Destructive Questions Invite Destructive Answers

subschool gayal hellweed prototrochal zibet twigger globelet monopsony
http://nzbirds.com/Turnstone.html >Turnstone (Arenaria interpres)
http://www.ane.com.au

i have never seen bishop sprong mke a bad point yet.

Dear Mr. Spong,

Similar to Desmond Tutu's response to the question, you side-step answering the question by using the counter-example of the ugly acts in the history of Christianity. However, not talking about the pink elephant in the room will not make it go away.

Viejata

A very sensible post, the voice of reason and clear sightedness.

Though I am an ex-Christian, it is Christians like you whom I admire.

As a former Muslim I have no hesitation is stating that Islam is a violent faith founded by a violent man, Muhammad. To deny that Muhammad was a violent man and that he founded a violent cult is to deny the truth. One merely has to review Muslim books, books accepted by Muslims as authentic to understand Muhammad's violent nature. His orders to murder an innocent and unarmed poetess, Asma bint Marwan whose only crime was to criticise the Meccans for having accommodated Muhammad are proof of his ruthlessness. There is no denying that Christians have been just as violent but one cannot accuse Jesus of having been a violent man who killed and advocated killing. By the way I am not a Christian and never will be.

Although I am Catholic, I'd like to defend Norrie's criticism of (1) an out-of-control authority like my own Catholic hierarchy and (2) smug majority like the people who keep insisting the U.S. must be a "Christian" theocracy. (Both also in evidence within the Bush administration.)

Maybe Norrie overstates his case, but others of us may be guilty of laziness in turning too much of our decision-making power over to The Man. If individual Christians would stop being lazy and babyish in our faith, maybe we could take it back from the politicians.

Mavaddat,

Pleased t meet you here again.

I hope that you read my response to you under another ON FAITH forum where I told you about my experience living the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

Coming back to the very relevant distinction you are making here between the tenets of the Faith and the pratice of the Faith by its adherents, a distinction that is congruent with the ideas expounded by Mr. Eboo Patel, are you arguing that in general Muslims ar violent, but the teachings of the religion are peaceful?

If so, are you not using a biased sample to draw your conclusions and making your accusations?

I have lived (for at least one year at a stretch) in at least three overwhelmingly Muslim-majority countries: Tunisia, Senegal and Iran. Every observer will tell you that the people of Tunisai and Senegal are very peaceful, very hospitable to visitors from all countries and pledging faith to all creeds. I lived in Iran during the year of the Revolution, 1978/79, and I found Iranians wonderfully peaceful and welcoming people, including those on coastal villages along the Caspian sea.

After the Jaleh Square massacre, women whose fathers, husbands, brothers, son had been killed in large numbers at gunpoint, partly with encouragement delivered to the Shah by the CIA, organised themselves to demonstrate and protest. They put flowers in the barrels of the guns of the soldiers who had killed their loved ones, reminding them that the fallen had been the soldiers' cousins, schoolmates, etc.

Then, they organised themselves to defy the Shah's total blackout of all cities and towns all over Iran by climbing on their rooftops every night and cahnting Allahu-Akbar.

That was how the Revolution was won.

Is that the characteristic of a violent people?people

Christian Violence

Norrie, in your accurate list
you LEAVE OUT
the most important war.

In the early days, Bush slipped and let the truth of his unconscious out: the Iraq War is a CRUSADE.

It is a Christian nation, led by the most explicitly Christian President in its history

that has killed 400,000 muslims in the war.

YES, I know, Bush does not OFFICIALLY represent the Christian Church. But his moral justification
(remember his Higher Father)
through his ostentatious reliance on prayer
and allegiance to Jesuus as his favorite political philosopher

leaves no doubt in the Muslim nations that a Christian Nation is killing their brothers and sisters.

This DOES NOT absolve Violent Muslimsm - the Shia and Sunnis who are killing each other.

But to say all the violence is Muslim is obscene.

Rev. Dr. Willis E. Elliott,

"To imagine 'Christianity' instead of 'Islam' in the question would be irrelvant to the world-situation we all face: our world is threatened not by Christian violence but by Islamic violence."

Our world today is not threatened by Christian life-and-death macro-violence, though that was the case for well over a thousand years.

The threat today is from Christian "micro-violence": Christian intolerance of non-Christians, and of minorities such as atheists, agnostics, and gay people, and Christian attempts to deprive such people of their natural, God-given rights through the forces of law and politics.

And, of course, there is still the threat against young people of the hierarchically-excused sexual violence of Christian clerics.

Spong's response itself seems "designed to elicit hostility" to those who asked the question! To imagine "Christianity" instead of "Islam" in the question would be irrelvant to the world-situation we all face: our world is threatened not by Christian violence but by Islamic violence.

An unrelated question, just out of curiosity, to anyone who can answer it (especially muslims, since I think you MAY be able to answer it):

Why are non-muslims not permitted to enter the holy cities of Mecca and Medina?

Ba'al and David R

Venting is fear, rage, anger and frustration being let out after all. What Norrie Hoyt calls the "road rage" in these threads.

I read in these threads some posters' vents on Islam and Muslims that mirrors some Muslims' vents re the west/US in Muslim sites and blogs.

For Muslims venting, it is not so much on religion as on western policies towards their nations with Jewish consipracies thrown by some re 9/11 and possible attack on Iran among others.

Paranoia is somewhat high, especially in the Arabic language blogs and sites for obvious reasons. But for westerners and/or non-Muslim venting, it all comes down to Islam.

And yes, scary stuff indeed, spouted by the firebreathing and fire and brimstone types from both sides, whether on religion or politics.

On Faith threads are reality checks. There will always be religious, political, ethnic, cultural and nationalistic chauvinists asserting their truths above all, their people above all, their culture and heritage above all, their nation above all and venting against the other.

I agree with David R that nothing should be censored here. Let the thinking and perceptions comes devoid of academic reasonings and theories, or well-meaning think tank/conference/seminar/workshop presentations. These posts are to be scrutinized as to why we think and perceive the way we do.

And I myself feel like venting right now on delayed flights. One of the pilots got sick and a replacement is coming, coming, coming for the last two hours.

Jihadist - To some extent. I think, given Islam's recent exposure, people have become perhaps more polarized in their reactions to it - extreme apologetics or extreme accusations. As a few people have pointed out, all this essentialism about what's the "True" form of the religion is silly to begin with.

Ba'al - I don't think the fact that they've vented is a good reason in itself to not ask the question, though. Better to drag stupid thinking out into the light of day and scrutinize it than to censor any related questions and pretend it's not there.

(John - Thanks!)

Jihadist

Based on what I have seen in other threads, the question has given the mouth breathers a chance to vent. Very scary stuff.

John Connelley and David R

If the question was posed as to why Christians or Christianity are so violent, it would get the same response, no?

David R:

"Many people have become convinced that Islam is a religion of unparalleled violence, and I can't see why so many here have taken such umbrage at Quinn and Meacham exposing that conclusion to direct questioning."

Well said.

I figure religions are great enablers. They sometimes enable good. They sometimes enable evil. Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to see them as enabling violence (or sometimes peace) than to think of them as violent or peaceful.

"Suppose the question were posed: “Do you think Christianity is a violent religion?” Would not Christians think that was an inappropriate invitation to express religious hostility?"

I should hope Christians would think it was an appropriate invitation to answer "No" and explain why, just as this gives a great opportunity to answer "No" and explain about Islam. Many people have become convinced that Islam is a religion of unparalleled violence, and I can't see why so many here have taken such umbrage at Quinn and Meacham exposing that conclusion to direct questioning. I assume, if the very thought of Islam being violent is so offensive, that it should be easy to persuasively make the case that it is not.

E Favorite and Ba'al

I think it is all right for the question to be raised by Meacham and Quinn.

We all want to know and understand why we use and coop religion and religious language to rationalize war and justify violence, from President Bush to Osama.

I would go so far as to say that the way the question is framed, and its timing, is a form of journalistic prostitution. Meacham and Quinn may think they are generating "useful debate" or "spirtual understanding". Really they are being as sensational as they possibly can in the context of their forum.

To Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham - please consider taking Mr Mark's advice. The forum is already quite popular. You don't need this inflammatory question to build participation.

Also, you might consider hiring Mr. Mark as a consultant.

Thank you, Bishop Spong.

As I posted elsewhere on this question:

The timing of this question - just days after a mass killing and a DAY after hundreds of civilians were murdered in Iraq - has me fuming at the utter insensitivity and - I'll say it if no one else will - blatant STUPIDITY of Mr Meecham & Ms Quinn. It is the blogging equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre; it is a WILLFUL and PREMEDITATED effort to inflame passions at a time that the country and the world are grieving the senseless deaths of innocents.

Surely, in a week when violence has dominated our headlines and worn raw our national psyche, the people who run this site can do better than to equate violence with a specific religion by posing a question that not only does disservice to the WP, but a question that demeans both columnists and bloggers of On Faith by dragging us through the intolerant mud of this mind-boggling "question." This is guilt by association, inartfully delivered as a bludgeon wrapped in the silk glove of polite discussion.

Shame on you, Mr Meecham and Ms Quinn. I am in total shock at your insensitivity and bigotry. You owe us all an apology, and you should withdraw this racist and bigotted question immediately.

As one of the more-vocal atheists on this board, I feel that I must rise to the defense not only of Islam but any religion - in fact, any group of people - to protest this ill-timed and overtly biased question.

Again, shame on you, Mr Meecham & Ms Quinn.

The important question is not "Is Islam a violent religion?" but rather, "Do Muslims tend to practise their beliefs in violent ways, and why?"

The former invites discussions about the "true" Islam versus the man made Islam, whereas the latter looks at the real problem, which is how actual Muslims practise their faith tradition.

You can only go so far in whitewashing a government or religion by saying that within it are many non-violent individuals.

You object to the suggestion that "Islam is a violent religion."

Would you object to the suggestion that "Hitler's regime was a violent regime"?

Right on Mr. Spong!

My thoughts exactly. Several of the recent questions on this forum seem designed to be as provocative as possible.