The Holocaust convention recently held in Paris is a lost opportunity for weapons testing. Anytime you get that many people together in one place... people who even remotely question the horror that was the holocaust, in spite of the evidence of the evil of mankind that still remains to confirm it as unrevisable (I just made that word up) history, you also have the opportunity to do the world a favor by eliminating them.
Yeah, I know, that sounds pretty harsh, but denying the holocaust is like denying evolution in spite of the fossil evidence, the rocks that fail to knock sense into even harder skulls. I’ll never argue that anyone or anything other than God set evolution into motion, but evolution happened. It’s how we “got here” even if God is how we got here.
Speaking of the scientific evidence of evolution being as sound as the need to eliminate anyone from a position of national (or even PTA) leadership who doesn’t recognize the fact of the holocaust... strike that, eliminate them from Earth, not just from positions of leadership. After all if insanity or incompetence or just plain ignorance were a deal breaker in that respect, well, you know where I’m going with that. As I was saying, speaking of evidence, though not scientific...
I heard the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens on the radio this afternoon. His name’s Yusuf Islam now. You can’t listen to that guy’s music, past or present (he’s got a new record out after a 30-year sabbatical) and believe for a second that Islam is a violent faith. I know that’s not the kind of evidence that would hold up in court or a tribunal. On the new record, he covered the Animals’ “Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood” because he thinks his faith often is. He said the song’s a great jumping off point for his explanation of how a westerner decided to convert to Islam after growing up western. He went on to explain what most sane people already know: That his faith, when practiced by reasonable people has more in common with other faiths than it has in contrast. He specifically mentioned silly little things about Islam that drew him to it like beliefs about the good in humankind, how it incorporates all people under one God, and how it preaches peace and acknowledges the books of all other faiths as well. Which is to say, his religion both provides him with and preaches peace.
So anyway, yeah, nuke the holocaust deniers. Quick, while it’ll only take one bomb!
And speaking of those who ignore the obvious, (Yo, Browns, draft an offensive line this year) I read a cool article about a woman who, after time at Harvard and the U of Chicago and loads of research in Africa, told Esquire (in last month’s Best and Brightest Issue) that AIDS in Africa won’t go away until poverty does.
I’m not knocking her for this so simple it just might work ovservation, really. As you may have guessed, I’m knocking Bush policy. I'll explain... Ya see, desperation and poverty go hand in hand and while curing poverty doesn’t always cure desperation (see “John Belushi” or “Chris Farley”) it does go a long way to provide opportunities for people who might otherwise be drawn to martyrdom, or lesser terrorism. I didn’t go to Harvard (even to get the t-shirt) but I have been to Chicago (wasn’t allowed on the U campus cuz they’d seen my transcripts and my alma mater) and I have spent a night at a Holiday Inn Express and I’m telling you that I couldn’t agree more with this brainiac woman who has spent her life studying AIDS and economics. (I'm really not making fun of her... it was a cool article about the economics of AIDS in Africa, namely, how much the disease will cost all of us if we continue to believe that terrorists present more of a threat to us than AIDS)
What I don’t understand is why doesn’t Bush get it? The only successful campaign against terrorism is one that declares poverty as its enemy. Does it appear to anyone that poverty is what we invaded Iraq to stop? Yeeaahh. That’s not gonna work. All right, that’s about enough for now.
No wait. We gotta send all the troops to Iraq now. Seriously. Remember back when John Kerry said that crazy shit about “who wants to be the last guy to die in Vietnam?” Ditto for Iraq, but before we leave the mess we created to the Iraqis now that we’ve liberated them, we owe it to them to at least make the place safe enough for our troops to get out. In order to do that we’ll have to do what Colin Powell suggested before he was axed: send in overwhelming force. That’ll calm everyone down for a while, then, while they’re sleeping, we can all crawl back into the big wooden horse and come home safely. After that, those folks can go back to their old methods of finding a way to peacefully coexist. They were doing just fine without us.
On that note...
Merry Christmas, everyone.
Luth
4 comments:
Ummm... it was a Pope (Urban, I believe) who led The Crusades. I'm pretty sure he associated himself with Christ. That's kind of like a Christian jihad. Then there's that holocaust thing we were talking about wherein some dude decided to kill the lesser race of jews on behalf of his chosen (by God) race since they killed Jesus. (His words, not mine) So that's a little like a Christian jihad. Then there's Ireland where Christians on both sides of the fight are killing each other because they don't worship Christ the right way... Christian jihad squared... then there's Augustine and (insert names here)... and plenty of Christian-perpetrated Biblical violence to go by. How much more historical evidence do you need that there have been radical Christians just as there are radical Muslims.
Sure, today's radical Muslim leaders, using the power of modern politics, are busy creating a stir with their hateful rhetoric and action, but they don't outnumber the Christians who have done the same. Nor do they represent real Muslims any more than Hitler represented Christ.
We can move forward on the side of hope, or we can let those bad examples represent us, them, and thus determine our fate.
In fact, while we're in the mood for adjusting perspective, let's look at President Bush from outside of an Ameri-Christian-centric viewpooint. Here's a guy who openly claims Jesus as his guide (though I'm skeptical, I see him from the same perspective as most Americans) who led an invasion of a sovreign and, coincidentally (perhaps not) Muslim nation.
If one weren't so inclined toward Ameri-centric, Christian-centric thought, it might look like Bush's own little Christian jihad. As a matter of fact, when you put it like that, what else could it look like?!
One man's freedom-fighter, one man's crusader, if you will, is another man's terrorist. Or did I mention that already?
OH, I should have added, the Crusades were in response to an Islamic jihad.
I suspect, you will be retorting again soon, but just in case you don't...
Merry Christmas.
Oh, and since you got the part right about the Holocaust deniers, I'll give you a passing grade on this post.
Thanks for the passing grade. Here's a sampling of the evidence you sought regarding Hitler's Christianity:
“The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.”
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
-Adolf Hitler, from Mein Kampf
He called himself a Catholic. He was a fundamentalist in many respects. Not to mention the Christian-influenced anti-semitism of Germany at the time making fertile ground for his lovely ideas to grow. We'll get to the unpopularity of fundamentalism among westerners a little later.
Hitler is pretty recent history, though, for my money, the crusades can't be ruled insignificant simply because they were a few years prior. Christian history is Christian history. And as someone far smarter than me once said, those who forget history are condemend to repeat it.
Here's why the crusades are still relavant. The empires/nations/churches that were emerging were in the same phase of development that many Muslim nations are in now. In Muslim nations today, like those Christian empires of history, wealth and power are concentrated into a small proportion of the population and that small group interprets their holy book or (insert episteme of choice here) into laws as it suits them and their narrow, anti-altruistic agenda. The vast majority of subjects in those nations are impoverished and have no say in the matter. Just like the vast majority of folks during the crusades or Hitler's reign. Just like the majority of Christians supposedly represented by Jerry Falwell, David Koresh, Pat Robertson or Jim Jones. The ruling party speaks on behalf of a powerless people, some of whom go along out of necessity and the will to live, others who silently, passively just live their lives with no power or means to do otherwise and no voice to be heard. They have an excuse for not speaking up. We don't. They will be beheaded today just like those who opposed Hitler or Constantine or Pope Urban or others like them were eliminated back then. The history is relavant. You can't just cast it aside.
This is exactly my argument for leaving man's interpretation of God's word OUT of man's legislative process. When Christian empires were developing it wasn't nice. Now (and when our nation was founded) we're a little more reasonable. When Muslims do it, it's not nice. They're working on bringing reason but where the concentrations of wealth and power reside in such small numbers of the population the rich and powerful make the laws according to their interpretations regardless of what their people want. (They commission translations of the holy books that suit them as well, just like Christians did) They then speak for the people of their nation even if the people are reasonable and don't necessarily agree.
One could make the argument that this still happens in our country and that we are powerless to change it as well. In fact, check out Chuck Klosterman's America in this month's Esquire. In it he talks about the impossibility of a revolution in this country. (Neither he nor I want a revolution to be sure.) His argument brings me to my answer to your question about why Christians don't kill their family members who turn to Islam. The primary reason is that we're reasonable, as a result of relative wealth, education, and developed civilization or society, but other, just as important reasons include comfort, complacence, laziness and a trend against fundamentalism as reason replaces it.
We have something to live for. Many Muslims don't. We don't fear reprisal for spiritual exploration because our laws protect it. We, in spite of the Bush administration's efforts, spread a little of our wealth around and can sustain ourselves without the approval of our leaders, let alone without fear of being executed for simply living outside of their parameters. Many Muslims don't have that luxury. I'll venture to say a vast majority don't have that luxury.
Throughout history, men who advocate unprovoked violence in the name of their God, don't seem to believe the same things about that God as the rest of those who worship that God. Today's Muslims are no exception.
And since you granted me the Irish war as a black mark on Christian history, may I also add Israel/Palestine to the list? There are both Christians and Muslims on both sides of that little skirmish. There are plenty more examples of Christians (and Jews) killing in the name of their God from historical times until yesterday. There will be more tomorrow. Finding those examples and explaining their relavance is not even a challenge. The only reason that trend has lost popularity since Hitler is because Christianity is most popular in the west, where economics have made us much less likely to die for our beliefs. Or, you could say, we've grown more reasonable, but you must admit it's a mix of both. We've got too much to lose here on Earth to be that willing to jump straight to Heaven without passing go and collecting our $200. Many Muslims don't.
All I'm asking is that before you condemn millions of people based on the actions of a few (and percentage-wise, it's a small, small number who have the power to determine "Muslim" policy) of their so-called leaders, walk in their shoes. Spend a day in their desert. Look into their government structures. See how they have no say, no voice, and in many instances, nothing to live for on this Earth. Expand your view beyond comfy, cozy, Christian America. Our lives here are nothing, NOTHING like theirs. I won't pretend to have any unique understanding of the plight of impoverished Muslims, but after seeing them with my own eyes, I have more sympathy than I ever would have developed in my living room or at work here. I believe that's a Christian idea.
I only meant that I'd end that response talking more about fundamentalism, but this brings to mind another article I read, though I can't remember where, that talked about the dissappearance of Christian fundamentalists in a similar manner to Klosterman's treatment of the impossibility of revolution in America.
From what I recall, the article explained that most so-called Christians today believe a watered-down version of Biblical teachings at best. At worst, it's a confusing, overly tolerant and conveniently adjusted version that makes them feel better about themselves while picking and choosing from what works and what's too hard to follow. (Do NOT, as lazy people do, associate this with liberalism) The article goes on to say that there are fewer and fewer fundamentalists because the jihad (or the Christian version of it) required is no longer acceptable in our society. I'll have to dig it up before I speak any more about it. I'll also have to do some Bible review before I argue about it.
Your comments about fundamentalists and metaphors struck me because most fundamentalists (by the definition with which I'm familiar) don't accept much in the way of metaphor. And on that note, having studied what little of the Bible I have studied from a literary perspective, I'm inclined to think that MOST of it, especially much of the details of Jesus's life, is metaphor. I know where I draw the literal/metaphorical line. I'm curious to hear... and to know more about where a fundamentalist draws that line. In my opinion, if you allow the possibility of metaphor, you kind of have to give up on quibbling over most literal points. And then you open up a whole new argument about how to interpret the metaphors. Of course, the Bible provides thousands of pages of context evidence to back up interpretations.
Post a Comment