Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

She also starts talking about an inherently interesting theological issue, which is, how do you or do you even attempt to apply a document written in the 7th century to today's morality. It's an argument I've had repeatedly with fellow Catholics, where the traditional view is that the Church itself is eternal and immutable, and that plays a very significant role in why we don't have women priests yet. It's particularly difficult in a religion where the word itself is what is divine, and the prophet was only a vehicle for transmission of the word of God.

Others attempt to dig the document out from its historical context: maybe all that sexist shit was overlaid on it by subsequent generations (fans of Arabic poetry are especially fond of this approach, since there was a real flowering of Arabic poetry written by women at the time of the Prophet, probably one of the greatest set of original documents relating to ancient world proto-feminism you'll find). This is probably easier to do with the Qur'an than the Old Testament if you really parse through the two documents.

I don't know if she still considers herself Islamic or not, and whether she's arguing about how to interpret Islam or against Islam, but figuring this one out is essential for every ancient religion trying to adapt in the world, of course, but Islam, like every other religion, has to do it in a particular context.

It's an interesting debate, though I suspect it's not the debate you're focused on in looking at that clip. You're probably more focused on whether she is pointing out something intrinsically bad or different in Islam itself that leads to bad things.

It's somewhat annoying that you think that my focus is solely limited to the areas in which we disagree. I have said repeatedly that I find a lot of what is in your posts relating to this topic, interesting and informative. I found much of what she (and Stewart) said to be interesting and informative. Your assumption seems like a stupid one.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

As to that, I'd say this: if tomorrow you miraculously converted every member of ISIS to Catholicism, I don't think you'd materially change the way ISIS operates.

Ah. I see you've limited it to the most radical. If you magically converted every member of Islam to Catholics who grew up with that as their religion, would there be as many people willing to murder someone who desecrates the Bible or takes the Lord's name in vain? Would you be able to instantly raise a mob on the street willing to kill murder in the name of Catholicism?

TM

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

It's somewhat annoying that you think that my focus is solely limited to the areas in which we disagree. I have said repeatedly that I find a lot of what is in your posts relating to this topic, interesting and informative. I found much of what she (and Stewart) said to be interesting and informative. Your assumption seems like a stupid one.

Ah. I see you've limited it to the most radical. If you magically converted every member of Islam to Catholics who grew up with that as their religion, would there be as many people willing to murder someone who desecrates the Bible or takes the Lord's name in vain? Would you be able to instantly raise a mob on the street willing to kill murder in the name of Catholicism?

TM

The shit they're doing now is exactly the same shit the Christians were doing 600 years ago. In other words, on the Killing-in-the-Name-of-the-Lord front, they appear to be right on time.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

The shit they're doing now is exactly the same shit the Christians were doing 600 years ago. In other words, on the Killing-in-the-Name-of-the-Lord front, they appear to be right on time.

That may be true, but it surely doesn't make it any more ridiculous in this modern day and age that they are acting like assholes from 600 years ago.

TM

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

That may be true, but it surely doesn't make it any more ridiculous in this modern day and age that they are acting like assholes from 600 years ago.

TM

I suppose not. But consider how many of them are living pretty much the same way they were 600 years ago, and see the rest of the world moving along. They need some way to rationalize it.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Ah. I see you've limited it to the most radical. If you magically converted every member of Islam to Catholics who grew up with that as their religion, would there be as many people willing to murder someone who desecrates the Bible or takes the Lord's name in vain? Would you be able to instantly raise a mob on the street willing to kill murder in the name of Catholicism?

TM

Empirically, you would have to say no.

Remember the old "Piss Christ" photo, and the storm that ensued over that? Can you imagine the reaction to a "Piss Mohammed"? Would the most vocal be focused on defunding the NEA, rather than on killing the artist and anyone who displayed the photo?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

The shit they're doing now is exactly the same shit the Christians were doing 600 years ago. In other words, on the Killing-in-the-Name-of-the-Lord front, they appear to be right on time.

So you are saying Islam is intrinsically 600 years behind?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

It's somewhat annoying that you think that my focus is solely limited to the areas in which we disagree. I have said repeatedly that I find a lot of what is in your posts relating to this topic, interesting and informative. I found much of what she (and Stewart) said to be interesting and informative. Your assumption seems like a stupid one.

Ah. I see you've limited it to the most radical. If you magically converted every member of Islam to Catholics who grew up with that as their religion, would there be as many people willing to murder someone who desecrates the Bible or takes the Lord's name in vain? Would you be able to instantly raise a mob on the street willing to kill murder in the name of Catholicism?

TM

Hell, I wrote all the stuff, so I wasn't assuming you'd find it completely irrelevant. But I thought you wanted me to come back to what you had focused on, so I tried. I tried to illustrate all the things that, for example, make the meanest, nastiest Islamic motherfuckers what they are, and to suggest that Islam wasn't really at the center of their nastiness.

On the mob, of course, there have been any number of Catholic mobs out for murder and mayhem over the years. Let's not get too cocky about the fact that things are generally better today after all the years of killing in the Church's name. I can think of lots of places, from Ireland to Central America, where there has been religiously linked or motivated rioting and violence in my lifetime. Is it over the burning of texts? No, but is that really what this was over? Again, I'm just not certain.

As to instantly raising a mob in the street, I'm going to be very interested in how spontaneously this mob erupted. Most mobs aren't that spontaneous. Some are. But I haven't found anything good yet describing exactly how this mob gathered or was gathered or where they came from.

It will not surprise me, knowing that the mullah is described as carefully getting Farkhunda out of the shrine where the argument started into the open area behind the shrine, and knowing that this dispute with Farkhunda was ongoing and threatened the mullah's livelihood, if the mob was actually organized. But I don't know.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

The shit they're doing now is exactly the same shit the Christians were doing 600 years ago. In other words, on the Killing-in-the-Name-of-the-Lord front, they appear to be right on time.

600 years ago?

Come on, Christians get all of 19th and 20th century western imperialism to their name, to say nothing of fascism.

Even if you just glance around the Middle East over the last couple decades, Christians get to lay claim to Sabra and Shatila.

Oh, and not a few people in the Middle East will attribute our invasion of Iraq to religious violence; our use of the Qur'an in various torture techniques really doesn't help here.

The Horror. The Horror.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

The idea that Louisiana wants to retain the right to deny climate change in their preparedness planning strikes me as a little problematic.

These people are the ultimate welfare cheats. Just looking for endless bailouts.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

So you are saying Islam is intrinsically 600 years behind?

I'm just saying....

I'm sorry. I forgot to turn on my sarcasm siren. No, that isn't really what I was saying.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

600 years ago?

Come on, Christians get all of 19th and 20th century western imperialism to their name, to say nothing of fascism.

Even if you just glance around the Middle East over the last couple decades, Christians get to lay claim to Sabra and Shatila.

Oh, and not a few people in the Middle East will attribute our invasion of Iraq to religious violence; our use of the Qur'an in various torture techniques really doesn't help here.

The Horror. The Horror.

So then what you're saying is that, like any situation, our perception of events will change with our perception of the person involved? Or is it that more people have been killed in God's name than have been saved by it?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

So then what you're saying is that, like any situation, our perception of events will change with our perception of the person involved? Or is it that more people have been killed in God's name than have been saved by it?

Well, of course to the first.

As to the second, my guess is that counting bodies on both sides of that equation will take an eternity...

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Oh, and not a few people in the Middle East will attribute our invasion of Iraq to religious violence;

Do you agree with any of them, that the purpose of invading Iraq was to attack Islam?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

On the mob, of course, there have been any number of Catholic mobs out for murder and mayhem over the years. Let's not get too cocky about the fact that things are generally better today after all the years of killing in the Church's name. I can think of lots of places, from Ireland to Central America, where there has been religiously linked or motivated rioting and violence in my lifetime. Is it over the burning of texts? No, but is that really what this was over? Again, I'm just not certain.

I remember when the guy who played Guido Sarducci got arrested in Vatican City for impersonating a priest. I think you're right, you really can't say that Muslims are harder on those charged with insulting the faith.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Do you agree with any of them, that the purpose of invading Iraq was to attack Islam?

I still have absolutely no idea exactly what our reason was for invading Iraq. It was an astonishingly stupid thing to do. What better explanation is there of the war - that George and Dick just wanted a war? That it helped them win an election?

So, no, I don't think it was the reason, but I have no alternative that can convince someone who believes this to the contrary. Do you?