Burning the Koran is stupid, offensive, and generally wicked.
It is easy to show that burning the Koran is stupid for a Christian to do. You might think a woman’s beloved husband unworthy, but burning his picture is a bad opening move. You certainly will get her attention, but not her sympathetic attention. A decent rule for relationships is that starting off badly on purpose is stupid.
It is even simpler to show that burning the Koran is offensive, because a good many people are offended. I take it as an axiom in evangelism that offense must come, but woe to he who offends unnecessarily.
But can an Evangelical think burning books is wicked? This seems impossible since the Bible (apparently) commends book burning (Acts 19, ESV):
When this became known to the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus, they were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honor. Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds. A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly. When they calculated the value of the scrolls, the total came to fifty thousand drachmas. In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power.
Anyone who has debated Internet atheists knows this section of Scripture comes up frequently. * Usually, the “reasoning” goes, Christians are too good to be consistent. They should burn all their pagan books, but then they enroll in college programs like Torrey Honors and end up reading “wicked” texts like Homer.
Oddly, there are some extreme Christian groups that agree with the Internet atheists: we should burn books and Reynolds is being “worldly” not to do so.
Like all simplistic things, the argument is at least easy to grasp: if the Bible describes and commends someone doing a thing, then we should all do it. If we don’t, then we aren’t really followers of Scripture.
The difficulty is that the argument is rotten. The fact that the Bible commends one person for doing a thing in a particular place and time does not mean that it is appropriate to me or even good for me to do it. I am not, for example, a king in ancient Judah. What a king could do under the laws of ancient Israel is forbidden to me as a citizen of this Republic. This is good to remember the next time a politician stumbles: the governor of your state is not King David. The analogy may or may not hold, but it is certainly not an exactly parallel situation.
The “resignation” of King David would have been much tougher on Israel, than the resignation of any local politician.
About all one can say from the fact that the Bible commends burning a certain kind of book in one city at one time is that burning a certain kind of book in a certain situation may be commendable. Book burning is not inherently immoral. There are places and times where a man can and should burn certain kinds of literature.
Burning books, unlike burning babies, is not always wrong, though some people who don’t quail at saline abortions think sending any printed page to the fire is always evil.
The man who consigns love letters to the flames after a tough breakup may be starting fresh. He need not have a fascist bone in his body. If another man has been harmed by his collection, he may need to consign his collection to the flames as a symbol of his freedom.
It can be like flushing pills or liquor down the toilet for an addict.
This does not mean the private book burner thinks the government should burn books or that everyone must (or even should) act as he has. Getting rid of any piece of property, even property harmless to most, can be an act of great liberation. Men and women today, like those from Acts, still have need to lighten their load.
Nobody, I think, can or should condemn such private purging of stuff that clings to our souls.
That said, why wouldn’t public “burning of books” be appropriate today? Why would it be wicked?
There are two reasons.
First, history has changed how book burning is perceived. People now associate public group “burnings” with anti-intellectualism and fascism. It need not be a threat to liberty, it wasn’t when the powerless Christians did it in Acts, but it has been in living memory. The Nazis made public book burnings such an ugly sight that no sane human would be caught at one if he could avoid it.
The image is no longer one of self-purification, but of barbarians. In Acts people were destroying fraudulent and wicked books that had wasted their time and their souls. They had no power to make others do the same, but were giving a public witness to their liberty. They were not suggesting that no future library contain such works for academic study.
Fire was commonly associated with purification in the ancient world and the Christians were showing their freedom from the occult.
Fire and books no longer can communicate this harmless message. It cannot help but be confused this side of the Third Reich. It is not necessary for Christians to burn magic books in public, just to cease to look to the occult for answers. (Surely even a new atheist will not quibble with that?) He must repudiate all his past works and do so publically, if he has practiced them publically.
To use an image that is bound to be misunderstood lacks humility.
Second, a certain “brand” of Christians in the United States has used “public burnings” not as acts of faith, but of narrow intolerance. They have burned great music and great art, because they did not understand it. For every man who has consigned a genuinely evil work to the flames in parts of the nation, how many burned their copy of Catcher in the Rye?
Were men really liberated and the Gospel advanced when people tossed an unread Bulfinch into the flames?
The people in Acts were burning things they had loved in order to get free from a bad influence the books had in their lives. The Bible mentions the cost of the books: they were consigning prized possessions to the flames. Have the people in Florida read or understood the Koran they are burning? Are they texts they once cherished, but held them in bondage?
Or are they burning a book they have never read, understood, or loved? Are they engaged in cheap and easy theater by condemning a sin they have never wished to commit?
American Christians have so often abused communal destruction of property, disguising intellectual shallowness, laziness, and error with putative holiness, that the act is spoilt for all of us. Members of our religious family have erred so often in this area, the outside community cannot trust our judgments.
We should share the fear. If liberal Christians have been too quick to accept, we have been too quick to condemn. Their vice may explain, but it does not excuse our own.
Communities once apt to burn the brilliant anti-Communist work 1984 should doubt their own judgment. This is especially true of burnings of works to which we have no prior relationship as is the case with the Florida church now about to burn the Koran. I can respect a man who turns from a book he has loved, because it has hurt his soul.
Who can respect a man who burns a book he misunderstands and purchased merely for the show of burning it?
It is stupid, offensive, and wicked in this time, in this place, for American Christians to burn books publically. We are not in the time of Acts, are not those men, have a different symbolic language, and do not live in their community.
I suspect men who burn the Koran do so not to proselytize, but to publicize and in the media attention their god has given them their reward.
*I call them Internet atheists to avoid associating them with thoughtful philosophy friends who do not believe in God, but also find the anti-intellectual antics of the online “new” atheists shameful.
September 9th, 2010 | 3:53 pm | #1
Nice. Thanks.
September 9th, 2010 | 4:16 pm | #2
[...] First of all, it’s “stupid, offensive, and generally wicked.“ [...]
September 9th, 2010 | 5:19 pm | #3
It’s more significant that the Ephesians were burning their own books, and doing it as a sign of repentance. It’s incommensurate with what the guy in Florida is doing.
September 9th, 2010 | 6:33 pm | #4
The first few paragraphs of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on “censorship of books” is interesting reading:
“As soon as there were books or writing of any kind the spreading or reading of which was highly detrimental to the public, competent authorities were obliged to take measures against them. Long before the Christian era, therefore, we find that heathens as well as Jews had fixed regulations for the suppression of dangerous books and the prevention of corruptive reading. From numerous illustrations quoted by Zaccaria (pp. 248-256) it is evident that most of the writings condemned or destroyed offended against religion and morals. Everywhere the books declared dangerous were cast into the fire–the simplest and most natural execution of censorship. When at Ephesus, in consequence of St. Paul’s preaching, the heathens were converted, they raised before the eyes of the Apostle of the Gentiles a pile in order to burn their numerous superstition books (Acts 19:19). No doubt, the new Christians moved by grace and the Apostolic word did so of their own accord; but all the more was their action approved by St. Paul himself, and it is recorded as an example worthy of imitation by the author of the Acts of the Apostles. From this burning of the books at Ephesus, as well as from the Second Epistle of St. Peter and the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, it clearly appears how the Apostles judged of pernicious books and how they wished them to be treated. In concert with the Apostle of the Gentiles (Titus 3:10). St. John most emphatically exhorted the first Christians to shun heretical teachers. To the disciples of the Apostles it was a matter of course to connect this warning not only with the persons of such teachers, but first and foremost with their doctrine and their writings. Thus, in the first Christian centuries, the so-called apocrypha above all other books appeared to the faithful as libri non recipiendi, books which were on no account to be used. The establishment of the Canon of Holy Writ was, therefore, at once an elimination and a censuring of the apocrypha. The two documents referring to this, both from the latter half of the second century, are the Muratorian Canon and the Apostolic Constitutions (see Hauler, Didascaliæ Apostolorum fragments, Leipzig, 1900, p. 4).
When the Church, after the era of persecution, was given greater liberty, a censorship of books appears more plainly. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicæa (325) condemned not only Arius personally, but also his book entitled “Thalia”; Constantine commanded that the writings of Arius and his friends should everywhere be delivered up to be burned; concealment of them was forbidden under pain of death. In the following centuries, when and wherever heresies sprung up, the popes of Rome and the oecumenical councils, as well as the particular synods of Africa, Asia, and Europe, condemned, conjointly with the false doctrines, the books and writings containing them. (Cf. Hilgers, Die Bücherverbote in Papstbriefen.) The latter were ordered to be destroyed by fire, and illegal preservation of them was treated as a heinous criminal offense. The authorities intended to make the reading of such writings simply impossible. Pope St. Innocent I, enumerating in a letter of 405 a number of apocryphal writings, rejects them as non solum repudianda sed etiam damnanda. It is the first attempt at a catalog of forbidden books. The so-called “Decretum Gelasianum” contains many more, not only apocryphal, but also heretical, or otherwise objectionable writings. It is not without reason that this catalog has been called the first “Roman Index” of forbidden books. The books in question were not unfrequently examined in the public sessions ofcouncils. There are also cases in which the popes themselves (e.g., Innocent I and Gregory the Great) read and examined a book sent to them and finally condemned it. As regards the kinds and content of writings forbidden in ancient times, we find among them, besides apocryphal and heretical books, forged acts of martyrs, spurious penitentials, and superstitious writings. In ancient times, information about objectionable books was sent from both East and West to Rome, that they might be examined, and, if necessary, forbidden by the Apostolic See. Thus at the beginning of the Middle Ages, there existed, in all its essentials, though without specified clauses, a prohibition and censorship of books throughout the Catholic Church. Popes as well as councils, bishops no less than synods, considered it then, as always, their most sacred duty to safeguard the purity of faith and to protect the souls of the faithful by condemning and forbidding any dangerous book.
more here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03519d.htm
September 9th, 2010 | 6:48 pm | #5
Thank you so much for this post. Very good and helpful to me.
September 9th, 2010 | 6:53 pm | #6
The burning has apparently been called off, though for reasons that seem dubious on first inspection.
A better reason would have been repentance.
September 9th, 2010 | 8:34 pm | #7
It seems to me that a closer analogy would be when Gideon smashed the local Asherah pole and altar to Baal. There are a number of other instances of Biblical figures smashing idols, with God’s approval. What’s the response to that?
September 9th, 2010 | 8:46 pm | #8
Tim,
I think Mr. Reynolds answered your question implicitly. One action in one instance does not necessarily mean the same action is reasonable or profitable in every instance. If someone began using your church for pagan worship, I think the action of removing the elements would be acceptable. In fact, it would be odd to leave them that way. That does not mean that in every instance of paganism in the US Christians should forcibly remove every element.
September 9th, 2010 | 8:53 pm | #9
[...] time at work to read regular news posts except when I take a lunch break. Today I found this very interesting/informative post, that says it is “wicked” for a Christian to burn the Quran in the manner that Preacher [...]
September 9th, 2010 | 9:20 pm | #10
“Burning books, unlike burning babies, is not always wrong….”
From an evangelical perspective, it’s actually quite difficult to arrive at an unconditional moral prohibition against burning babies.
September 9th, 2010 | 10:22 pm | #11
Blogger: I’m Burning the National Catholic Reporter
A little-known central Kansas Catholic blogger has announced that he will burn a copy of the National Catholic Reporter on his front lawn on Monday September 13, the Memorial of St John Chrysostom.
Renfrew Dachs, who blogs at ‘Orthodachs Review’, announced on Labor Day his intention to set fire to the most recent issue of the left-leaning paper. As he wrote on his blog:
“It is time to expose this publication for what it is. It is a heterodox publication that is trying to masquerade as a Catholic publication, seeking to deceive many within the Church.”
Dachs’ blog and Facebook page, which combined boasts all of 50 followers, has been inundated with hits and friend requests since his statement. He says that the split between supporters and detractors is fairly even.
“I’ve had people tell me they’re coming to attend the burning. A bunch have mailed me copies of the National Catholic Reporter, along with some back issues of Commonweal and America, so I expect a pretty large fire Monday. I’ve also received a number of nasty emails, too. They’re not death threats – pretty much just folks telling me to stop being judgmental, or that I’ll harm the environment by increasing my carbon footprint, with all that smoke and stuff.”
Dachs said he chose the memorial of St John Chrysostom for this event because the revered Doctor of the Church, whose name means ‘Golden Mouth’, defended Church teachings throughout his life. “The stuff the NCR publishes, on the total opposite spectrum of what he taught, of what the Church teaches,” Dachs said. “Reiki, women priests, gay marriage? I think St John would get in their grill over those positions, so I thought it kinda appropriate.”
Dachs’ intended action has drawn its fair share of criticism. The editorial staff at the NCR published a scathing column, which said in part: “It is regrettable that a blogger in central Kansas, with a blog with fewer than 50 followers, can make this outrageous and distrustful, disgraceful plan and get the world’s attention, and yet we can’t even get a link to the Huffington Post.”
Read it all.
September 9th, 2010 | 11:39 pm | #12
Bad judgment, perhaps. Wicked? Surely not. Your objections seem primarily strategic rather than moral. An opposing strategic view might be that the church has strayed so far in the direction of religious pluralism and tolerance that we need to revive the old book burnings to restore a sense of the seriousness of false religion.
Wrong perceptions have plagued Christians since Christ was crucified on the cross. The Romans believed Christians were traitors and rebels who committed immoral and illegal acts and sought to overthrow their masters. The Christians could have disproved those fears by bowing to Caesar, but instead they cheerfully and defiantly welcomed death, and proselytized in the open.
I’m not making a direct comparison. Refraining from book burning is not equivalent to worshiping Caesar. But it helps to remember the broad context of church/world relations, which if anything reminds us that the burning of a pile of books is a very small thing.
September 9th, 2010 | 11:58 pm | #13
I have the perfect solution: pass a law that requires that all books be made of inflammable material.
Once everything is electronic, will deleting a PDF of the Koran count?
September 10th, 2010 | 2:13 am | #14
I certainly hope that this book burning of the Koran has been called off. It not only is profoundly offensive and unkind, to our Muslim friends, but offensive to all decent people. The Koran is a great book, deserving of respect, whether one agrees with its contents or not.
September 10th, 2010 | 3:02 am | #15
“The Koran is a great book, deserving of respect, whether one agrees with its contents or not.”
Liberal Catholic Bret Lythgoe has support from CCC #841:
The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”
September 10th, 2010 | 3:28 am | #16
Do you support the book burning, TUAD?
September 10th, 2010 | 5:58 am | #17
I tried to share some stirring thoughts here that I don’t believe many have considered.
September 10th, 2010 | 7:29 am | #18
C. Ehrlich, you wrote,
It would be considerably more difficult to find any evidence that evangelicals have ever seen it as anything but an unconditional prohibition. Christians led the way in ending infanticide in the ancient Roman Empire. That’s been Christians’ consistent position through history.
September 10th, 2010 | 8:39 am | #19
Tom Gilson,
I suspect the reasoning goes like this:
1. Most evangelicals are not pacifists.
2. War predictably and inevitably leads to death of noncombatants, including babies.
3. Those deaths certainly include death by burning.
4. If evangelicals believe that burned babies are acceptable collateral damage under particular circumstances in a war, then there must not be any unconditional prohibition on burning babies.
September 10th, 2010 | 11:20 am | #20
Nickp,
One can believe in an absolute prohibition of something and believe that there are unfortunate consequences to stopping evil, i.e. a justified war. In defending some innocent people I might hurt other innocent people. My intent is to protect, not harm. Jesus says it is noble to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. That only makes sense if there’s aggression and evil in the world. Since there is aggression and evil, then it is the perpetrators of evil, not the protectors, who are responsible for the collateral damage. If a dictator has the means and the intent to enslave/torture/murder millions, is it really unjust to resist and/or protect the innocent?
September 10th, 2010 | 11:25 am | #21
“..offense must come, but woe to he who offends unnecessarily.”
This Terry Jones wants to burn the book, If they say they are going to build a Mosque. If they don’t build, then he will spare them, and not burn the book. And it is God who is really doing all this through him, so he implies.
What a mess. And politics and so forth can be such a mess.
To simply live a life as a Christian pastor would mean to love Christ, and exalt Him. Love His church, and people, and feed them the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation.
To worship the Lord, and speak the truth in love.
He can share how the Quran is a book without any substance. But mostly he can proclaim the Gospel, and the Word of God.
If our pulpits would begin to simply preach the Word agian, then we would see God move in a way, we never would have imagined, and in fact if the preaching of the Gospel in power and love ever happens again, then that will be a sovereign move of God.
May we pray for the Gospel to go forth as it never has.
Jesus Christ and Him crucified dead, and risen from the grave, who ascended into heaven, where He sits by His Father, and rules this universe with all authority and power.
And trusting in His death for the forgiveness of sin, and turning to God for mercy, and loving Christ our risen Lord is what every sinner needs to do. Muslems, Jews, Gentiles, and even a multitude of church-goers, who are still dead in their sins as well.
Have a terrific weekend. All for the Cross.
ps Go Ravens!
September 10th, 2010 | 12:03 pm | #22
Tom, as you know, evangelical traditions and evangelical behavior are not strictly determined by their belief systems. This is sometimes fortuitous, as in the case of burning babies and infanticide. Here, happily, the opposition from evangelicals tends to go well beyond what their own belief system can comfortably sustain.
September 10th, 2010 | 12:09 pm | #23
One would do worse by the Koran if, instead of burning it, one would simply read it out loud. Its texts are so vulgar and false as to be self condemning. This is why Luther advised the king to permit its translation and publication. He believed that and sane person who read the Koran would see it for the blasphemous thing that it is.
To love a Muslim by respecting the Koran, is like loving a crack addict by praising the quality of his cocaine.
September 10th, 2010 | 12:30 pm | #24
Bret Lythgoe: “The Koran is a great book, deserving of respect, whether one agrees with its contents or not.”
Pastor Philip Spomer: “To love a Muslim by respecting the Koran, is like loving a crack addict by praising the quality of his cocaine.”
Vivid analogy Pastor Spomer.
September 10th, 2010 | 1:36 pm | #25
C. Ehrlich,
Seriously? You’re not joking, right?
September 10th, 2010 | 1:57 pm | #26
Tom, as long as we can converse with civility and respect, I’ll go along. But if this degenerates again into defensiveness, hostilities, or mockery, I’ll bow out. And I’m serious.
September 10th, 2010 | 1:59 pm | #27
It is certainly correct that just because a practice is sanctioned in a particular place and time in Scripture does not mean it may be done today. But neither does raising that possibility immediately answer the question.
It seemed to me that the book burning stemmed from a nationalistic “Christianity,” and that’s enough for me to reject it. It was not from a desire to get rid of idolatry, as evidenced by the fact that the pastor called it off when he thought he got a deal with the Muslims in charge of the Ground Zero mosque.
But I’m not sure I buy the objections articulated here to destroying idols (which the Quran is; any argument there?), which Christians have done throughout history and not just in antiquity. Missionaries to Germanic tribes burned their sacred groves as kindling.
Do we really think idol burning was “perceived” any better by the foreign peoples to whom the idols belonged? Surely they would have perceived such burnings as evil, just as people would perceive today.
Likewise, was idol burning not intolerant in the past? Did Gideon need to love the idol and appreciate its artistic value before he smashed it?
That doesn’t seem right. Perhaps a better answer as to why we don’t do it now is not because we’re afraid of how non-believers will perceive us or because we’re very tolerant, but because we’re not in personal, local contact with the people we are trying to preach and disciple. So we aren’t putting ourselves at risk as we ought, and we have no possibility of fully showing them the different way of life the People of God live.
September 10th, 2010 | 2:25 pm | #28
Albert: “But I’m not sure I buy the objections articulated here [that are opposed] to destroying idols (which the Quran is; any argument there?)…”
Well, it looks like Bret Lythgoe might take issue with the argument that the Quran is an idol. After all, he wrote:
“It not only is profoundly offensive and unkind, to our Muslim friends, but offensive to all decent people. The Koran is a great book, deserving of respect, whether one agrees with its contents or not.”
September 10th, 2010 | 2:28 pm | #29
We do need to be concerned with how unbelievers perceive us. What does burning a Koran do? What’s winsome and compelling about it? Wisdom goes a long way in these matters. Do those who want to burn the Koran really believe doing so will be a witness for Christianity, that it will show people the power, majesty, and love of God?
September 10th, 2010 | 2:33 pm | #30
C. Ehrlich,
You have accused me of defensiveness in the past. You have called on me to ask others for their opinion. I did so, privately. I’ll do it publicly now. If my comments here seem hostile, defensive, or mocking, I’m certainly open to being told that by others. I have nothing on the line in that respect.
But here’s why I asked whether you were joking. First, I note that your assertions regarding Christians’ belief systems have gone unsupported by any argument.
Beyond that, what you have said here is that even if Christians led the way in overturning a deeply established cultural practice, and have continued to argue and to fight against that practice consistently down through the centuries to the present day, we’ve done it all these years in spite of the fact that it cannot be “comfortably sustained” by our beliefs.
Now, please listen carefully to what I’m going to say next. It has been my practice for years of blogging to avoid personal attacks, i.e., impugning others’ character, motives, and so on. Assertions and arguments, on the other hand, are open for evaluation and response, and I seek to match my response to what the assertion or argument deserves. In that context, C. Ehrlich, and being fully open to others’ criticism, I am comfortable saying that it is difficult to believe anyone would seriously believe what you have asserted. That’s why I asked.
September 10th, 2010 | 2:35 pm | #31
Dear C. Ehrlich: I think perhaps a problem here with thinking of your previous posts as possibly joking is that they are not clear enough.
Evangelicals–all Christians, whether evangelical or not, I would assume–agree with “Thou shalt not murder.” What is it specifically about the murder of babies that you think would not be covered by this? In particular, why do you think evangelicals would be in favor of murdering babies, or at least that their theology would not prohibit it?
You can see why, when these questions are left floating, some people are viewing your posts rather incredulously.
September 10th, 2010 | 2:36 pm | #32
(Tom Gilson got in right before I did, so I see he has already addressed the issue.)
September 10th, 2010 | 3:21 pm | #33
o In the 1480s Catholic Tomas Torquemada promoted the burning of non-Catholic literature, especially the Jewish Talmud and also Arabic books after the final defeat of the Moors at Granada in 1492.
o Martin Luther’s German translation of the Bible was burned in Catholic-dominated parts of Germany in 1624, by order of the Pope.
o In 1731 Count Leopold Anton von Firmian – Catholic Archbishop of Salzburg as well as its temporal ruler – embarked on a savage persecution of the Lutherans living in the rural regions of Salzburg. As well expelling tens of thousands of Protestant Salzburgers, the Archbishop ordered the wholesale seizure and burning of all Protestant books and Bibles.
September 10th, 2010 | 3:33 pm | #34
Just a reminder, the way that Islam addressed the problem of variant readings is different from our Nestle-Allen apparatus. They just picked one Koran and the others?
They burned them.
September 10th, 2010 | 3:53 pm | #35
Notice what happened a few years ago:
“After defeating their rivals in Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah movement, Muslim extremists are focusing their attacks on Christians in Gaza City. Christians in Gaza City have issued an appeal to the international community and a plea for protection against the increased attacks by Muslim extremists.
Father Manuel Musallem, head of Gaza’s Latin church, told the AP that Muslims have ransacked, burned and looted a school and convent that are part of the Gaza Strip’s small Roman Catholic community. He told the AP that crosses were broken, damage was done to a statue of Jesus, and at the Rosary Sister School and nearby convent, prayer books were burned.
Gunmen used the roof of the school during the fighting, and the convent was “desecrated,” Mussalem told the AP.
Father Musalam additionally told The Jerusalem Post that the Muslim gunmen used rocket-propeled grenades (RPGs) to blow through the doors of the church and school, before burning Bibles and destroying every cross they could get their hands on.”
Read it all Here.
September 10th, 2010 | 3:53 pm | #36
TUAD: nice use of the fallacy of tu quoque.
September 10th, 2010 | 3:54 pm | #37
http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/09/8692/#comment-13776
““The Koran is a great book, deserving of respect, whether one agrees with its contents or not.”
I have read the Koran. I have studied the Koran. It’s poorly written. No structure. Ideas all over the place. Lacks all sense of narrative. Repetitious. Both anti-Jewish and anti-Christian.
Whether one thinks the “prophet” (Muhammad is only mentioned 4 times, and most of those mentions were probably later interpolations) was “inspired” by some spirit or made it up, the book is a pastiche of cliches drawn from the writings of Jews and Christians. These cliches do not discriminate between canonical texts and silly fictions found in Jewish or Christian apocrypha, legends, fables, or fairy tales.
And what is left over is either a angry demand that listeners accept the prophet’s message for no other reason than he wants them, or a call to fight those who refuse.
September 10th, 2010 | 4:09 pm | #38
Bret Lythgoe: “I certainly hope that this book burning of the Koran has been called off. It not only is profoundly offensive and unkind, to our Muslim friends, but offensive to all decent people.”
John Doe: “I’m not offended.”
LibCat (incredulous): “You’re not offended?”
John Doe: “No, I’m not offended.”
LibCat (sputtering): “Then, then, then you’re not a decent person!”
John Doe: “That’s awfully judgmental of you.”
LibCat (gasping in horror): “!!?@#!”
September 10th, 2010 | 7:14 pm | #39
I have an idea: the Florida pastor should ask local Muslims to join him and his congregation in burning pictures of Muhammed drawn by cartoonists, pornography defended Obama’s justice department appointee David Ogden, and copies of Mao’s Little Red Book, a text that laid the groundwork for the slaughtering of millions of Christians, though apparently the text is found intellectually compelling by Anita Dunn (former White House communications director) . In this way, the pastor can show solidarity with his Muslim neighbors by resisting secularism’s lack of respect of religious belief.
This would also throw a huge monkey-wrench in the elite narrative. And that in itself would be fun to watch.
September 10th, 2010 | 10:43 pm | #40
I initially supported the book burning because I am deeply angry at how Muslims are raping and killing Christians around the world.
The media rarely covers this widespread abuse and I find myself railing against our society which jumps to defend Islam against some silly book burner, but does not jump to defend the many Christians who face death on a weekly basis by Muslims.
I confess that at times I find myself falling into hatred for all Muslims. Pray for me.
September 10th, 2010 | 11:02 pm | #41
“I confess that at times I find myself falling into hatred for all Muslims. Pray for me.”
I’ll pray for you. And pray for me as well, to see the Gospel in all it’s awesomeness and splendor. And to see how vile I truly am.
If it wasn’t for grace….
September 10th, 2010 | 11:05 pm | #42
Tom,
I’m pleased that you’ve heeded my advice in seeking private counsel about your mode of conduct in a past thread. For my part, I am happy to give you a new opportunity to prove your good intentions, both to me and to others. Here’s to rich discussions and mutual understanding!
Tom and Craig,
Sometimes respect for the topic of the original post requires one to hesitate before engaging in a full-scale discussion of some quibble over one of the author’s passing claims. It seemed to me best to simply call attention to passing claim, allowing others to think about it privately as they saw fit. But, since three people have commented on my objection, and two of these have asked for further explanation, I’ll oblige.
Here’s was my claim:
and,
To begin with, we ought to be clear what it means for a moral prohibition to be “unconditional.” We also need to be clear on the sort of “opposition” that evangelicals tend to express towards burning babies and infanticide. Let’s begin with the first idea. To say that a moral prohibition against burning babies is unconditional is to say that burning babies is always, and under all possible circumstances, morally prohibited. Moreover, and so as not to make my job extremely easy, let’s stipulate the the babies in question are alive and healthy, and that the burning in question results in the death of the babies (so that it’s not some therapeutic procedure such as cutting a baby during surgery would be). To say that burning babies would be morally prohibited under every possible circumstance is a very ambitious claim, given that the possible circumstances would seem to include these: (a) the circumstance in which burning a few babies is the foreseeable and unavoidable consequence of bombing a legitimate military target during in a just war (following Nickp’s comment above), (b) the circumstance in which God orders the burning of children–much as God ordered the annihilation of the Canaanites or as God ordered Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, (c) the circumstance in which the agent burning the babies is God himself, or an angelic messenger of God.
If folks are interested, I’d be happy to explore the next bit, about why the opposition expressed by evangelicals (to such things as infanticide and the burning of babies) tends to go well beyond what their own belief system can comfortably sustain. (And, although I think that this where things get really interesting, let’s consider whether we do an injustice to the original post.)
September 11th, 2010 | 12:35 am | #43
For the record, I agree with C. Ehrlich. Evangelicals who are committed to the authority of scripture should not make any moral commandment absolute except the commandment to love and follow God.
Given that there can be a conflict between that and any other principle, at least in principle, we should see all other commands as prima facie commands, even if for some actions the circumstances that would make it morally allowable are well-nigh impossible in actual practice. If you’re creative enough, you might be able to imagine science fiction examples where some of the most obvious moral prohibitions might be allowable under very grave or very odd (and probably in actuality impossible) circumstances.
But as a committed Rossian about ethics, and one who thinks the scriptures themselves assume such a view, it’s impossible for me to think even the strongest moral prohibitions are technically absolute when compared with the one true imperative we’re given as the absolute by which we compare all other commands. I would strongly hesitate to burn a baby, and that is entirely right, but if, for example, the entire fate of humanity rested on it in a case of an infection that would wipe out the entire planet, I’m not sure I could endorse the absolutism that says it’s always wrong.
I’m less convinced of the biblical texts that C. Ehrlich has in mind, primarily because I know there are alternative interpretations that I haven’t studied enough to rule them out. Perhaps the commands to wipe out everyone didn’t include all the children, because the expressions in question were commonly-used hyperbole or idioms for being complete in wiping out just the combatants and destroying the property. I’m a bit skeptical about such hypotheses, and I’m not going to be confident in resting an apologetic on them, but I’m also not confident enough to rest ethical claims on the alternative at this point. But I think there are plenty of cases of non-absolutism about pretty serious moral prohibitions actually occurring in scripture, so I think C. Ehrlich is right that evangelicals shouldn’t make such claims willy-nilly. I’m just not sure we should see that as a reductio as absurdum of evangelicals’ views, as I take C. Ehrlich to be seeing it. I will, in fact, simply bite the bullet on this one.
September 11th, 2010 | 12:38 am | #44
Nevertheless, I find John Mark’s observation against pro-choicers who are absolutists against book-burning to be entirely on target. If you’re going to be an absolutist about something, being an absolutist against burning babies is far superior to being an absolutist against book-burning.
September 11th, 2010 | 2:29 am | #45
dwl: I have must respectfully disagree with you. the koran is not “poorly written”. It’s a great work. Islam is one of the three great Monotheistic religions, and Muhammad was a great religious thinker. Disagree all you want, but at least acknowledge, that it’s a religion deserving of our respect. And please always make the essential distinction, between the Muslim faith, which deserves our respect, and the terrorist mutations, such as the Talaban, which do not.
September 11th, 2010 | 8:01 am | #46
Jeremy and C. Ehrlich,
I am quite in agreement with the nuanced position—focusing on “unconditional”—that you have stated here. My point of disagreement has been with your position, C. Ehrlich, that our historic stand in favor of young humans’ life has not been comfortably sustained by our beliefs. As you have offered to drop the issue in deference to the subject matter of the blog post, however, I am also willing to let the discussion end here.
September 11th, 2010 | 9:48 am | #47
Mr. Lythgoe:
dwl: I have must respectfully disagree with you. the koran is not “poorly written”. It’s a great work. Islam is one of the three great Monotheistic religions, and Muhammad was a great religious thinker. Disagree all you want, but at least acknowledge, that it’s a religion deserving of our respect. And please always make the essential distinction, between the Muslim faith, which deserves our respect, and the terrorist mutations, such as the Talaban, which do not.
My knowledge of the Qur’an requires me to dissent from every positive statement you make. Please identify a single significant religious/spiritual discovery made by the (purportedly historical) Muhammad. Without reviewing my notes, I cannot think of a single one. Every religious insight was simply a modification of ideas drawn from Judaism and Christianity.
Ironically, calling Muhammad a “thinker” contradicts both traditional Muslim understanding of Muhammad, as well as the evidence of the Qur’an itself: he didn’t “think” anything; he received it by some “charismatic” (i.e., shamanistic) experiences. He believed that a “Lord” (“Rahman” in the early surahs, not “Allah”) was speaking to him. He conveyed those experiences to those around him. He simply expected people to take him at his word. When they did not, he rounded on them in fury. I would argue that this–his need to have his Rahman take revenge on the deniers of his revelation, NOT Christian tradition–is the origin of his doctrine of heaven and hell.
Secondly, I don’t see why Islam deserves our respect. The Qur’an shows no respect for those who refuse the shamanistic experiences. Historical Islam follows in the pattern set by the supposed prophet: as long as it/he (Islam/the prophet) thinks it can persuade people to join its community/believe the revelations, it beguiles, wheedles, and cajoles. But when it/he is rejected, the seductions turn to fury. The Qur’an doesn’t *argue* for its truth, it *asserts* it–and is outraged when the listener walks away unpersuaded.
Thirdly, I see no distinction between “the Muslim faith” and Muslim terrorism. Terrorism is not a “mutation,” but of the essence. See the previous two paragraphs for my reasoning.
September 11th, 2010 | 10:40 am | #48
Bret Lythgoe: “Disagree all you want, but at least acknowledge, that it’s a religion deserving of our respect.”
Define how you use the term “respect.”
If you think something is untrue when it purports to be true, then you’re not respecting it. Bret Lythgoe, since you think that Islam is a false religion, you don’t respect Islam. Bret Lythgoe, you’re an infidel to Muslims.
Although it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if a Muslim had a sword to the back of your neck and threatened to decapitate you unless you renounced Jesus, you’d immediately squeal out “There is only one God and His name is Allah and Mohammed is His Prophet.”
September 11th, 2010 | 10:46 am | #49
“being an absolutist against burning babies is far superior to being an absolutist against book-burning.”
Wow. Takes a moral genius to figure that one out.
So then consider this tweet:
In America, it is safer to be a Koran than an unborn child.
September 11th, 2010 | 6:22 pm | #50
TUAD: One can still respect someone/something, and disagree with him/it. One recognizes that he/it has some merits, redeeming value, despite not being correct.
I certainly agree with you that abortion is a horrible, and if you’ve ever read my comments, regarding this subject, on other posts, i condemn it as the reprehensible act, that it is.
September 11th, 2010 | 6:45 pm | #51
dwl: Unfortunately, the views that you espouse, are making it increasingly difficult to understand, empathize, and engage in fruitful dialogue with the Islamic world.
It seems to be a wise heuristic, to assume that, if one finds NO redeeming value (and its opposite, that a view is perfect, in every way) that the truth has been overlooked. Such is the case here. The Islamic faith is part of the Abrahamic tradition. It sees itself as a continuation of the Judeochristian tradition. It bases this on its acceptance of the Torah, and New Testement. The Koran, is believed by Muslims to be the direct word of God. Hence their saddness when people show it disrespect.
Muhammah was a man, who, was immersed in a polytheistic tradition, and a culture that was turbulant and violent. His new religion can be seen as a way of maintaining monotheism, in a polytheistic environment, and other monotheists should be grateful for these muslim efforts.
You obviously are entitled to your views, dwl, but when it comes to your assertion that, the mainstream Islamic faith is no different than terrorist groups that claim to be the “real muslims”, is entirely without factual merit. This is an insult, to all of the good, decent, muslims, who are trying to just lives, and abhor the violence that the terrorists implement. It’s an insult to the leaders of the muslim world, who want to reconcile their teachings (no easy task for any religion, Christianity, as history has shown, has sruggled with this too) with the modern world.
September 11th, 2010 | 6:55 pm | #52
I apologize for my spelling, in the previous comments.
I would like to add that, obviously, Muslims and Christians are different, and those differences should be acknowledged. But there are remarkable similarities. And these similarities can be the basis for forming alliances, in the cultural sphere.
It’s indeed sad, that some want to see Islam as the “enemy”, when it adheres to many of the same values as Jews, and Christians. All three religions abhore abortion, and rants like dwl’s prevent fruitful alliances from forming on this front, and saving unborn lives.
September 11th, 2010 | 9:06 pm | #53
@ Jeremy Pierce
You say, “I would strongly hesitate to burn a baby, and that is entirely right, but if, for example, the entire fate of humanity rested on it in a case of an infection that would wipe out the entire planet, I’m not sure I could endorse the absolutism that says it’s always wrong.”
The problem with this view, for me, is take the same scenario but change it to the fact you would need to rape the infant to keep all of humanity from perishing. So, where do you draw the line and say well I’m not gonna to do that to a baby (or any person for that matter), even if the rest of humanity is at stake? IMO you draw the line arrived from Scripture and divine commands. Rape and killing (though I believe one can make an argument for just war and in cases of self-defense) will always be wrong. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing that would persuade me to rape an infant (or to even murder it humanely), even to save all of humanity. To deviate from this runs right to consequentialism and/or utilitarianism.
I believe one can make a good case for this Biblically. The concept of breaking commands or the will of God implies that one is sinning and once one commits a sin, he separates himself from God. Theologically speaking, Jesus would have suffered the same fate even if there was only one sin that was ever committed. Knowing this should make us reflect, and tell us that killing an infant, even to save humanity, is sin, and thus should be avoided.
September 11th, 2010 | 9:14 pm | #54
Mr. Lythgoe:
You stated some generalities. I attempted to correct those generalities with more detailed observations. I’ll let the reader decide if that’s a “rant”.
On “fruitful alliances”. The whole question is, would this particular alliance be “fruitful”. Where there are fundamental differences, one must decide if what might be gained justifies possible concessions.
Given the trajectory of Islam in relationship to Judaism and Christianity–past and present, starting in the Qur’an itself–I don’t think the modicum of common ground compensates for the very real risk that an Islam in the public square would push for ever increasing hegemony.
September 11th, 2010 | 9:43 pm | #55
“Where there are fundamental differences, one must decide if what might be gained justifies possible concessions.”
The truth of Christ crucified and risen is a huge difference. It leaves no room for any other god.
I still do have have un-Christian friends though I stand firmly on this truth.
I can have a lot more friends, if I allow this truth to be compromised.
September 11th, 2010 | 9:44 pm | #56
I have to put a modifier on my previous statement, “There is ABSOLUTELY nothing that would persuade me to rape an infant (or to even murder it humanely), even to save all of humanity.”
Technically, if God literally gave me a command to do such a thing, than that would be the moral obligation I would have to follow, to avoid sinning. Skeptics who are reading this are probably quick to say this calls into question the arbitrariness of God’s moral commands, but I believe divine command theory to be defensible (and is defended by philosophers) and it doesn’t succumb any euthyphro-ian type dilemma. I, however, don’t see God giving me a command to do such a thing, but if and only if he did such a thing would I then backtrack from my previous statement.
September 12th, 2010 | 6:33 pm | #57
dwl: The vast majority of muslims are peaceful. The do not accept terrorism in any fashion. In fact, many muslims themselves are the victims of terrorism, and therefore have every incentive to join us, in our fight against terrorism, unless, of course, we don’t welcome them.
Disrespectful comments, such as yours, dwl, make it that much harder for us to form alliances with muslims, not just in the cultural sphere (e.g., abortion) but also in the fight against terrorism.
September 13th, 2010 | 10:15 am | #58
Mr. Lythgoe
Now you are confusing process with substance. You made substantive claims about the Qur’an and Islam. I disputed those claims. Now you say I ought to “respect” Islam. But certainly we have learned that respect without honest clarifications of differences does not yield honest dialogue.
September 13th, 2010 | 10:42 pm | #59
As Mator wrote, “Bad judgment, perhaps. Wicked? Surely not.”
Seriously, Reynolds’ rhetoric seems far over the top. It is wicked to cheat on your wife, or embezzle money. But is it “wicked” to burn the Doctrine & Covenants of the LDS Church, or a copy of the Apocrypha? How about the Confederate Flag? The phrase simply does not apply.
September 13th, 2010 | 11:42 pm | #60
Joe,
I wouldn’t say that burning a Koran as such is worse than discarding any unwanted book. However, in the Terry Jones case, there is surely more going on. Put it this way: burning a matchstick would be wrong or at least blameworthy if my expectation in so doing was to incite violence and extremism–and this in order to feed such a bigoted and highly counterproductive stereotype about Islam.
September 14th, 2010 | 11:22 am | #61
Dwl: My hope here, is to be as respectful to you, as possible, but frankly, at least based on your first comments, you simply don’t really understand Islam, and I would suspect, that the more fimilar you become with it, the less contempt you’ll display.
Over one billion people believe in Islam. Certainly they can’t all be ignorant or stupid? You make an assertion, that the Koran is poorly written, and even imply that Muhammad may never have existed. Are you a scholar of Islam? Certainly most scholars, of Islam, whether they’re believers or not, don’t come to the harsh conclusions that you arrive at. Of course, logically, they could all be wrong, and you correct, but this seems unlikely.
September 14th, 2010 | 12:27 pm | #62
Bret Lythgoe: “you simply don’t really understand Islam, and I would suspect, that the more fimilar you become with it, the less contempt you’ll display.”
I think Dwl understands Islam sufficiently well.
“Over one billion people believe in Islam.”
So what.
“Certainly they can’t all be ignorant or stupid?”
Ignorant or stupid of what?
Do they know Jesus Christ as their risen Lord and Savior? Do they know John 14:6? John 3:16? If they do not know Jesus, and know that Jesus is the only Name, the only One who saves, then they are Hell-bound.
If you want to call that ignorant or stupid, that’s your choice.
“Of course, logically, they could all be wrong, and you correct, but this seems unlikely.”
Put me down on the side of the minority. I’ll take Dwl’s side. I say Dwl is correct.
September 14th, 2010 | 1:07 pm | #63
TUAD: my guess is you haven’t red the Koran, so you don’t really know what you’re disagreeing with. but this isn’t suprising, since, as long as I’ve interacted with you, I’ve never seen you espouse an argument for your positions.
September 14th, 2010 | 1:48 pm | #64
Bret Lythgoe: “I’ve never seen you espouse an argument for your positions.”
Yes, I have. Don’t be stupid. Don’t be a liar.
September 14th, 2010 | 2:27 pm | #65
TUAD: I haven’t seen one. I’ve only seen you attack those who you disagree with, and write offensive things.
September 14th, 2010 | 2:52 pm | #66
Assertion without evidence.
But then again, I need to remember that I’m engaging a liberal Catholic.
September 14th, 2010 | 4:28 pm | #67
Mr. Lythgoe:
I am a trained religion scholar. I worked with a Muslim scholar my first year of grad school. I teach comparative religion, including Islam, every semester. Obviously I am expected to be unbiased and objective in my teaching.
I have read the Qur’an through at least two times, and, and partially, more. I have made extensive notes on the content and structure of the Qur’an for my own teaching and study. I have read Hadith, and the Sirat Rasul Allah, and contemporary critical literature (Kalisch, Nevo, etc.). Obviously, that doesn’t prove I’m right, but am confident in my scholarly competence.
I have debated the content of the Qur’an with Muslims online, and, quite frankly, in spite of my lack of linguistic expertise, have found I can hold my own. This is because in large part that past Qur’anic interpretation is based on traditional commentaries. Any scholar experienced in reading religious literature can quickly find flaws and weaknesses in such interpretations.
One more thing: my passion on this issue is generated in part by the fact that for perhaps 15 years I taught the standard Muslim history. It was when reading the critical literature, and evaluating the (lack of) evidence, that I realized that much of this history is, to be blunt, false–based on religiously tendentious assumptions and unsupported by critical history.
I do not claim to know the “truth” about the origins of Islam. No one does, because the work has not been done. But I do know enough to be firmly convinced–as a scholarly judgment–that the Islamophilia of academia is unjustified by the evidence.
September 14th, 2010 | 4:58 pm | #68
Me: “Put me down on the side of the minority. I’ll take Dwl’s side. I say Dwl is correct.”
I think I picked a winner!
Of course, it wasn’t that hard. But still….
September 14th, 2010 | 5:43 pm | #69
dwl: Thanks for your response. I stand by my assessment. Islam is one of the three great monotheistic religions. I certainly hope that, when you teach your class, you’re more objective than the comments that you wrote, regarding the Koran, and Mohammad’s existence. his historical existence is beyond dispute. And, the koran’s place, on the list of great literature, will remain.
Obviously, as a Christian, I don’t believe in the truth of Islam. But I believe that it’s deserving of respect. You said that you make no distinction, between the radical terrorists, and mainstream Islam. This is demonstrably false. Do you teach this to your introductory religion students?
September 14th, 2010 | 5:53 pm | #70
dwl: You have every right to dislike Islam. But it’s disconcerting that your teaching religious courses, with the disrespectful view of Islam that you’ve manifested in these pages. It’s my hope that you keep your own views to yourself, when teaching impressionable students.
I’ll state this as respectfully as I can: merely reading the koran two times hardly qualifies you as a muslim scholar.
I would be more inclined to be more accepting of your position (even though i would clearly disagree), if it was not for your own profoundly disrespectful comments, that initiated by dialogue with you. To your credit, your subsequent comments have been more rational, but you have not, disavowed your claims, that, frankly, have no scholarly support.
What school do you teach at, and, what, precisely are your credentials?
September 14th, 2010 | 5:57 pm | #71
TUAD: Look, I try to keep my dialogue with ignorant and irrational people to a minimum, hence my rare responses lately to you. But the evidence, for your disrespect and offensiveness, is in your own comments.
September 14th, 2010 | 6:07 pm | #72
Bret Lythgoe,
You’re the winner of the worst regular commenter on Evangel.
September 14th, 2010 | 6:09 pm | #73
TUAD: Coming from you, that makes me very happy. It shows I’m doing something right.
September 14th, 2010 | 6:16 pm | #74
Bret Lythgoe to Dwl: “But it’s disconcerting that your teaching religious courses, with the disrespectful view of Islam that you’ve manifested in these pages.”
That’s respectful and inoffensive.
“It’s my hope that you keep your own views to yourself, when teaching impressionable students.”
That’s respectful and inoffensive.
“I’ll state this as respectfully as I can: merely reading the koran two times hardly qualifies you as a muslim scholar.”
Ooooh. That’s really respectful and inoffensive.
“I would be more inclined to be more accepting of your position (even though i would clearly disagree), if it was not for your own profoundly disrespectful comments, that initiated by [sic] dialogue with you.”
Truly respectful and inoffensive.
“To your credit, your subsequent comments have been more rational, but you have not, disavowed your claims, that, frankly, have no scholarly support.”
On a roll. That’s respectful and inoffensive.
““What school do you teach at, and, what, precisely are your credentials?”
Definitely respectful and inoffensive. Ladies and gentlemen, presenting the respectful and inoffensive Bret Lythgoe.
September 14th, 2010 | 6:31 pm | #75
TUAD: Those are called questions, and dialogue. you should try it sometime.
September 14th, 2010 | 6:48 pm | #76
“Those are called questions, and dialogue.”
Yes. I saw the respectful and inoffensive questions and dialogue you had for Dwl.
“you should try it sometime.”
A respectful and inoffensive suggestion.
September 14th, 2010 | 6:57 pm | #77
“Mohammad’s existence. his historical existence is beyond dispute. And, the koran’s place, on the list of great literature, will remain.” Bret
Did Mohammad write the Koran? And wasn’t he quite the demeanor of women, and he had family members murdered, and he married a 9 year old girl?
He was quite the ungodly ruler I have heard.
September 14th, 2010 | 6:59 pm | #78
TUAD: I understand why you don’t list your real name.
September 14th, 2010 | 7:03 pm | #79
TUAD: i would love to have a fruitful intelligent dialogue, with you, like I have with others, but for whatever reason, you don’t want to address the arguments.
September 15th, 2010 | 4:45 am | #80
[...] was not submitted by the author, but by another blogger who thought it should be included. Reading On Burning Books posted at Evangel, I can see why. As a incorrigible bibliophile the burning of books distresses me, [...]
September 15th, 2010 | 5:42 pm | #81
Mr. Lythgoe:
sorry for the delay, but Tuesday is a full day for me…
dwl: Thanks for your response. I stand by my assessment. Islam is one of the three great monotheistic religions.
Well, objectively, it is certainly a monotheistic religion; if by “great” you mean that it is one of three “major” or “predominant” religions, clearly I have no choice but to agree, seeing that Islam is the second largest religion in the world. But if “great” is a value judgment, how does one determine that?
I certainly hope that, when you teach your class, you’re more objective than the comments that you wrote, regarding the Koran, and Mohammad’s existence. his historical existence is beyond dispute.
(a) I think the odds are that there is some historical figure behind some of the surahs.
(b) Whether he was called “Muhammad” or not is indeterminable.
(c) Contemporary chronicles document an apparent leader of the Arabs called “Muhammad”, although we cannot determine whether he was the same person as (a). I suppose the simple probability is that the two are identical, however
(d) “Muhammad” seems to first emerge as an honorific, and not a name.
And, the koran’s place, on the list of great literature, will remain.
(a) A subjective evaluation on both of our parts, but I think I can back up my specific assessments by evidence; however (b)it is a shamanistic text in origin, and thus it is not clear if literary standards can even be applied. And I stand by my suspicion that if it were not the scriptures of a major world religion, then it would not merit a great deal of attention. Its primary literary value is as an example of a Judeo-Christian heresy among Semitic peoples in late antiquity.
Obviously, as a Christian, I don’t believe in the truth of Islam. But I believe that it’s deserving of respect. You said that you make no distinction, between the radical terrorists, and mainstream Islam. This is demonstrably false. Do you teach this to your introductory religion students?
I don’t know how one “knows” what you claim to know. Certainly there are Muslims who are non-terroristic, but my argument is that “mainstream Islam” is intrinsically rooted in the same beliefs and practices that impell “terrorism”. You may disagree with my judgment, but I don’t see how one can claim it is “demonstrably false”. Furthermore, we are comparing apples and oranges: you refer to Muslims, actually existing people in all their variety; I refer to Islam, an objective phenomenon of history and hermeneutics.
Why would it be wrong be for me to say what you claim I say? There are plenty of anti-Christian professors who attack, e.g., the “goodness” of the Christian tradition, the alleged responsibility of Christianity for the crusades, witch burning, etc., the existence and character of Jesus. If I were to present this argument as an objective analysis of the content of Islam, why would it be wrong? Professors state personal opinions all the time.
In any case, all I point out is that the theological doctrine of tawhid, unity/unification, means that there is no separation of religion and state. The student can figure out the rest.
You ask elsewhere for my credentials. I’ll say this much: I have a Ph.D. from a religion faculty that used to be known for its “zoo” theory of staffing: a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a couple of Christians, etc. I’m adjunct, so don’t have a single appointment. The rest you might be able to figure ought if you root around this site and follow some old leads.
September 16th, 2010 | 2:50 am | #82
dwl: thank you, for your respectful dialogue. No need to apologize, for the delay in writing, I understand being busy.
There’s no question that, the Islamic religion is capable of teaching and behaving peacefully, since we see it. Statistically, with one billion muslim believers, if all, or the majority of them were terrorists, certainly, the world would be much more dangerous than we can imagine! Obviously, this is not the case. Most muslims are peaceful, and the mainstream of Islam, teaches the necessity of interpreting the Islamic tradition, in a way, where terrorism has no place.
It’s suprising to read, from a religious scholar, that i’s legitimate to dispute the notion that there’s two distinctive groups, within Islam: those that believe that peace and accomidation, with other religions, is essential, and those that believe that violence, and terrorism, are proper ways of dealing with nonmuslims. The latter, clearly, and unfortunately exists, but constitutes the minority of muslims. The fact of this distinction, is essential to maintain, since, it’s true, and to deny it, is offensive to muslims, and counterproductive, in our attempts to engage in productive dialogue with our muslim friends, and develop alliances with them, AGAINST the terrorist components, that threaten our civilization.
I simply disagree with you, that mainstream Islam is “intrinsically rooted in the same beliefs and practices that impel terrorism”. If this was the case, we would see MUCH MORE terrorism, in the muslim world, than we do. And there would be no possibility of Islam finding compatibility with democratic republics, which clearly has occurred. Not as much as we would like, but I think that that will come with time.
This argument of yours, could be applied against Catholics, and in fact was, pre-vatican two, and still is, in some, shall we say, less evolved, quarters of the world. And, christianity, with its wars of religion, and crusades, could persuade some, who were living in the centuries when these violent practices took place, that christianity is incompatible with freedom. But we had those christians then, who argued for peace, and christianity made a great evolutionary leap, proving that christianity, IS compatable with democracy and peace. Islam can make that same transition. It already has, inthat most Islamic, mainstrem leaders renounce violence, which is more than what took place during the crusades, and look how far christianity came, in the following centuries!
Islam can be interpreted in a way that’s compatable with peace, and democracies.
As for teachers showing their, well, less than objective sides, that’s not acceptable, in my view, under any circumstances. The sad fact that teachers show their dislike of christianity, is no excuse for other teachers showing their dislike of Islam, or any other religion.
The fact that teachers “do this all the time”, is hardly a persuasive argument for its legitimacy. The job of a teacher is to TEACH, not conduct political conventions.
Thanks for your respectful dialogue, dwl. It’s a pleasure interacting with you.
September 16th, 2010 | 7:52 am | #83
Bret Lythgoe: “The Koran is a great book, deserving of respect, whether one agrees with its contents or not.”
Liberal Catholic Bret Lythgoe has support from CCC #841:
The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”
September 16th, 2010 | 8:24 am | #84
TUAD: That’s true. Anything else?
September 16th, 2010 | 11:27 am | #85
“TUAD: That’s true. Anything else?”
Glad to see that you acknowledge yourself to be a Liberal Catholic.
September 17th, 2010 | 2:20 am | #86
TUAD: I only acknowledged that your statement regarding interfaith dialogue, between Catholics and Muslims, was correct. Your assertion, that I’m a “liberal Catholic”, is, amusingly, your own inference.
September 17th, 2010 | 2:57 am | #87
TUAD: How, in your view, should we engage the muslim world?
September 17th, 2010 | 4:49 am | #88
Bret Lythgoe,
Do you deny that you’re a baptized, catechized member of the Roman Catholic Church?
September 17th, 2010 | 5:02 am | #89
TUAD: Why the obssession with my religious affiliation?
September 17th, 2010 | 5:28 am | #90
Bret Lythgoe, if you do not deny that you’re a baptized, catechized member of the Roman Catholic Church, then it’s reasonable to infer that you’re a Roman Catholic.
September 17th, 2010 | 5:32 am | #91
I’m rather puzzled, TUAD, why you CARE. Is there a reason? My particular religious affiliation, is my business.
September 17th, 2010 | 5:37 am | #92
It’s nice to make reasonable inferences.
And my inference is that you’re a baptized, catechized member of the Roman Catholic Church.
Do you deny this, Bret Lythgoe?
September 17th, 2010 | 5:50 am | #93
TUAD: My religious beliefs, are just that, mine. If I choose to share them, or not, is my business. But, I must cofess, to being entertained by your relentless pursuit of what my faith is.
September 17th, 2010 | 10:30 am | #94
Bret Lythgoe,
I assure you that I find your comments and behavior as a Liberal Catholic entertaining as well.
September 18th, 2010 | 2:09 am | #95
TUAD: Glad to hear it!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact