Conversation and Conversion

I commend President Obama for trying to reach out to the Muslim community. In some respects, Islam is facing a challenge not unlike that faced by Christianity during the Reformation era. In its early incarnation, Islam supported much intellectual discussion, especially in math, theology, arts and other fields. Ironically, it was the western crusades which, in large part, drove Islam into a more isolationist experience in regards to its contact with the west. This isolationist experience in southern Asia, and the mideast, allowed many historical currents to sweep by, leaving it untouched.

In Christianity, in contrast, the Reformation of the 16th century marked the culmination (or, if you are a follower of the Catholic Reformation), perhaps a low point, in Christian history. Even a cursory glance at Christian history of this time shows the ferment, controversy, discord, and even violence, that marked this period, a period which, conceivably still continues today.

We are looking at a Reformation of Islam today, as the religion is being forced, by communications, travel, etc., out of its historical comfort zone and into the 21st century. As Islamic countries deal with these upsets, with the problems of finding meaningful work to millions of educated young Muslims who cannot find jobs, at the disparity of income, etc, we should not expect that it will all go smoothly. Why are we surprised at the violence and upset that comes with it?

If the West wants to really make a difference, we will engage broadly in diplomacy and outreach to the Muslim world. We will understand that the vast majority of Muslims simply want what we want: The opportunity to live meaningful lives in peace. Yes, there is terrorism in fundamentalist Islam, but our reactions of the last 8 years may have driven some groups below the surface, but have not, in the main, accomplished much...at least not enough to justify the tens (or hundreds?) of thousands who have died on both sides.

I believe insistent engagement, encouragement, dialogue and contact on a human level is the best hope we have ultimately for a world at peace. It will not happen tomorrow, or next year, but it will happen. I think this is what our new President knows, too.

Here is a new link to the Barak Obama artilce in Conservapeida, below. (To get to conservapedia, the link has been changed to www.conservapedia.com/conservapedia ).

http://www.conservapedia.com/Barak_obama

They are gradually, gradually, gradually de-snarking the article. For example, they took out the picture of Obama smoking a cigarette. (I think Rush Limbaugh made them take it out, since he is a big smoker, and therefore smoking is not bad so bad, after all).

But obviously, by the looks of this site, and this article, conservatives really seem to hate Obama with a passion.

The link that I listed in my comment, above, was to the artilce on Barak Obama in Conservapedia. It is currently down. Conservapedia is evidently being flooded with hits to this article, and is either termporarily down, or has switched to a new website link/address.

ender2,

"A secularist is more likely to admit that every human has the right to worship any myth they choose as long as they do not try to force or coerce anyone else to worship their myth."

That is a good point and one I blew over before. But Mr. Reynolds "extreme secularists" ie atheists, will be far less prejudice than fundamentalists of any religious stripe.

What is Biola college and why does it have a raving Reichwing lunatic as an associate professor of Philosophy?
Is is because Christianity admits that Islam may be true the reason for the first Crusades, or the DickBushRummy Crusade of 2003?

What hogwash. A secularist is more likely to admit that every human has the right to worship any myth they choose as long as they do not try to force or coerce anyone else to worship their myth.

Christians and Muslims believe they have a duty to make sure all humans worship their myth. Jews just believe that they have chosen status and the right to take any property their priesthood says their myth has told them to take. And to make sure everyone that lived their before they took it is dead so arguments are down the road are avoided.
Thus we have 1700 yrs of religious wars.

"Extreme secularists cannot engage in real dialogue or a sympathetic study of religions like Islam, because they cannot admit the possibility that any religion could be true."

Err, ....no. Secularism is by definition, (outside radical churches that consider it a 'rival revealed religion') ...an attempt to organize political life and social power to be *neutral* toward *religious authority.*

It may be 'radical' in your little religious extremist world to think that 'mere' government of the people by the people, and for the people, should ever be even a *speedbump* to you commanding your will in the name of your view of 'God,' sir, but 'radical' secularism is ...from the root, about *moderation.* Not your 'culture war.'

" Any American approach to the Islamic world that refuses to talk about religion or treat it seriously is doomed to failure."

Says someone who's been talking infrom the standpoint of his own religion or none on the Internet *way* too long to be talking 'doomed to failure' with a straight face.

Never mind in support of Bush.

Now trying to liken Bush *to* Obama somehow.

Err, what?

" One can go to the Super Bowl and refuse to talk about the game, there will be quite a few people there just for the "event," but the majority will think, and are entitled to think, that they are missing the point. It would be even more foolish to go to many football games with ardent fans and never bother to learn a single thing about football."

It's also possible to watch the Superbowl without particularly caring who 'wins' and applauding athletic strivings and people having a good time, rather than standing around trying to prove by some other notions that what is happening, who 'will win,' 'is winning' or 'should have won' ...when the point is the endeavor.

Not to seem too 'namby pamby liberal'.... I was rooting for the Steelers. But, watching the game, it would have been OK if *either* team had one.

As long as it wasn't about refs sitting in judgement.

d

Beyond my better senses, (experience developed by reading Mr. Reynolds articles), I find myself looking quite favorably on this essay. There could be a fair amount to fault but comparatively there is more to appreciate and commend than negate. This is because the central idea here that Mr. Reynolds is forwarding is true and in it's pure form fair, balanced and essential for furthering benevolent relations between any parties at odds. They would greatly benefit relations between religions.

Jaded as I am with his convictions, I would not trust that Mr. Reynolds could walk this talk, communing with an open heart and mind toward Islam, because as a fundamentalist he judges Islam as a perversion, an abomination and Evil. Like a wolf in sheeps clothing he has ulterior motives. One clear one would be his statement of Conversation and Conversion. Essentially he wants eased relations so that he can convert the infidels to the "True Way". Another reason that he is dishonest, unfortunately.

All the same there is much to appreciate and commend about Mr. Reynolds offering. Muslim civilizations have contributed much to humanity and continue to, and islam as a religion has a lot to offer that christians would do well to heed and reinvest in. Mr. Reynolds brought up repeatedly charity to the needy as a foundational requirement of a practicing muslim, and this in not and should not be a religious trait but a compassionate one.

The "extreme secularists" that Mr. Reynolds points to as one form of prejudice against islam is valid. Extremism in any form is by nature exclusionary and elitist. It would have been more plain and honest if he had named the second form of prejudice for what it is. Extreme religionists. Fundamentalists. Mr. Reynolds people.

I am content that he went so far as to, effectively, recognize that his own convictions and those of similar loyalty are also the ones that cause deeper division in religions difference. Even if he repeatedly took the mantle of having the 'right' and 'true' religion.

Step by step we could come to common ground where we can respect and regard well all diversity as inherently valuable and valid. Even religious difference. That is a wonderful dream for a new milleneum.

roadrunner, gibberish.

Yeah, I know, I was gonna do some editing and I got a phone call, and somehow it got sent, then the dog ate my homework. So just read danielinthelionsden.

Or, for real intended gibberish, read this Reynolds thing, again.

Gawd, where does Sally Quinn find some of these people?

Yes, Sally Quinn. She seems to be the one most interested in this stuff. Meachum seems too busy a guy to keep his eye on this store, much.

Like that WASP-looking Pamela K. Taylor, writing about Muslims. What's that all about.

And that Jacoby, with all her anger.

Gawd, don't these people read their own stuff, and realize how pathetic they read, sound, look?

America, after Canada, is probably the happiest place on Earth. Yeah, Canada. You ever drink with a Canadian?

Social order, my dear Reynolds, thoughout the history of human social order, has come from the threat of the fist, the edge of a hatchet, the tip of arrows and spears, the sword, and the muzzle of guns -- also helped by the threat of what a god may do. That's it -- dialogue until you're sick to death.

Theologians and scholars exist, and practice their vocation, only because this is true.

Secularists exist

I think you are using the term "extreme secularist" as a synonym for "atheist." This is incorrect usage. Is this a mistake, or are you that ignorant? An atheist is a person who does not believe in god. The word "secular" refers to all aspects of life that are not religious.

What about that don't you understand?

Otherwise, your thoughts, as presented here, are opaque and more or less incomprehensible, to me, at least. I cannot, for the life of me, understand what you are saying. You say so little with so many words.

You philosophy and point of view is so off-kilter from my own way of thinking. In the previous essay, you were very anti-Obama, but now, you like him.

What's the deal?

I believe that you have a corrupted and confused vision of religion, of Christianity, of the world, of life, of what it is to be a human being.

"Extreme secularists cannot engage in real dialogue or a sympathetic study of religions like Islam, because they cannot admit the possibility that any religion could be true."

Not so. I'm an "extreme secularist". When I lived in Washington I had a friend who was a "street person".

Whenever we'd run into each other, my friend would explain to me at length how the Virgin Mary was behind evereything that happened, and particularly the major events of world history.

I confess I had doubts about his revelation, but I never challenged him, and we had many sympathetic and fruitful conversations about religion and the nature of the world.

This is what Conservative Born Again Christian Evangelicals think of Barak Obama and his attitude towards Islam:

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&usg=AFQjCNF4gJs1893qvIcSj8EjJkjqZ-RkLA