The Conversation
"Listen, there is nothing wrong with being wrong, or as some might say, having lost, or for that matter, losing an argument, or better still being a loser. I'm not saying you are a loser or trying to be petty. Those would be the traits of a loser and it's clear, I'm not a loser . On the other hand we can't say thats true of everyone. Some people are obviously losers and you know who you are."
"Thomas Jefferson in correspondence with John Adams"
After the election of 1800
"Thomas Jefferson in correspondence with John Adams"
After the election of 1800
A Conversation About The Ground Zero Mosque
This is an ongoing dialogue on issues of the times. It is what our friends email about when they think no one is watching! The following is an excerpt of an exchange regarding the “Ground Zero Mosque” from last August:
The Muse,
Here's an article that makes your points, and some of mine, and lands at a place we can both agree on, I suspect. I thought you might enjoy it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243899/tolerant-pose-andrew-c-mccarthy
Brother Memphis
----------
Brother,
A great article that I think makes my point. An unwillingness to look at the underlying ideology that informs all Muslim faith is not religious tolerance. The classic approach to a debate like this is to start by finding parallels within the opposing culture. The usual... “Have you read some of your own old testament with its murderous call to genocide”? Forgetting completely that its admonition is 3000 yrs. old, not a modern religious perspective, and that no Jew or Christian advocates or defends such behavior. Sharia is in a very vague way similar to the Mosaic Law, (with its use of honor killings for adulterers, homosexuals and disobedient children) written about 2000 yrs. after the Law of Moses. For some Islamists this reflects a contemporary world view and its desired outcome. By comparison, proselytizing was never a part of Israel's political or spiritual life. The Islamic world view is a combination of militant proselytizing and global military domination and is a part of its primary creed. All of this should be considered when attempting to determine what is reasonable (reason being the key word).
El Muso
----------
El Muso,
Well, what I took from the article, in addition to what you focused on, was Andy McCarthy's attempt to understand both sides of the issue and, in particular, his statement that no one seriously opposes the Muslim’s legal right to build a mosque/community center. We can all agree (you, Andy and I), and I think we do, that Islam is a seriously messed up religion, with both an extreme and middle wing that support, either fervently or tacitly, honor killings, conquest of all nations, etc. What I was trying to point out is that there is another, more Westernized, branch that recognizes the backward nature of these views. It is possible for religions to "tilt" in favor of one theological perspective or another. If we hold onto our constitutional principles, while remaining clear in our expectation that Muslims in this country must assimilate into the larger society, I believe it is reasonable to expect that a more moderate Islam will be dominant here and, with its success here, achieve a favored place in many areas of the Muslim world.
Call me a Pollyanna if you wish, but I believe we must apply our legal system equally to all or it simply becomes a tool of the majority to stomp on the minority--and we've had enough of that over the last 235 years.
As far as what Islam does that is despicable, I certainly agree with you and Andy McCarthy that we must stand against those despicable acts, and the theology behind them, in a resolute fashion. I just don't see this case as being in any way the product of such despicable behavior or ideas. I realize that you think the very idea of building a mosque/community center within such close proximity to Ground Zero is a despicable act, I simply don't agree.
As I said previously, if the Muslims who desire to build the mosque/community center agree to move to another location, we will have clear evidence, to my mind, that their intent was never to poke a finger in the eye of non-Muslim America. I rather suspect that they will agree to relocate and I will be proved right. However, it is also possible that, instead of agreeing to move, they will be influenced by the ACLU to make a stand for their right to locate where they planned. That would be ironic, since the ACLU has an overabundance of Jewish lawyers who would find themselves in the odd position of supporting presumed enemies of the Jewish state in their constitutional appeal.
It is a weird world that we live in!
As far as drawing parallels between Old Testament stories and the Muslim doctrines, I understand that there are some easy, if somewhat incautious, similarities. However, as you said last night, "Context matters." Context, in this instance, really matters because the Bible makes clear, in both the Old Testament and the New, that even the most heinous acts that God commanded the children of Israel to perform were acts of a) righteous judgment and, b) His eternal love. These ideas, at least part b, certainly run counter to the popular notion of God's love. However, they are entirely consistent with the Bible in general and do not cause me dismay.
The violent teachings of the Koran, on the other hand, concern me a great deal because of their emphasis on forced conversion to the faith. This violates the Biblical recognition of free will and is counter to the teachings of Almighty God, as delivered by everyone from the prophets to Jesus. Although they are unlikely to ever admit it, Jewish understanding of the Old Testament has been, in my opinion, greatly influenced by Christianity. Jews of today are far more liberal in their understanding of, and appreciation for, God's mercy and grace than were the Jews of Jesus' time. Perhaps it is the dominance of Christian thought over the last fifteen hundred years in Western society, or perhaps it is the separation from making sacrifices for the atonement of sin, but Jews appear to have become much more understanding of God's mercy now than in the past. I believe the same transition in theology could well occur in the larger Muslim community. However, they have a long, long way to go before that happens!
I guess, at the end of the day, I believe we should honor our Constitution even when dealing with the unlikable. If we do so, I think the unlikable are apt to change their perspective to a more likable one. In the meantime, we should extend appropriate courtesies and sleep with one eye open! Reagan had it right when he said, regarding the Soviet Union, "Trust, but verify." So it is now with the Muslim threat.
Thus endeth this epistle.
Brother Memphis
----------
Yo, Brother Memphis,
I believe it is a common misunderstanding and misreading of the Bible as a whole to suggest that all of these “thus Says the Lord” passages in the Old Testament really reflect the true nature of God. From Genesis forward you have an evolving understanding of the character of God from Abraham who lives in an idolatrous culture and doesn't know Gods name to a later understanding of God through the Law. You have a Bible filled with anthropomorphism's...talking snakes, trees and fruit as symbols of knowledge and life. God acts in anger as the result of expecting one thing and then finding another. (omniscience...not likely!) He demands sacrifice and bloodshed and then clearly states, “I never wanted the blood of bulls and goats or your other sacrifices. I wanted your obedience.” Read all of the Mosaic Law and tell me you really believe God sat down and told Moses write this down...don't poop in the camp, cause if God is passing by he is offended by the smell of poop. Or how about...if you have a nocturnal emission go bathe and stay outside of the camp even if you are at war (you’re gonna want to have good control since it could mean death for having a naughty dream). Even the biblical idea of Hades or Hell are largely derived from Egyptian and later Greco- Roman mythology and are evolving right thru the time of Christ who uses the same Greco- Roman mythology as a basis for his teaching.
Paul in Corinthians 13:11-13 states: “When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things. 12 Now we see things imperfectly as in a cloudy mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity.[c] All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely. 13 Three things will last forever—faith, hope, and love—and the greatest of these is love.”
This is the state of man, finite and ever reliant on the infinite vision of God to place a light at our feet illuminating our path which is hindered by the limitations of human nature.
The greatest example of the evolving vision of God's true nature is Jesus who is the very expression of the Father and makes him known. When Phillip asks Jesus towards the end of his ministry “... just show us the Father.” Jesus replies, “Don't you know by now Phillip when you see me you have seen the father”? You thought you knew what God was like, now you really Know.
Now the political... Andy McCarthy’s article clearly recognizes the necessity for a more complex understanding of the Muslim world view and the need to take that into account before passing Judgment. This is more than a debate about zoning laws or some abstract notion of freedom and fairness. It's about the real world consequence of ideas and what it is reasonable to infer from the facts as best they can be known, and from history. Think about it like this: Should we have to mirandize and provide legal assistance and the same rights to perceived enemy combatants as we do for citizens? This is in part the debate that the Obama administration and its Attorney General are having with the rest of the nation. Using the idea of freedom in a way that was never intended and for which there is no precedenct. We are at war with Islam—not radical Islam—since calling Islam radical would be redundant. Having said that, Muslims in America are among the wealthiest and most sucessful Muslims on earth. Even in Israel they have rights and a quality of life that is higher than the rest of the Islamic world. As far as appeasement or the appeal to reason, you only need to look at Israel to see that it doesn't work. Reason requires a foundation of shared ideas and beliefs. If you start with a flawed vision and an unwillingness to be objective, there can be no basis for commonality, only a continued move further away from the mark.
P.S. Since when did those helpless Muslims need the predominately Jewish ACLU to lead them astray. Wait a minute is this Brother Memphis or is it maybe.... Bro. Mohamed?
El Muso
----------
El Muso,
Actually, "Brother Mohammed and the Sheiks" or, perhaps, "Brother Mohammed and the Infidels" would be a great name for a band in any other era than the present. Even now, either would work for a band wishing to generate some controversy.
If you are asking me to agree that mankind's understanding of God's nature has evolved over time, I certainly won't argue. I believe Adam had a perfectly fine understanding of who God is, but that understanding got perverted and distorted down the line of human succession after the fall--although there are bright spots along the way. Note, for instance, David's understanding of God's nature. Also, Job got a very clear statement from God Almighty as to His nature in the last couple of chapters of that book.
If, on the other hand, you are asking me to agree that the Bible documents a changing vision of God's nature, I will disagree vehemently. While it is certainly true that any one verse, or even one Biblical event, could, I suppose, be taken out of context and create a misunderstanding of who God is, I believe the Bible as a whole, or even just the Old Testament as a whole, proffer a compelling and truthful description of God's nature. The mere fact that men misunderstood the Word doesn't mean that the Word contained an imperfect, or inadequate, description of God's nature. To the extent that any Earthly work can contain the truth of God, the Bible does so and is inspired by God Himself. I don't believe we are going to get to Heaven and find that God is apologizing for the imperfection of His Word. Rather, we are going to get there and finally understand (I hope) all of the parts we misunderstood or misinterpreted while stuck in this veil of tears.
Now to the political: Appeals to reason are not appeasement. It doesn't matter how many times Andy McCarthy or you say it, it still isn't true. Appeasement means, according to my Funk and Wagnall's, "1. The act of placating or pacifying. 2. The policy of making territorial or other concessions to potential aggressors in order to maintain peace."
Treating the applicants seeking to build the "Ground Zero Mosque" as any other citizens applying to go about their lawful business is NOT appeasement. It is merely standing on the rule of law and sets no precedent. What Attorney General Holder seeks to do with his idiotic decision to prosecute non-citizen terrorists in our courts is, on the other hand, setting all kinds of not-helpful precedents. The two things can, and should be, distinguished from one another.
I have no use for appeasement, in any form, of those terrorist murderers who have already, or plan in the future, to attack our land or our people. It bothers me not a whit to see them hunted down and killed. As a Christian, I pray for their salvation, but I also recognize that it is their choice as to whether they become murderous thugs and, if they choose to do so, they invite attacks from us and others as their just deserts.
I think that President Obama came into office foolishly believing that, by the simple brilliance of his words, he could cause the tyrants of the world to see his point of view and change their evil ways. This is one of the many reasons I didn't vote for him, he thinks like a child. However, it is evident that the grown ups in the military and the State Department have been working overtime in bringing him down from the clouds to recognize how things really are. If that were not true, I don't think he would have bothered with the surge in Afghanistan and I don't think he would be permitting covert ops in Africa. Clearly, he is having his eyes forcibly opened to the realities of a fallen world. (Given enough time, he might even learn to reject Socialism, but I don't think we can afford the time required for that transformation on his part!)
Aayan Hirsi Ali has a great artcle in today's Wall Street Journal making the point that what we are actually involved in is a "clash of civilizations." I don't disagree with this thought at all. She further makes the point that even once pro-western Islamic societies like Turkey are tilting backwards towards Wahabbist Islam now. However, her existence in the world makes my case that not all Muslim's are the same and we should seek to encourage a moderate and peaceful Islam as an alternative to the death cult of Wahhabism.
Ms. Ali's story points to the manner, the sometimes tragic manner, in which people have their world view changed. So it can be with others who wish to enjoy the benefits of our society. In fact, that is the bargain that must be struck with all immigrants. We welcome you as long as you adopt our ways. It is entirely possible to be a moderate Muslim while also being an upstanding, peaceful, law-abiding American citizen and we must encourage that kind of assimilation by supporting an equitable application of the law. After all, a deal's a deal!
I could go on, but this is getting long and I'm sure that I've already convinced you of the soundness of my ideas a couple of paragraphs ago. You can respond and apologize, of course, for having disagreed with me, but it isn't necessary. I remain serenely confident as to the correctness of my ideas, both religious and political!
Brother Mo and the Virgins
----------
Brother Mo,
We will talk more at a later time. In the meantime, I have to run some errands. Keep your sword sharp—you’re going to need it!
El Muso
The Muse,
Here's an article that makes your points, and some of mine, and lands at a place we can both agree on, I suspect. I thought you might enjoy it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243899/tolerant-pose-andrew-c-mccarthy
Brother Memphis
----------
Brother,
A great article that I think makes my point. An unwillingness to look at the underlying ideology that informs all Muslim faith is not religious tolerance. The classic approach to a debate like this is to start by finding parallels within the opposing culture. The usual... “Have you read some of your own old testament with its murderous call to genocide”? Forgetting completely that its admonition is 3000 yrs. old, not a modern religious perspective, and that no Jew or Christian advocates or defends such behavior. Sharia is in a very vague way similar to the Mosaic Law, (with its use of honor killings for adulterers, homosexuals and disobedient children) written about 2000 yrs. after the Law of Moses. For some Islamists this reflects a contemporary world view and its desired outcome. By comparison, proselytizing was never a part of Israel's political or spiritual life. The Islamic world view is a combination of militant proselytizing and global military domination and is a part of its primary creed. All of this should be considered when attempting to determine what is reasonable (reason being the key word).
El Muso
----------
El Muso,
Well, what I took from the article, in addition to what you focused on, was Andy McCarthy's attempt to understand both sides of the issue and, in particular, his statement that no one seriously opposes the Muslim’s legal right to build a mosque/community center. We can all agree (you, Andy and I), and I think we do, that Islam is a seriously messed up religion, with both an extreme and middle wing that support, either fervently or tacitly, honor killings, conquest of all nations, etc. What I was trying to point out is that there is another, more Westernized, branch that recognizes the backward nature of these views. It is possible for religions to "tilt" in favor of one theological perspective or another. If we hold onto our constitutional principles, while remaining clear in our expectation that Muslims in this country must assimilate into the larger society, I believe it is reasonable to expect that a more moderate Islam will be dominant here and, with its success here, achieve a favored place in many areas of the Muslim world.
Call me a Pollyanna if you wish, but I believe we must apply our legal system equally to all or it simply becomes a tool of the majority to stomp on the minority--and we've had enough of that over the last 235 years.
As far as what Islam does that is despicable, I certainly agree with you and Andy McCarthy that we must stand against those despicable acts, and the theology behind them, in a resolute fashion. I just don't see this case as being in any way the product of such despicable behavior or ideas. I realize that you think the very idea of building a mosque/community center within such close proximity to Ground Zero is a despicable act, I simply don't agree.
As I said previously, if the Muslims who desire to build the mosque/community center agree to move to another location, we will have clear evidence, to my mind, that their intent was never to poke a finger in the eye of non-Muslim America. I rather suspect that they will agree to relocate and I will be proved right. However, it is also possible that, instead of agreeing to move, they will be influenced by the ACLU to make a stand for their right to locate where they planned. That would be ironic, since the ACLU has an overabundance of Jewish lawyers who would find themselves in the odd position of supporting presumed enemies of the Jewish state in their constitutional appeal.
It is a weird world that we live in!
As far as drawing parallels between Old Testament stories and the Muslim doctrines, I understand that there are some easy, if somewhat incautious, similarities. However, as you said last night, "Context matters." Context, in this instance, really matters because the Bible makes clear, in both the Old Testament and the New, that even the most heinous acts that God commanded the children of Israel to perform were acts of a) righteous judgment and, b) His eternal love. These ideas, at least part b, certainly run counter to the popular notion of God's love. However, they are entirely consistent with the Bible in general and do not cause me dismay.
The violent teachings of the Koran, on the other hand, concern me a great deal because of their emphasis on forced conversion to the faith. This violates the Biblical recognition of free will and is counter to the teachings of Almighty God, as delivered by everyone from the prophets to Jesus. Although they are unlikely to ever admit it, Jewish understanding of the Old Testament has been, in my opinion, greatly influenced by Christianity. Jews of today are far more liberal in their understanding of, and appreciation for, God's mercy and grace than were the Jews of Jesus' time. Perhaps it is the dominance of Christian thought over the last fifteen hundred years in Western society, or perhaps it is the separation from making sacrifices for the atonement of sin, but Jews appear to have become much more understanding of God's mercy now than in the past. I believe the same transition in theology could well occur in the larger Muslim community. However, they have a long, long way to go before that happens!
I guess, at the end of the day, I believe we should honor our Constitution even when dealing with the unlikable. If we do so, I think the unlikable are apt to change their perspective to a more likable one. In the meantime, we should extend appropriate courtesies and sleep with one eye open! Reagan had it right when he said, regarding the Soviet Union, "Trust, but verify." So it is now with the Muslim threat.
Thus endeth this epistle.
Brother Memphis
----------
Yo, Brother Memphis,
I believe it is a common misunderstanding and misreading of the Bible as a whole to suggest that all of these “thus Says the Lord” passages in the Old Testament really reflect the true nature of God. From Genesis forward you have an evolving understanding of the character of God from Abraham who lives in an idolatrous culture and doesn't know Gods name to a later understanding of God through the Law. You have a Bible filled with anthropomorphism's...talking snakes, trees and fruit as symbols of knowledge and life. God acts in anger as the result of expecting one thing and then finding another. (omniscience...not likely!) He demands sacrifice and bloodshed and then clearly states, “I never wanted the blood of bulls and goats or your other sacrifices. I wanted your obedience.” Read all of the Mosaic Law and tell me you really believe God sat down and told Moses write this down...don't poop in the camp, cause if God is passing by he is offended by the smell of poop. Or how about...if you have a nocturnal emission go bathe and stay outside of the camp even if you are at war (you’re gonna want to have good control since it could mean death for having a naughty dream). Even the biblical idea of Hades or Hell are largely derived from Egyptian and later Greco- Roman mythology and are evolving right thru the time of Christ who uses the same Greco- Roman mythology as a basis for his teaching.
Paul in Corinthians 13:11-13 states: “When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things. 12 Now we see things imperfectly as in a cloudy mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity.[c] All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely. 13 Three things will last forever—faith, hope, and love—and the greatest of these is love.”
This is the state of man, finite and ever reliant on the infinite vision of God to place a light at our feet illuminating our path which is hindered by the limitations of human nature.
The greatest example of the evolving vision of God's true nature is Jesus who is the very expression of the Father and makes him known. When Phillip asks Jesus towards the end of his ministry “... just show us the Father.” Jesus replies, “Don't you know by now Phillip when you see me you have seen the father”? You thought you knew what God was like, now you really Know.
Now the political... Andy McCarthy’s article clearly recognizes the necessity for a more complex understanding of the Muslim world view and the need to take that into account before passing Judgment. This is more than a debate about zoning laws or some abstract notion of freedom and fairness. It's about the real world consequence of ideas and what it is reasonable to infer from the facts as best they can be known, and from history. Think about it like this: Should we have to mirandize and provide legal assistance and the same rights to perceived enemy combatants as we do for citizens? This is in part the debate that the Obama administration and its Attorney General are having with the rest of the nation. Using the idea of freedom in a way that was never intended and for which there is no precedenct. We are at war with Islam—not radical Islam—since calling Islam radical would be redundant. Having said that, Muslims in America are among the wealthiest and most sucessful Muslims on earth. Even in Israel they have rights and a quality of life that is higher than the rest of the Islamic world. As far as appeasement or the appeal to reason, you only need to look at Israel to see that it doesn't work. Reason requires a foundation of shared ideas and beliefs. If you start with a flawed vision and an unwillingness to be objective, there can be no basis for commonality, only a continued move further away from the mark.
P.S. Since when did those helpless Muslims need the predominately Jewish ACLU to lead them astray. Wait a minute is this Brother Memphis or is it maybe.... Bro. Mohamed?
El Muso
----------
El Muso,
Actually, "Brother Mohammed and the Sheiks" or, perhaps, "Brother Mohammed and the Infidels" would be a great name for a band in any other era than the present. Even now, either would work for a band wishing to generate some controversy.
If you are asking me to agree that mankind's understanding of God's nature has evolved over time, I certainly won't argue. I believe Adam had a perfectly fine understanding of who God is, but that understanding got perverted and distorted down the line of human succession after the fall--although there are bright spots along the way. Note, for instance, David's understanding of God's nature. Also, Job got a very clear statement from God Almighty as to His nature in the last couple of chapters of that book.
If, on the other hand, you are asking me to agree that the Bible documents a changing vision of God's nature, I will disagree vehemently. While it is certainly true that any one verse, or even one Biblical event, could, I suppose, be taken out of context and create a misunderstanding of who God is, I believe the Bible as a whole, or even just the Old Testament as a whole, proffer a compelling and truthful description of God's nature. The mere fact that men misunderstood the Word doesn't mean that the Word contained an imperfect, or inadequate, description of God's nature. To the extent that any Earthly work can contain the truth of God, the Bible does so and is inspired by God Himself. I don't believe we are going to get to Heaven and find that God is apologizing for the imperfection of His Word. Rather, we are going to get there and finally understand (I hope) all of the parts we misunderstood or misinterpreted while stuck in this veil of tears.
Now to the political: Appeals to reason are not appeasement. It doesn't matter how many times Andy McCarthy or you say it, it still isn't true. Appeasement means, according to my Funk and Wagnall's, "1. The act of placating or pacifying. 2. The policy of making territorial or other concessions to potential aggressors in order to maintain peace."
Treating the applicants seeking to build the "Ground Zero Mosque" as any other citizens applying to go about their lawful business is NOT appeasement. It is merely standing on the rule of law and sets no precedent. What Attorney General Holder seeks to do with his idiotic decision to prosecute non-citizen terrorists in our courts is, on the other hand, setting all kinds of not-helpful precedents. The two things can, and should be, distinguished from one another.
I have no use for appeasement, in any form, of those terrorist murderers who have already, or plan in the future, to attack our land or our people. It bothers me not a whit to see them hunted down and killed. As a Christian, I pray for their salvation, but I also recognize that it is their choice as to whether they become murderous thugs and, if they choose to do so, they invite attacks from us and others as their just deserts.
I think that President Obama came into office foolishly believing that, by the simple brilliance of his words, he could cause the tyrants of the world to see his point of view and change their evil ways. This is one of the many reasons I didn't vote for him, he thinks like a child. However, it is evident that the grown ups in the military and the State Department have been working overtime in bringing him down from the clouds to recognize how things really are. If that were not true, I don't think he would have bothered with the surge in Afghanistan and I don't think he would be permitting covert ops in Africa. Clearly, he is having his eyes forcibly opened to the realities of a fallen world. (Given enough time, he might even learn to reject Socialism, but I don't think we can afford the time required for that transformation on his part!)
Aayan Hirsi Ali has a great artcle in today's Wall Street Journal making the point that what we are actually involved in is a "clash of civilizations." I don't disagree with this thought at all. She further makes the point that even once pro-western Islamic societies like Turkey are tilting backwards towards Wahabbist Islam now. However, her existence in the world makes my case that not all Muslim's are the same and we should seek to encourage a moderate and peaceful Islam as an alternative to the death cult of Wahhabism.
Ms. Ali's story points to the manner, the sometimes tragic manner, in which people have their world view changed. So it can be with others who wish to enjoy the benefits of our society. In fact, that is the bargain that must be struck with all immigrants. We welcome you as long as you adopt our ways. It is entirely possible to be a moderate Muslim while also being an upstanding, peaceful, law-abiding American citizen and we must encourage that kind of assimilation by supporting an equitable application of the law. After all, a deal's a deal!
I could go on, but this is getting long and I'm sure that I've already convinced you of the soundness of my ideas a couple of paragraphs ago. You can respond and apologize, of course, for having disagreed with me, but it isn't necessary. I remain serenely confident as to the correctness of my ideas, both religious and political!
Brother Mo and the Virgins
----------
Brother Mo,
We will talk more at a later time. In the meantime, I have to run some errands. Keep your sword sharp—you’re going to need it!
El Muso