. You can be a citizen regardless of your religion.
That's the citizenship side of your question.
Islam has many followers, and like most religions, has many interpreters of the "rules". I am less familiar with the wider range of definitions of what it means to be a "devout muslim" than I am with the "rules" for citizenship. But I will tell you that I have a number of friends who are muslim. American citizens, by the way. I've been around them for a long time. Nothing I've ever heard or seen from any of them has ever given me any indication that there was a conflict between their religion and their citizenship. Nothing I've read about Islam has ever given me any indication that there's any conflict between Islam and citizenship, certainly not American citizenship.
Having listened to the idiot in the firearms ad, and the other idiot at the website, they both talk about why someone can't be a citizen, and they say the reason being a "devout muslim". I *know* this is wrong because I have a good understanding of the requirements for citizenship; those requirements are explicit and well defined and widely accepted, especially by those who confer citizenship. What the two idiots seem to be saying is that if you're an American citizen, you can't be a "devout muslim". Maybe they know about being a "devout muslim" and where in the Koran is says you can't be a citizen, but I doubt it.
These guys are talking out of their asses.
If this place lived off my charisma it would surely be vacant...!
fortunately, your modesty sustains us as well.
Grav, I do get the original question, but the answer lies in bigotry and ignorance (genuine and assumed).
There are many many things you can read about Islam which might suggest a Muslim could not live in a country with democratic ideals.
But their holy book - like those of Judaism and Christianity - was written in a time when democracy did not count. The opinion of the vast majority of the men in the country meant nothing. And women and slaves were owned heart and soul by their Master, as were their offspring, regardless of whether his opinion counted in the wider world or not.
Mohammed was surprisingly enlightened for his time, more so than some Mormons in the last 100 years. But there are words and attitudes adhered to by some of his followers than can be condemned by today's standards.
Practices are open to interpretation.
Words can be twisted.
If you ask me what a generic American might regard as an problem with Islam I would suggest some of the more warlike passages of the Koran, conversion of non-Muslims with death to those who resist, suppression of women, homophobia and the rules laid down about pilgrimage to a foreign land.
These are perceptions. Some correct (and true in all three of the Abrahamic religions). Some taken out of context or only observed by fundamentalists. Some true but not really a problem. You are an intelligent man and you've admitted that you're not predisposed to bias in this case. I hope this reply helps.
BigV, your apology was unnecessary (but' I'll take it, & save it for a rainy day). I knew there would be an explanation/more info forthcoming from you, you don't usually spout without splaining.
I do appreciate everyone's input.
The "American Citizen" part I get. Born here, lived here 43 years.
The "Devout Muslim" part, I obviously need to study on.
I know that every Muslim on the planet is not out to get America. Yes, I get the idea of 'extremism', and that there are extremists in every religion. Those Amish hair attacks? Amish Extremists. And I know of more than one church group that could be boiled down to Baptist Extremists.
Are Muslims the new Communists?
Is Islam replacing global warming?
Am I beginning to sound like Pensive Pam & JB Klyde's love child?
Am I beginning to sound like Pensive Pam & JB Klyde's love child?
Quick Shoot it shoot it NOWWWWWWWWWW
The woman apparently did as she was told.
Why would he need to carry a gun ?
Lamp, it would surprise me, in view of this, to discover
you have ever been raped. And what do you mean by the mix of pronouns?
Well, I thought it was fucking funny. Reminded me of some of Jimmy Carr's material. The context of the joke is rape, but the actual humour comes from the word play.
Ergo, we are a cult.
You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.
Grav, it might be worthwhile to search out additional sources to your questions.
That one (bible.ca) seems a little off in a few important respects.
.
They're not advertising the missed apocalypses. If you follow the link you get a list of missed apocalypses and the statement that nobody knows the day and the hour, or whatever it is.
The religion of any assailant is only relevant if the religion plays a part in the attack ... The Fort Hood guy was a Muslim who attacked non Muslims while shouting about their not being Muslims.
The guy who shoots 8 coworker after being fired, is doing so after being fired, regardless of Faith. he wouldn't be called a Muslim extremeist or Muslim terrorist unless he was acting as a consequence of that, right?
And before anybody starts calling Mohammed reasonable ... read the Koran. there's some crazy, self-serving shit in there, and I'm not even talking about the 9 year old bride thing.
Reminded me of some of Jimmy Carr's material.
The other day I learned that Jimmy Carr came from a very religious background, and was a virgin until the age of 26. Explains a whole lot, I think. :)
Yeah. He was a devout Catholic iirc. Believed in saving himself for marriage and I think at one point was considering the priesthood.
As he himself says, since then, he's all about the poontang.
:p
I love him in interview. So clever. When he talks about comedy and jokes in particular. A proper joke technician.
I'd venture to say that the "many" in your #4 should be "SOME" or "very few."
Look at how many were outraged at the "Ground Zero Mosque". More than a very few.
Percentage wise - a pittance.
We have been fighting a war on several fronts, the largest of these fronts have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. Almost all of our efforts in our current wars overseas deal with populations almost entirely of Muslim descent....and we don't know dick about the religion here in the states. Wow. Just wow. 10 years of war, and the vast majority of Americans can not tell the difference between a Shia and a Sunni, or any of the dozen or so other "heretics" that are wondering around out there in the world. This dismays me a little.
Americans have such a cultural bias for anything not American...what ever the fuck that is. Using the criteria put forth as to why Muslims can't be American citizens would disqualify at least half of the Christian population of the U.S.
I'll trade you a quote from the Qur'an. Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
Well said Joe!
And great quote.
I'm not sure I get your point Joe. I can't tell a Catholic from a Baptist, and how long have we been fighting them?
I bet you could come up with a handful of distinctions if you thought about it though.
Well, Baptists do tend to be shinier.
Counterpoint:
If someone wants to kill me because I don't share their beliefs, I don't really care what their beliefs ARE. That's their particular form of bullshit, whether it's a 12th Imam to return to rule the earth for seven years or careful application of Sharia and various bullshit rituals. The problem is not interpreting their bullshit in a way that allows for patient cooperation with the rest of the world.
The KKK was a Christian organization but we didn't need to study what particular variety of beliefs put them over the top. We just needed to extinguish those beliefs.
You didn't seek to extinguish Christian beliefs though. Just the white supremacist violent terrorist part.
The point isn't that some brands of Islam aren't violent and dangerous, but that not all are. To say there is something inherently un-American about being a muslim is ignorant and dangerous.
All of Christianity had to change in order to get along with the rest of the world. In order for that to happen, it had to be interpreted differently. All of Islam is regularly interpreted this way or that by various figures in the religion. At some point those figures will start interpreting it differently. Just like the Bible, there are plenty of contradictory teachings in the Koran, and eventually the religion will pick the bits that let us live on the same planet without killing each other.
Until that time, there will probably be violence.
As far as the original guy goes, he is part of the reinterpretation, and he is a garden variety troll who is able to purchase cheap radio time, and doesn't represent a common viewpoint. As his belief does not find a toehold it will slowly be abandoned.
The Koran also says ...
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
And one of the hadith's says of Jews ...
"They are debased, cursed, anathematized forever by God and so can never repent and be forgiven; they are cheats and traitors; defiant and stubborn; they killed the prophets; they are liars who falsify scripture and take bribes; as infidels they are ritually unclean, a foul odor emanating from them - such is the image of the Jew in classical Islam, degraded and malevolent."
Little hard to reconcile that with the whole "religion of peace" image they're trying to present now.
Well, Baptists do tend to be shinier.
It's the wet look, isn't it?
Counterpoint:
If someone wants to kill me because I don't share their beliefs, I don't really care what their beliefs ARE. That's their particular form of bullshit, whether it's a 12th Imam to return to rule the earth for seven years or careful application of Sharia and various bullshit rituals. The problem is not interpreting their bullshit in a way that allows for patient cooperation with the rest of the world.
The KKK was a Christian organization but we didn't need to study what particular variety of beliefs put them over the top. We just needed to extinguish those beliefs.
UT:
Would you please reconcile this contradiction in your post?
Are you saying that someone who wants to kill you because you don't share their beliefs, you don't care what their beliefs are, you just need to extinguish those beliefs (different from yours). ***my read following*** because if those beliefs are gone, the threat to your life will be gone? That you're threatened by those different beliefs?
or
Are you saying that your beliefs should remain, and other beliefs that don't lead people to want to kill you are acceptable, but all other beliefs need to be extinguished?
or
Something else?
I have a really hard time conceiving how a set of beliefs can be extinguished. And another serious question about your post I have is your apparent emphasis of a religious belief over the actions of an individual as the threat to your safety. You barely mention "a person". Which is more culpable? Which is the greater threat? Which can possibly be effectively changed?
The Koran also says ...
--snip--
Little hard to reconcile that --snip
I don't wish to play the "Find the contradiction" in various religious texts. I find it especially disingenuous when one piece of the contradiction is used to illustrate the lack of credibility of the religious text and the other piece of the contradiction is used to support a conclusion about that religion.
It isn't logical to have it both ways. The text/religion is full of contradictions and therefore can't be trusted OR the text/religion is saying what they really are. How can I be expected to believe just *part* of a text?
Furthermore, context matters a great deal in all these surgical extractions, and context is nearly always missing when they're presented like you've presented them.
Also, no one I know is under threat by the Koran. No one. Under threat by people who believe things in the Koran. Or believe what someone has told them (which may or may not have been in the Koran). Unless you're hit in the head with the book, it is not a threat. People, that's where the focus should be, needs to be.
Or Matthew:
8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Or Titus:
1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
Or what the
Founder of Protestantism thought about Jews:
It serves them [the Jews] right that, rejecting the truth of God, they have to believe instead such abominable, stupid, inane lies, and that instead of the beautiful face of the divine word, they have to look into the devil's black, dark, lying behind, and worship his stench.
...
Now let me commend these Jews sincerely to whoever feels the desire to shelter and feed them, to honor them, to be fleeced, robbed, plundered, defamed, vilified, and cursed by them, and to suffer every evil at their hands -- these venomous serpents and devil's children, who are the most vehement enemies of Christ our Lord and of us all. And if that is not enough, let him stuff them into his mouth, or crawl into their behind and worship this holy object. ... Then he will be a perfect Christian, filled with works of mercy for which Christ will reward him on the day of judgment, together with the Jews in the eternal fire of hell!
...
There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses, namely, that God has struck them with "madness and blindness and confusion of mind." So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them.
It's all in the interpretation. It's all about which words you choose to emphasize. Religion is more culturally-bound than it prefers to think. And when it isn't, it diminishes. So during Jew-hating time, you pick out the biblical quotes you like and go to town. And so it is during gay-hating time, and shellfish-hating time, etc.
It's all in the interpretation. It's all about which words you choose to emphasize. Religion is more culturally-bound than it prefers to think. And when it isn't, it diminishes. So during Jew-hating time, you pick out the biblical quotes you like and go to town. And so it is during gay-hating time, and shellfish-hating time, etc.
Heretic!
Would you please reconcile this contradiction in your post?
I wasn't trying to combine the two bits, and what separates them is the first-person "I" versus the societal "we". If someone wants to kill me because of their beliefs, "I" don't care what those beliefs are. In the case of the beliefs of the KKK, "we" had to emphasize that civil society does not accept them, especially in the eyes of the law.
Ok, thank you for clarifying your remarks. I didn't understand, now I see better. Thanks.
Yeah. I'd misunderstood that as well :p
shellfish-hating time
That's my favorite time of all! I hate them
way more than Jews or gays.
I have a hard time imagining
we'll ever learn how to live together in peace by playing the "whose fundamentalists are most whacko" game.
The moderate Islam take on the Suras and Hadiths which are most unsavory to the west (such as the anti-Jew ones and the ones about the size of the rod to strike your wife with) is to note the historical and cultural context (deeply sexist, tribal, honor-and-revenge based society.) And then to point out the ways in which Mohammad was radical at his time:
treating his wives with respect, advocating for good hygiene, etc.
Which is basically the classic fundamentalist vs. modern-moderate split: do you take these passed down traditions literally, or contextually? If Muhammad based his dental care around a particular kind of locally-sourced twig (which happens to be particularly stellar for oral hygiene), should observant Muslims only clean their teeth with twigs from the same tree? Or, given that he was using the best technology available, should they, ~1400 years later, explore the best of modern toothpaste and floss?
The shellfish and pork stuff in the Old Testament always truck me as an interesting example of the way in which religion and the culture of the time are inextricable. In a society of subsistence farmers, you want your meat to come from animal stocks whose feed competes as little with yours as possible -- i.e., don't raise anything with a cloven hoof for food. If you want to avoid explaining how to safely prepare crustaceans for human consumption, limit your seafood intake to things with scales.
I think it's kind of mindblowing and awesome that one of the best ways to lower birthrates is to educate the women in question: it's win-win. Similarly, I think one of the best counters to radical Islam is to raise literacy rates and supply Qur'ans. We here on the Cellar, none of us scholars of Islam or even fluent in Arabic, as far as I know, have significantly more access to the Qur'an, and with a much wider range of interpretive biases to choose from, than your average Afghani villager whose take on Islam and the world is filtered through a select few individuals.
That's my favorite time of all! I hate them way more than Jews or gays.
:lol:
[COLOR="White"]Hopefully that was just an out of context statement.[/COLOR]
I have a hard time imagining we'll ever learn how to live together in peace by playing the "whose fundamentalists are most whacko" game.
The moderate Islam take on the Suras and Hadiths which are most unsavory to the west (such as the anti-Jew ones and the ones about the size of the rod to strike your wife with) is to note the historical and cultural context (deeply sexist, tribal, honor-and-revenge based society.) And then to point out the ways in which Mohammad was radical at his time: treating his wives with respect, advocating for good hygiene, etc.
Which is basically the classic fundamentalist vs. modern-moderate split: do you take these passed down traditions literally, or contextually? If Muhammad based his dental care around a particular kind of locally-sourced twig (which happens to be particularly stellar for oral hygiene), should observant Muslims only clean their teeth with twigs from the same tree? Or, given that he was using the best technology available, should they, ~1400 years later, explore the best of modern toothpaste and floss?
The shellfish and pork stuff in the Old Testament always truck me as an interesting example of the way in which religion and the culture of the time are inextricable. In a society of subsistence farmers, you want your meat to come from animal stocks whose feed competes as little with yours as possible -- i.e., don't raise anything with a cloven hoof for food. If you want to avoid explaining how to safely prepare crustaceans for human consumption, limit your seafood intake to things with scales.
I think it's kind of mindblowing and awesome that one of the best ways to lower birthrates is to educate the women in question: it's win-win. Similarly, I think one of the best counters to radical Islam is to raise literacy rates and supply Qur'ans. We here on the Cellar, none of us scholars of Islam or even fluent in Arabic, as far as I know, have significantly more access to the Qur'an, and with a much wider range of interpretive biases to choose from, than your average Afghani villager whose take on Islam and the world is filtered through a select few individuals.
A very excellent post, gvidas. Thank you for sharing that.
I *especially* like and agree with your concluding paragraph there. It is a win-win indeed. More literacy is always better. More communication is better, more understanding is better. Our dialog here in the cellar even is a contributing force for good in this way. Win-win-win.
Also, no one I know is under threat by the Koran. No one. Under threat by people who believe things in the Koran. Or believe what someone has told them (which may or may not have been in the Koran). Unless you're hit in the head with the book, it is not a threat. People, that's where the focus should be, needs to be.
Kim Il Jong is a Koran who I feel threatened by.