Views about Chris Hitchens, please!

[Errata]

This case reported today on the BBC website typifies my deep concerns about Islam. Concerns because this happened in "moderate" and secular Turkey, member of Nato and prospective member of the European Union.

"World-famous Turkish pianist Fazil Say has appeared in court in Istanbul charged with inciting hatred and insulting the values of Muslims.

He is being prosecuted over tweets he wrote mocking radical Muslims, in a case which has rekindled concern about religious influence in the country.

Mr Say, who denies the charges, said recently he was "amazed" at having to appear before judges.

Rejecting an acquittal call, the court adjourned the case until 18 February."

The full story is at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19990943

All of this reminds of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Pre 80s. Of course then it was Communism and not Islam.

[Chris Scott]

All of this reminds of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Pre 80s. Of course then it was Communism and not Islam.

You don't get my point do you?
This typifies the statement I made that intolerance is in the very DNA of Islam. This story of an absurd prosecution is not the action of some extremist or the radical thought of someone who can be dismissed as not a "real" Muslim - this is state sanctioned intolerance pursued by the legal system of supposedly one of the most secular and liberal of Muslim countries - a country that may be joining us in the not too distant future as a partner in the EU.

[Errata]

You don't get my point do you?
This typifies the statement I made that intolerance is in the very DNA of Islam. This story of an absurd prosecution is not the action of some extremist or the radical thought of someone who can be dismissed as not a "real" Muslim - this is state sanctioned intolerance pursued by the legal system of supposedly one of the most secular and liberal of Muslim countries - a country that may be joining us in the not too distant future as a partner in the EU.

First of all, I never said these people weren't real Muslims. Or that they "read the Koran" wrong or anything like that. They have a far different interpretation of Islam than the kids I grew up with, and the Muslims I am friends with now. And yeah, their interpretation appears to be growing. Or at least getting more visible.

What I am saying is that there are "kinds" of Muslims, who concentrate on different things. Just as there are kinds of Christians and kinds of Jews. Most Christians of my acquaintance are of a Baptist variety, typically "C&E" types (who only attend church on Christmas and Easter), who have a general feeling hat they should do good things for people, or leave them the hell alone. And I can see how they are sort of like my Catholic half of the family. But they aren't the same by a long shot. Nor are they a whole lot like the Amish, also Christians, or Mormons, Christian by my standards but apparently there is some debate on that.

And if you spend any amount of time with a Lubovitcher, they have very little in common with me and mine as far as our practice of Judaism goes. And a good many of the rabid Zionists in Israel would probably label me something hateful.

If I accept that the fanaticism is inherent in the religion, then I have to keep an eye on m Muslim friends, who I've known since I was five, for fear they are going to kill me some day. And I'm not going to do that. But I have to think that if Christianity has "kinds", some of which are hateful some of which are not, then the hatefulness can't be inherent in the religion, or they would all be hateful. So if intolerance is inherent in Islam, they would all be intolerant. And they aren't. Not by a long shot. Which makes me think that the problem is in the people, not the religion.

[Steven Russell]

Errata,
You make some excellent points. But you seem to me to be saying that non-fundamentalist religious people will pick and choose which bits of their magic book are sensible and morally acceptable.

The rest must be either re-interpreted or disregarded. Surely this cherry-picking attitude shows that your own morality does not come from religious doctrine. It comes from your own upbringing and experiences tempered by insights and observations you have had throughout your life regarding what is right and what is wrong. In my view, the belief that society would fall apart without religionists telling us how we should behave is nonsense.

And, changing the subject, one of the most serious threats to the survival of the human race is not AIDS or global warming (not to minimize these) but overpopulation. What an impact the Catholic Church could have on this if the Pope declared birth control acceptable.

Still only one answer on the Hell question as well. Come on, believers. What about it?

Best wishes,
Steve.

[DVV]

Typical Jewish Christianophoby? You think all Jews are phobic of Christians?

Haha ! I knew you would try, but sorry, I merely said there was a typical Jewish christianophoby, as there is a typical Christian judeophoby as well. It doesn't concern all Jews and all Christians, of course.

But since you seem to not be able to take your own faith as a example, I will use mine.

You should not. And my faith is of no interest here. Because whatever my faith is, I am a free-thinker, and I have the right to look at religions, philosophies, etc, and to understand what they are, and what they mean. There are pagan mythologies that I like much. Others that I find ridiculous. I have the right to dislike Rousseau's philosophy. And same is true with islam. I don't like what the Koran says. I don't think the life of Muhammad shows a model of morality.

Obviously, the Torah is our holy book.
And a good deal of it deals with exactly how we are supposed to worship god. If say, some guy in rural China reads the Torah, he thinks he is going to have a good grasp of Judaism. Until he meets a Jew that is. We are supposed to make sacrifices. We are supposed to have bejeweled priests. We are supposed to an entire legal system made up of elders and scholars. And we have none of that. Now, this rural Chinese man can make one of two assumptions. That for some reason everything changed, but we didn't bother to make a note of it in our sacred text, or we aren't Jews. He is going to think we aren't Jews, because why wouldn't we include something that important in out sacred text?

Precisely. You have to assume, in your theory, that ONLY the first five books of the Bible would have been known to the Chinese.
But the very problem of islam is that ALL the corpus praises jihad : it is recommended in the Koran, in the Hadiths, in the Sira. What else ?
And please, don't come back with ONE hadith praising peace. Because if you have read all (let's say Bukhari), you would know how they are outnumbered by others.

Well, we didn't. It's in other books, but the Torah as a text was locked before the destruction of he second Temple, which changed everything.

Indeed. Not easy to confess to the Chinese that you now believe in life after death - and idea took from the Persian religious tradition.

But how is he supposed to know that? It's not his history, it's not his people, he's not psychic. How could he possible know what relationship Judaism has with the people described in out holy text? If a Jew doesn't tell him, he will never know. Just as if no one tells him that Jesus' statement about a sword is a parable, he will assume it to be statement of fact.

As explained, you are right, but it still doesn't work with islam, whose sources are coherent.

You don't need someone to explain the Koran to you because you don't want to hear it. You hate them. You think they are violent barbarians.

How can you be so wrong ? I've lived with muslims, have more muslim friends that you would ever have, and married once a muslim girl. But still I have a brain and have the right to consider that 4 women for 1 man isn't so great an idea, that calling non-muslim countries Dâr al-harb isn't a good start for peace, and that I have the right to enjoy my beer. I don't like the kind of societies that islam tends to build. And that is my right. I wouldn't like either a type of society based on nietzschean precepts.

And that's perfectly fine.

I know. Thanks.

I have never said the violence isn't enshrined in the Koran. Of course it is. What I have said is that it is enshrined in our texts as well.

Stop saying "all religions say the same and are equally potentially dangerous". That's utterly false.

And of course we can explain it away, talk about how we read those passages, how we see them, how we reconcile them.

Missed again. The rules of jihad, for example, vary slightly but are to me equally shocking : I see no big difference between Hanbalis, Malikis, Shafii...whatever.

If you were honest with yourself, you would be able to see how the bare text of your Bible and your history paints a picture of a violent religion. And you want the chance to explain that. Certainly you don't want me to explain it on your behalf. But you won't give Muslims the same chance. So be honest. Say "I don't understand them, and I am afraid of them. I don't want to give them a chance to explain anything to me, because I don't want to lose my fear and hate."

Let me laugh. I'm talking of religions according to their corpus. I blame islam for the bad influence it can have on men, men that are just like you and me. And I wouldn't like to be a woman in Yemen, in Saudi, in Pakistan. Would you ?

The sad thing is, you don't even know how many Muslims would agree with you if you took the time to learn about them from them.

Perhaps I know, you know.

[Errata]

Errata,
You make some excellent points. But you seem to me to be saying that non-fundamentalist religious people will pick and choose which bits of their magic book are sensible and morally acceptable.

The rest must be either re-interpreted or disregarded. Surely this cherry-picking attitude shows that your own morality does not come from religious doctrine. It comes from your own upbringing and experiences tempered by insights and observations you have had throughout your life regarding what is right and what is wrong. In my view, the belief that society would fall apart without religionists telling us how we should behave is nonsense.

Best wishes,
Steve.

In fact that's exactly what I'm saying And the idea that society would fall apart without religion is in fact nonsense. There may have been a time in the earliest history of man when only the fear of something vastly more powerful than man was briefly what kept man from reverting to beast, but that time is long past.

In a lot of ways, god is exactly like Bigfoot. Now, I think people who insist that Bigfoot is real are a little.. odd. Certainly it's not a stance I would take. But if I was one of those people who saw something that could really only be described as Bigfoot, my tune would change. I grew up Jewish, but mostly as a kid I was somewhat iffy on the concept of god. Which it turns out is fine in Judaism. As a young teenager, I realized that god was something I felt, the way sometimes you see movement out of the corner of your eye. When I compared it to paranoia, I was not being facetious. When I turned 12 and my life sort of went to hell, I was so angry at god I can't even express it. And that's when I realized that I did in fact believe in god, because you can't be super red hot pissed at something you don't believe in. And I didn't want to be Jewish anymore. I surfed through a few other religions, trying to find some existential comfort. I really wanted Wicca to work out. But I was still pissed, and I ended up in Judaism again because it allowed me to have this screwed up relationship with god. I'm not a Jew because I like the god more, or because I think the morals are better, or the laws make more sense. I'm a Jew because I can be pissed at god, even despise him, and no one tells me I'm doing it wrong, or that I have to change. The religion reflects my relationship with god, not my relationship with my fellow man.

Essentially, I'm with the group of people who have seen the same Bigfoot I have seen. That's it.

Everyone picks and chooses from their texts. Some have had it chosen for them by editing what are actual religious texts vs. apocrypha. And even in a religion, the nature of god changes. Pissy and wrathful to stern and paternalistic to sweet and loving. I can't be a Christian. Not because I think they are wrong, or that their stories are dumb or anything like that. I can't be a Christian because I don't think a god can be all knowing, all powerful, and all loving at the same time. I don't buy that "the Lord works is mysterious ways". That's just not my experience, and I can't change my belief on that. They have a different kind of Bigfoot.

And don't think for a second that "fundamentalists" don't cherry pick. They absolutely do. Many sort of skip over the "love thy neighbor" bit for example. Basically, if you see them, if you hear them, they aren't true fundamentalists. True fundamentalist live by the inconvenient laws as well, and in this day and age, that requires a good bit of isolation from the modern world. The Amish are true fundamentalists. The fire and brimstone "god hates gays and women" characters on TV and in the news aren't fundamentalists. They mix fibers. They eat pork. They turn on football on the Sabbath. They aren't fundamentalists. They are a ssholes.

My argument is that we all pick and choose. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, the lot. And all religious texts can be read with an eye towards violence, or with an eye towards peace. People choose. Millions of Muslims have gone through their texts and built a faith that emphasizes peace. And have done so without massive rewrites and tortuous explanations. Islam as a religion of peace does exist. It's a viable choice. But it's up to people to choose it, and if people don't choose Islam as a religion of peace, it's not the fault of the religion. It's the fault of the people doing the choosing.