For all the Democrat presidential candidates' claims of the importance of Christianity in their lives, not a single one could accurately come up with one Bible verse that was their favorite.
Have you heard the good news? The Democratic Party won't concede "values voters" to the Republicans. The kind of church you attend, if you attend at all, and your frequency of attendance is perhaps the greatest (though certainly not the only) predictor of whether you are a Democrat or Republican.
Hunting for votes in your opponent's base is nothing new. What is unique about this strategy is its heavy emphasis on talk, unaccompanied by any major changes in policy. Saying "look at how religious we are" isn't going to work, and it's not even necessary.
At the end of their most recent debate, moderator Tim Russert asked the Democratic presidential candidates to name their favorite Bible verse. Should this be a difficult task for a Christian?
Barack Obama, whose Christian faith plays "every role," in his life, was unable to do so. He named "The Sermon on the Mount." The Sermon, found in Matthew Chapters 5-7, contains over 100 verses. Additionally, I'm not sure he believes it. Senator Obama, do you believe that people should divorce only in the case of adultery (Matthew 5:32)? Do you believe that the path to life is narrow, and that only a few will ever find it (Matthew 7:13-14)? To sum it up, your favorite Bible verse is actually 100 verses, and you don't agree with some of them? Incidentally, why do you prefer the Sermon on the Mount to the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:17-49), which is so similar that many consider them the same event?
Hillary Clinton answered, "The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It's not a direct quotation (Matthew 7:12), but she did get the gist right. This is also a highly popular secular expression, and an analog can be found in nearly every world religion. If this is your favorite, why be religious or even Christian? At least it's actually a verse.
Dennis Kucinich cited a prayer from a Catholic Saint. Over 30,000 verses in the Bible, and you couldn't even think of one?
John Edwards offered, "What you do unto the least of those, you do unto me." That's very close to a verse (Matthew 25:40), but the actual quote is the "least of my brothers" (NIV) or "least of my bretheren" (KJV). It sounds like nitpicking, but the meaning of the word "brothers" here is the subject of a serious theological debate. If the concerns of the least of your brothers, whoever you believe those people to be, are your concerns, where does a 28,000 square foot $6,000,000 home fit into those? Where does a $400 haircut fit into those? Voluntarily living with less than that could change the lives of a number of needy people, and cheerfully giving some of that away would certainly be more Biblical than some government scheme of redistribution.
Bill Richardson also cited the Sermon on the Mount, though presumably it had nothing to do with Jesus' strongly worded command against adultery (Matthew 5:27-30).
Chris Dodd cited the story of the Good Samaritan, which is actually 12 verses.
Joe Biden cited warnings against Pharisees as his favorite verse. Pharisees were religious leaders and antagonists of Jesus, though the term has been hijacked and applied in the modern era to include anyone who takes their religion seriously. These numerous passages, scattered throughout the New Testament are what appeals most to you about Christianity, Senator Biden? Are we crazy to expect more from a party whose Chairman listed "Job" as his favorite New Testament book (at least it's really a book)?
The internet has made searching the Bible for verses and subjects easier than ever, and decreased the need to memorize where to find something (Rabbis at the time of Christ, before widespread literacy and the printing press, could recite the entire Old Testament by memory; crowds who listened to them would correct them if they altered a single syllable). I became a Christian later in life, and only in the internet age, so I understand this. If the Democrats are as religious as they would like the world to believe, what is their excuse for not knowing one chapter and verse that they treasure above all others?
What also struck me was the popularity of the scripture cited. A group of Beatles fans might list "Yesterday" or "Hey Jude" as their favorite songs, but you'd probably also hear more obscure choices, like "In My Life," or "For No One." People who hate the Beatles can still name two or three of their greatest hits.
What would be more honest, if not as popular, would be to say something like this:
"I don't know any Bible verses. Today, like yesterday and tomorrow, I will spend more time checking my email than reading the Bible. It's just not that important to me. You should still vote for me because I agree with you on the following issues," and then name them.
As with most "values voters," I don't need to share your religious practices to vote for you. Nobody would confuse Evangelical theology with that of the Latter Day Saints, or with traditional Catholics, but ultimately, these divergent beliefs lead their adherents to similar positions on abortion, marriage, school choice, and religious liberty. As long as this continues, candidates will receive support from members of these communities, these so called "values voters."
Nothing in this post should be taken as my approval of the Republican field on religion. Chances are, the candidate who most reflects my religious beliefs will not be getting my vote (Mike Huckabee). Ol' Fred Thompson doesn't go to church while in Virginia (you know, the state he lives in), and brags about his earlier life as a ladies man. Rudy Giuliani's favorite Bible verse is "judge not lest ye be judged," (the most often quoted and misunderstood verse in the Bible). Any guesses why he loves this one? None of the leading Republican candidates were willing to challenge the theory that macro evolution creates new species.
So it's not all about a candidate's heart. Whether abortion is a Constitutional right or school vouchers a Constitutional wrong will be decided by one vote on the Supreme Court. To some degree, the Republican party is a party that is pro life, in favor of religious freedom, and supportive of traditional marriage, and one that believes that the Supreme Court should not decide these questions. Until that changes, expect voters motivated by their religious beliefs to keep voting the same.
Read more articles by Publius
Religion for the Left is a political tool. No more, no less. Their Bible illiteracy is plain to people of faith, and we are not fooled by these clumsy religious gestures.
But the Left is either fooled, or they're giving each other knowing winks. They are either saying, "How wonderful that our candidates can speak so effortlessly about their faith," or "Sure they're talking religion, but thankfully they don't mean it."
Regardless, they bend over backwards to accomodate the religious expressions of their candidates, while shouting down the religious expressions of the right.
The difference is that the religion of the Left does not require a person to change. In fact, it asserts that people cannot change, and should not. It only requires that religion subordinate itself and complement the leftist social engineering objectives of government.
Comment by Mountain Man | October 11, 2007
You said:
"None of the leading Republican candidates were willing to challenge the theory that macro evolution creates new species."
I'm trying to understand what you're saying here. No leading Republican would challenge the theory of evolution, because of course evolution does create new species. Darwin figured this out 150 years ago. What exactly do you think the problem is?
(And why do you think "leading Republican" presidential candidates are qualified to adjudicate the matter of whether the theory of evolution is correct? You might was well ask them whether they think atomic theory is correct.)
Comment by matthewjheaney | October 11, 2007
Mine is (from memory, and spanning multiple verses) "'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and all thy soul and all thy mind,' and the second is like unto it: 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." If there was a candidate (or party) who actually believed this, they might get my vote. OTOH, perhaps you cannot be a successful politican while believing this, since things like money, greed, and nationalism tend to get in the way.
Comment by mitchmaitree | October 11, 2007
“Hillary Clinton answered, ‘The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’”
How can she say this and still support abortion?
Bill Clinton’s favorite: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall inherit the earth.” He told us this in his profound voice act after he got Arafat and Begin to shake hands at the White House.
“‘The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ is also a highly popular secular expression, and an analog can be found in nearly every world religion.”
Every major religion except Islam.
Even if they all had the Bible memorized, no Democrat would ever mention, “No man can serve two masters.”
Comment by sedonaman | October 11, 2007
matthewjheaney,
Anyone should be free to comment on any subject, don't you think? Or are you somehow requiring that a certain specified level of expertise is required to engage in free speech? If so, what are your credentials?
I'm guessing, but I think that perhaps the author could have phrased his statement with a bit more elegance. There is no doubt that new species arrive on the scene. However, macro evolution is not about new species. It is about superior characteristics being selected and evolving into superior life forms.
We are free to discuss, believe, or doubt as we choose. Or are you one of those "tolerant" leftists that allows diversity as long as everyone agrees with you?
Comment by Mountain Man | October 11, 2007
Let's try to dissect what "Mountain Man" has to say:
"Anyone should be free to comment on any subject, don’t you think?"
Yes, of course — but that's not the issue. The issue is why the OP thinks politicians (and only Republican politicians, apparently) should have anything substantive to say about whether the theory of evolution is correct. It would be like asking my plumber what his opinion is about string theory, or about asking my car mechanic about the theory of plate tectonics!
"Or are you somehow requiring that a certain specified level of expertise is required to engage in free speech?"
This is not a free speech issue! The issue is why we should pay any attention to what Republican politicians have to say about the theory of evolution. You might as well ask them to render an opinion about that noise coming from inside the engine compartment of my car.
"If so, what are your credentials?"
But I'm not the one rendering an opinion about abstruse scientific theories! I don't have a degree in biology nor any training in biology, so what I have to say about matters biological is bloody-well not important.
"We are free to discuss, believe, or doubt as we choose. Or are you one of those “tolerant” leftists that allows diversity as long as everyone agrees with you?"
This is not a left-right issue. (What on earth makes you think I'm a "leftist"?) My issue is with the OP, who castigates politicians for NOT commenting on subjects outside their area of expertise. It completely daft thing to require of politicians running for president!
Furthermore, there is no such thing as "diversity" when it comes to scientific theories. The goal is to determine what is true (with the usual caveats about inductive claims), not to advocate for relativism. It would be like sampling the astronauts on a space mission to determine how much rocket fuel they should use, based on each astronaut's religion!
The scientific community has long ago reached consensus about the theory of evolution. Sorry, evolution happened (the "micro" vs. "macro" distinction is irrelevant here), so get over it. If the OP has his own theory that falsifies evolution, then he should publish it in the biology journal of his choice (editors would knock themselves out to be the first to publish it), instead of requiring politicians to ennunciate their own uninformed opinion on matters waaaay outside their depth.
Comment by matthewjheaney | October 11, 2007
"Furthermore, there is no such thing as 'diversity' when it comes to scientific theories. The goal is to determine what is true (with the usual caveats about inductive claims), not to advocate for relativism." This statement was then followed by the statement that "The scientific community has long ago reached consensus about the theory of evolution."
When did "consensus" become equivalent to "what is true"?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 11, 2007
From Sedonaman (4.)
-“‘The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ is also a highly popular secular expression, and an analog can be found in nearly every world religion.”
Every major religion except Islam. -
Sorry, but it can be found in the Sunnah. The phrase can be found in all religions and philosophers going back to Socrates.
Comment by Leigh | October 12, 2007
Leigh:
Do you have a link to back it up?
Comment by sedonaman | October 12, 2007
Sedonaman,
The following link (if it works) is from the appendix to C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of man. In this work he goes to great lengths to demonstrate that every civilization in recorded history shared certain core moral values. One prominent exception to this rule is Islam. (though pre-Islamic Arabian culture did conform to these norms.)
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition4.htm
Any verses in the Koran which sound tolerant or benificent were either abrogated by later verses written after Muhammad had ammassed formidable military power; or they define right conduct only between faithful Muslims, not between Muslims and infidels, apostates, polytheists, etc.
Matthew,
There are thousands of scientists who reject neo-Darwinism; it is nowhere near settled science:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | October 12, 2007
Jeff said:
"There are thousands of scientists who reject neo-Darwinism; it is nowhere near settled science."
That link is to a creationist website! It's sponsored by our good friends at the Discovery Institute, the home of the "ID theorists" who were thoroughly routed at the creationism trial in Dover a couple of years ago.
Sorry, but criticism of evolution doesn't cut it. (Referring to it as "neo-Darwinism" proves only that you don't know what you're talking about.) Please, Jeff, tell us what your alternative theory is, preferably in one of the many hundreds of journals of biology available.
It's like criticizing the round-earth theory (or worse, demanding that "leading Republican presidential candidates" criticize the round-earth theory), but then refusing to state what shape you think the earth is!
"Intellectual" conservative, indeed…
Comment by matthewjheaney | October 12, 2007
Apparently you didn't look at the lists. There are two: one is a 17 page (and growing) list of PhD's in the natural sciences; the other is a 19 page (and growing) list of M.D.'s all of whom reject Neo-Darwinism, er sorry EVOLUTION.
And the earth is not round; it is an oblate spheroid.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | October 12, 2007
Jeff said:
"And the earth is not round; it is an oblate spheroid."
So if the Discovery Institute published a list of "scientists" who dissent from "oblate spheroid" theory, then you'd cite that list too?
Comment by matthewjheaney | October 12, 2007
Jeff also said:
"Apparently you didn’t look at the lists."
You're absolutely right, Jeff, I didn't look at the lists. You might as ask me to read a list of Southern Baptists who prefer Pepsi to Coke!
If you had not been so incurious, then a little googling would have taken you here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism
Comment by matthewjheaney | October 12, 2007
I notice you put the word scientist in quotes in your last post. Are you questioning the credentials of these men and women? Maybe the Harvard PhD in chemistry is less qualified than you; or perhaps the Yale mathemetician or the MIT physicist, but lets not mock their credentials. You stated there was a consensus among scientists that evolution is a fact. For my part, I pointed out that this is incorrect. Your strategy, like that of all leftists, is to mock and discredit rather than debate. If you have an argument, make it.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | October 12, 2007
So now wikipedia is a prestigious scientific journal. Your argument gets more convincing by the minute.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | October 12, 2007
matthewjheaney objected to my speculation regarding the possibility of him being a leftist. Jeff, you are right, he is using classic leftist methodology. First, he declared a consensus. Then when confronted with the fact there is no consensus, he dismissed your documentation without reading it. Next, he will begin attacking you personally, accusing you of being a hick, uneducated, or *gasp* a Christian. He will declare evolution as settled science, and anyone who doubts that is frankly, stupid or superstitious.
The question I want the answer to is, if the Republican candidates' answers regarding evolution are irrelevant, then why is algore's opinions on global warming worth listening to? Beyond that, why are we listening to matthewjheaney?
Comment by Mountain Man | October 12, 2007
Jeff: You’re wasting your time with Matt. He rejects "diversity" in scientific opinions as factually-incorrect reasoning, but endorses "scientific consensus" about human evolution as factually-correct reasoning. If a scientist doesn't support his point of view, he casts a blanket aspersion on that scientist's credentials (without actually bothering to look at the specific individual(s) in question). This isn’t dialogue. It’s pontification.
I think the original point Matt was raising before he began his lecture on the scientific method was “why do you think ‘leading Republican’ presidential candidates are qualified to adjudicate the matter of whether the theory of evolution is correct? You might was well ask them whether they think atomic theory is correct.”
The answer to this question is: because Chris Matthews or some other debate moderator asked them the question. And if Matt wanted to use his common sense to dig a little deeper and ask why Republicans are asked this question, it’s because the “neutral” moderators are trying to inject a controversial religious element into the campaign.
Matt is horrified by the thought that these candidates are answering questions about evolution without any formal scientific training or expertise. So I have a question for Matt. Are you equally horrified that Democrat candidates will artificially determine when human life begins (week 20, but not week 19)? Exactly what degrees in medicine, biology, or ethics does Hillary, Obama, Edwards and the rest of the gang have to legislate an arbitrary cut-off for the beginning of human life? Why is it not an issue to Matt that the Left will determine by political and legislative fiat that a 19 week, 6 day, 23 hour and 59 minute fetus is just a growth inside a woman’s body, but one minute past midnight it magically becomes a human being?
Talk about not having a clue what you’re speaking about, and making things up out of whole cloth!
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 12, 2007
Matthew,
Is this what we're expected to believe in order to be counted among the enlightened?
""In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded and a whole bunch of living things burst forth from non-living matter. These magical creatures formed new parts over millions of years using a process unobservable in nature and contradicting information theory.""
I'm sorry, that requires to much faith in random chance for me.
As far as your argument that politicians can't discuss macro-evolution unless they have a Ph.D in biology, that is rubbish. What they believe may be formed by their understanding and research on the subject, and those beliefs reflect the type of person they are. If they have nothing intelligent to say on the matter (as the Democrats on their favorite Bible verse), then that reflects an intellectual laziness that might sway attentive voters away from them.
P.S. Does the hostile tone with which you write stem from your religious beliefs? Just curious.
Comment by Jim | October 12, 2007
Phil,
Well said as always.
The "consensus scientists" are at it again. Whether its evolution, man-made climate-change, or abortion once these cloistered ideolgues have reached a consensus among themselves, they cut off debate, give each other awards (AL Gore) and attack, mock, vilify, and discredit all who have dissenting viewpoints. This is not science, it is scientism. It is more a political or religious movement than science.
This reminds me of a concept in Islamic theology called the ijma, or consensus of beleivers. It is one of the reasons we have been at war with Muslims for centuries. About 300 years after Mohammad's death all open questions regarding Allah, his prophet, and the law
were declared closed by Islamic scholars and since then anyone offering a dissenting viewpoint on these issues is considered a heretic advocating a bid'a or an heretical innovation.
Sound familiar.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | October 12, 2007
Phil:
You have a genuine talent for going straight to the heart of an argument as evidenced by your observation concerning “consensus” within science. But, many among the general public have been taught to believe that we actually can separate “science” from human psychology – science is all about independent truth, magically divorced from the enforced conformities of human society and our psychological ability to see only those truths we wish to believe.
However, as you have written in past commentaries, there really isn’t a “consensus” in science regarding evolution. Or, more precisely, the only consensus is the firm conviction that “God couldn’t have done it.” And, according to Professor Michael Ruse (respected member of the Church of Evolution), the emergence of evolution theory was historically a philosophical rebellion against the “God really did it” theory of the 1800s. But, Ruse points out that despite its original political and cultural motivations, there is actual physical evidence lending support to evolution theory.
The public is seldom informed there are competing theories within the “God couldn’t have done it” camp. So, what if we throw out the various competing theories for consideration and then ask the presidential candidates which one they personally believe in? I’d nominate the following:
The Synthetic Theory of Evolution:
In England, they call this one neo-Darwinism, but basically it’s the classic theory combining the three blessed sacraments of evolution: genetic coding errors create new physical structures, natural selection decides which new structures to keep and a really, really long time is necessary because the modifications are tiny and require much time to build up.
Punctuated Equilibrium and the Artifact Theory:
The brain child of the late Stephen Jay Gould, this evolution theory accounts for the numerous gaps and missing intermediate forms within the fossil record. Basically, a few members of an existing herd (probably rebellious teenagers) sneak off into the hills, breed, evolve and then rejoin the herd as a new species. It doesn’t take a long time; in fact, it happens quickly on a geologic time scale. The new species leaves its fossil evidence commingled with its parent species and consequently it appears to us that a new species just “appeared” suddenly. This theory is in opposition to the artifact theory.
The artifact theory says: “There are so millions of intermediate fossils according to classic theory which would fill up all the present gaps in the record, we just haven’t found them yet.”
Symbiogenetics:
Lynn Margulis’ theory that evolution isn’t necessarily hierarchical (vertically phylogenic), with parent species always, and only, evolving offspring which constitute a new species. Her work demonstrated that, long ago, existing bacteria of separate species must have combined together in a symbiotic fashion to create a new species. Sort of a Frankenstein monster on a microscopic scale, with one species providing a desirable function to another species and thereby creating an entirely new species and physical structure in the process. And, this process is ongoing in the present age.
Complexity Theory:
This one is out of the Santa Fe Institute and rightfully falls within the “God couldn’t have done it” camp. Basically, this theory relies on nature mandating ever more complex organic life designs, and is compelled to do so as an inherent feature of the fundamental structure of natural physical laws themselves. It has its adherents, but can’t produce any impressive physical evidence like the fossil reconstruction of a T-Rex – so the public hasn’t heard of it.
Saltation or the Hopeful Monster Theory:
This theory posits a rapid or startling mutation combining numerous physical changes in one massive evolutionary leap. Think of a mammal hatching directly from a reptile egg. Explains the lack of evidence in the fossil record for structural intermediates. Also, explains the development of separate sexes.
Intelligent Design and the Messenger Theory:
Really two separate and related theories, but orthodox intelligent design proponents don’t claim that “God really did it”, they simply claim the complexity seen in certain biological structures is beyond the ability of natural law to create – the designer is assumed, but not identified. The messenger theory was a favorite of Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of the helical structure of DNA. This theory says highly advanced extra-terrestrials wished to explore the galaxy and sent manufactured biological structures on journeys through space as “living messengers” proclaiming intelligent life exists within the universe. Some of the “spores from space” accidentally fell to our earth, formed the first organic life and proceeded to naturally evolve based on an intelligent design built into the messengers.
Why biological messengers? Science has found that bacteria can exist in a dormant state for centuries in physical environments inhospitable to life and then emerge into active existence when conditions are favorable. Considering the vast distances within space, biological messengers could overcome the limitations posed upon inorganic physical structures such as rocket ships or transmitted radio waves.
There are probably other minor theories, but as a political scientist you probably realize the issue isn’t which evolution theory is correct or “true”. What we are seeing is a battle between secularists and religious believers for political power. Much to their disgust, secularists realize religious believers are allowed to vote and often form powerful voting blocs, joining with co-believers to oppose the secularists’ political positions. How to bust up these blocs and win these voters over to the secular side is the real issue here.
I suspect, within Hillary’s second term of office, we will see passage of the Evolution Sedition Act which will legally ban all mention of “God really created us” from the public square. The first target will be the intelligent design folks employing the legal demand they must identify “the designer”. As is normal in science, a colloquium will be hosted by the Discovery Institute in Seattle and the 600 scientists supporting intelligent design will break into focus groups to determine the designer’s identity.
The largest group, the Agnostic Group, will claim they really have no idea who the designer is, but simply consider evolution theory “junk” science and to hell with the new law. The ET Group will claim the designers were intelligent aliens whose civilization was seeding life throughout our galaxy. As proof, they will point to SETI and our government’s willingness to support their efforts – why else would the government do this if intelligent aliens don’t actually exist?
The Satan Group will name the devil as the designer and point to Beelzebub’s efforts to sow dissension between religious believers and secularists. And, the Mysterious Ways Group will counter that God is really the designer but created fossils as a practical joke to tease and confuse the secularists. Ultimately, and as per normal, these scientists will fail to reach a consensus – but it will all work out as planned – the 600 scientists will be arrested and indicted for violation of the Evolution Sedition Act.
Comment by Pat Skurka | October 12, 2007
Pat: I appreciate your kind words.
The sad thing about Matt's comments is that if push comes to shove, I'm clearly much more of natural selection evolutionist than a literal Biblical creationist. Having said that, I find no inherent contradiction between a natural explanation for human evolution and the belief that God has given that natural process a purposeful direction. Just because man can't figure out how or why God did it doesn't mean that God couldn't have or didn't do it. And just because man can see some of the patterns in nature doesn't mean that God had nothing to do with creating those patterns.
It's only when the line gets drawn so arbitrarily, and emphatically, as Matt did in his comments, and is backed up by the insane notion that "consensus science" somehow represents reality, that I have to put my two cents in. This is why religious people are rightly suspicious of supposedly scientific analysis. Science is invested and infested with personal agendas, self-serving paradigms, and countless other biases that influence the actual conclusions one draws from so-called scientific investigation.
When scientists and their supporters shut down and ridicule people who ask questions or demand a higher level of proof, then I see a nerve being struck. As someone who actually wants a truthful answer to a question, I don't fear my assumptions or analyses being questioned. Those who are too arrogant, or too self-absorbed to allow debate usually have something to hide. Or, at least, they know there are some holes in their theories that they don't want to be explored.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 12, 2007
sedonoman,
Since you asked, it is from An-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths (a compilation that actually has more than forty…)
The wording is "None of you [truely] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself."
Comment by Leigh | October 15, 2007
Leigh:
"…it is from An-Nawawi’s Forty Hadiths…"
I don't see the Golden Rule in this. In any event, Muslims maintain that you have to study an Arabic language koran, the only true koran, according to them. Not only that, but they claim you have to understand the whole koran and not "cherry-pick" passages. “For an example of using statistics, look at the question: what is the real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle or the jihad of war? Let’s turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the jihad references are about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes – 97%. Is jihad inner struggle? Yes – 3%. So if you are writing an article, you can make a case for either. But in truth, almost every argument about Islam can be answered by: all of the above. Both sides of the duality are right.” – Warner, “The Study of Political Islam”
So, a Muslim could claim that the word "brother" means only other sons of his mother and father. And the statement doesn't square with how women are treated, taking of slaves and booty, and waging aggressive war and the treatment of dhimmis. One might claim that the way Muslims treat non-Muslims is no different from the way Christians historically treated others. The difference is that Christians had to go against their founder; Muslims merely had to emulate theirs.
Any way you cut it, Islam is a belief in a sacred sanction for men to revert to their barbaric state. I prefer to refer to it as "a Mafia with a manual".
Comment by sedonaman | October 15, 2007
Phil:
Once again, you hit the nail on the head - religious folks do resent, to a greater or lesser extent, the smug assurance within the scientific community that we truly understand a process ongoing for the last 3.5 billion years. Interestingly, the biblical literalists or “young earth creationists” have made positive contributions to the debate as well.
For example, the young earth creationists have challenged the dating process used to determine fossil age and pointed out the empirical anomalies and contradictions present within the accepted dating methodologies (and these anomalies can be independently verified). The entire “monkey to man” phylogeny has been minutely scrutinized by biblical literalists for obvious reasons and their point of view has led to some amusing anecdotes regarding the fierce competition among scientists to identify and take credit for the latest “missing link”. Apparently, the entire chimpanzee fossil history has been denuded in repeated attempts to identify the “missing link” since the criteria for missing-linkhood is far more subjective than the general public has been told. It’s ironic to turn to young earth creationists to find the real story omitted from the MSM’s most recent puff piece on “the missing link”.
I find the psychology of evolution debates and rhetorical tactics employed by scientists fascinating. And, within that area of interest for example, Jeff Osonitsch’s comments indicate that conformity of belief issues cross cultural and religious lines whereby a ruling intellectual group attempts to curtail debate, or, at the very least, attempts to frame a debate only within narrow and self-serving limits.
The “Evolution Sedition Act” was a lame attempt at humor, but I think the use of the courts to enforce scientific orthodoxy has only begun and it will be interesting to see how the Liberals employ this tactic in coming years.
Comment by Pat Skurka | October 15, 2007
A very good article on whether or to what degree Islam incorporates the Golden Rule (consistency principle) at:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005959.php
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | October 18, 2007
Robert W. Stapler:
Thanks for the link. I particularly liked the part where Sina:
"…quoted a few verses from the Quran switching the places of 'Muslims' and 'non-Muslims'. This is what we got:
"We will cast terror into the hearts of Muslims. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. 8:12,
"Let not the non-Muslims take for friends or helpers the Muslims. 3:28,
"Rouse the non-Muslims to the fight against Muslims. 8:65,
"Then fight and slay the Muslims wherever ye find them, 9:5,
"Fight the Muslims, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame. 9:14,
"O ye the non-Muslims take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Islam.9:23,
"O ye the non-Muslims! Truly the Muslims are unclean. 9:28,
"O ye non-Muslims! fight the Muslims who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you. 9:123,
"Therefore, when ye meet the Muslims, smite at their necks;
"At length. 47:4, … "
The Muslim's reaction to this exercise is a perfect demonstration that Islam does not follow the Golden Rule.
Comment by sedonaman | October 18, 2007
To ignore it?
Comment by Leigh | October 19, 2007