Christopher Hitchens asks what we are afraid of:
Why, then, should we be commanded to "respect" those who insist that they alone know something that is both unknowable and unfalsifiable? Something, furthermore, that can turn in an instant into a license for murder and rape? As one who has occasionally challenged Islamic propaganda in public and been told that I have thereby "insulted 1.5 billion Muslims," I can say what I suspect—which is that there is an unmistakable note of menace behind that claim. No, I do not think for a moment that Mohammed took a "night journey" to Jerusalem on a winged horse. And I do not care if 10 billion people intone the contrary. Nor should I have to. But the plain fact is that the believable threat of violence undergirds the Muslim demand for "respect."
Mr. Hitchens is, of course, a non-believer in any religion - in this same article he takes a dig at Christianity and Judaism, too. And anyone can see his point - why should we respect a religion which has an underlying threat of violence behind its insistence upon respect?
Primarily, vis a vis Moslems, our duty is to respect them as people - regardless of what I believe about their religion, these are still my brothers and sisters and I should treat them at least as well as I hope to be treated in turn. So, we start - in my view - from a point of respect: it is automatic. But how far is this repsect to go? As at least some Moslems have it, we're not even supposed to look cross-eyed at a copy of the Koran - this from people who had no problem with desecrating Christian churches in the West Bank a couple years back. Essentially, the respect the Moslems demand is the respect an overbearing conqueror demands of the conquered - that of a fawning slave to his new master. Not only is this not a level of respect due to Islam, it is indeed our moral duty to resist the demand for such respect - in other words, when a Moslem says that the mere presence of a Christian in Mecca would be an insult to Islam, them's fightin' words.
Hitchens is wrong to write some of the things he writes about Islam. I could spend days poking holes in Islamic theology, just as I could cook up a whole string of insults to Islam as a means of paying them out for calling Jesus, the Son of the Living God (in the view of Christians), a mere prophet, and a lower prophet than Mohammad. But poking holes in Islamic theology won't get me anywhere, and I'm commanded to not seek revenge. If God is offended by the actions of Moslems, He will know how to deal with them right properly. We are not to seek opportuniities to wound feelings and generate anger - but we are also not to become spineless in the face of attack - and we have been entirely too spineless, at times, when confronting Islam...and especially those most radical elements in it which are the primary problem in the world today (sorry, Al, but an Islamist with a nuke still trumps global warming in my "list o'worries").
When Moslems demand things such as separate bathing times for men and women at municipal pools or that Moslem women be permitted to cover their face for their driver's license picture, we are being directly and gratuitiously insulted - we are being told by such Moslems that we non-Moslems are unfit to be around them on a regular basis and that we must separate ourselves from the Moslems and have a care to never pollute them with our foul presence. Insult must not be met with insult, but when such demands are made - demands entirely outside our way of doing business - we must politely but firmly tell them, "no"; no matter how much they claim we have thereby insulted Islam. Good relations are a great boon - but they cannot be purchased at the price of our grovelling. Here in our Judeo-Christian, pluralistic, western civilization, we do things the way we do them - and while we welcome outsiders to come and visit and, indeed, stay if they wish, we must not and cannot bend ourselves to suit the needs of outsiders and newcomers - they must bend to meet us, or go home with our best wishes for their future happiness.
In the end, we must never seek to offend, but in the defense of our civilization - a thing precious to all of us here, right and left - we must dare to offend, if the only way to defend ourselves is to cause some outsiders to be offended.
Posted by Mark Noonan at July 31, 2007 09:36 AM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
People who get offended are funny...
Anyways, Sam Harris makes an interesting point about religion in general in his book The End of Faith.
I don't remember the quite exactly, but the gist of it was that if you told someone that their significant other was cheating on them, or that the founding fathers were black, that person would demand that you would provide evidence for your claims. However, if you were to tell them that your lord and savior was the son of god, was crucified, and then came back to life and ascended bodily into heaven, then he would take you at your word. Simply put, we don't demand evidence for religious belief in the same way that we demand evidence for other beliefs.
There is a difference between questioning the merits of a faith, which offends people, and saying that all members of a faith are evil or some other insult, which is also offensive. The former leads to one being offended because what they hold to be sacrosanct is being challenged and they might not know how to defend it; the latter is an insult that is not useful in any way.
Don't get offended if someone questions the merits of a belief system; debate them based on evidence or experience. If you can't, then you might need to rethink a few things.
Posted by:
Rana Quijotesca at July 31, 2007 10:12 AM
Mark,
This is one area I agree with you. Respect needs to go both ways. I wouldn't expect a public pool in Saudia Arabia to be open to both my wife and I at the same time, why should Moslems expect different times for men and women in our public pools. Frankly, if you aren't willing to respect the customs of the people of another country, you shouldn't go there.
As for Mecca, I have no desire to ever visit the city. There are way to many places in the world I would find more interesting. As far as I'm concerned, they can keep it.
It's not disrespecting someone to ask them to follow your rules while in your country.
Posted by: Casper at July 31, 2007 10:19 AM
pollute them with our foul presence. Insult must not be met with insult, but when such demands are made - demands entirely outside our way of doing business - we must politely but firmly tell them, "no"; no matter how much they claim we have thereby insulted Islam.
So when Muslims ask to go "outside our way of doing business" due to their deeply held religious beliefs, the only answer to give them is a polite but firm "no." But when a Christian pharmacist declines to do his or her job, preferring to overrule a doctor and not dispense the prescription, then we must allow them to go "outside our way of doing business" and must never, ever cross their deeply held religious beliefs. And this is not hypocrisy...how, exactly?
Posted by: Tractatus at July 31, 2007 11:06 AM
on the issue of religion - hitchens is my hero. loved his latest book.
Posted by: conscriptor at July 31, 2007 11:31 AM
Mark: LAN ASTASLEM. I will NOT Submit.
Posted by: Macker at July 31, 2007 12:16 PM
I agree 100%, you're absolutely right, Mark!!
Now, what about this, and I don't necessarily say this to offend anyone, but! - Is it not, or should it not, be an offense, or assault on our American Tradition to be sworn in on the Quran?
Personally, I think it is, How 'bout you?
Should'nt we change this, and stick to our American Tradition?
Again, not trying to be sarcastic or anything, Just wondering!
Jeremiah
Posted by: Jeremiah at July 31, 2007 12:39 PM
J-
I personally think that people should swear in on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, since it is those documents that elected officials are supposed to uphold, not the bible. However, if people want to swear in on a "holy" book, then I think that they should swear in on the book that they revere and find holy. A Muslim swearing in on the bible would just be an empty gesture.
Posted by:
Rana Quijotesca at July 31, 2007 12:52 PM
hitchins maintains that religion is the greatest cause of war...implying that w/o religion war would be greatly reduced.
perhaps, but control of water is another whether for transport, comsumption, or agriculture.
sooo, w/o water war would therefore be greatly .. ahhh, well...never mind.
Posted by: OhioOrrin at July 31, 2007 12:54 PM
Rana,
The only Freedom, and the only Hope, we will ever have is in Jesus Christ!!
We should put God first, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights second!!!
Jeremiah
Posted by: Jeremiah at July 31, 2007 01:16 PM
Hitchens is an ass when it comes to religion.
OT, but significant:
Did anyone catch what James Clyburn (D-SC), House Majority Whip, said? No? Well, here goes, and this was in an interview by WaPo:
Q. What if General Petraeus says, in September, that the surge is working very, very well, and we would be foolish to back away at this point?
A. "Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about it."
Well then, there you have it--the third-ranking Donkaroach in Congress, invested in our defeat.
So is flip-flopping Biden, who last week in the YouTube debacle, said it would be unwise, impossible, to withdraw our troops rapidly. Now he wants to withdraw because the "political process is in a shambles."
What's up with these Donkaroaches?
Posted by: keefer at July 31, 2007 01:40 PM
on the issue of religion - hitchens is my hero. loved his latest book.
As if you can even read, constripper. Trying to get under our skin with your third-grade tactics?
Nice try, girly-boy...
Posted by: keefer at July 31, 2007 02:13 PM
J-
Regardless of what you think should be the case, would you rather an elected official swear on the holy book in which they believe or just use the bible as an empty gesture to appease people?
And... uh... isn't the Constitution legally the highest law in the land? All theology aside, that is the assumption that our entire government is premised upon...
Posted by:
Rana Quijotesca at August 1, 2007 12:40 AM
"Regardless of what you think should be the case, would you rather an elected official swear on the holy book in which they believe or just use the bible as an empty gesture to appease people?"
Ya see, Rana? That's where you make that broad and false presumptious generalization, about the situation. The fact is, and will stand, regardless of what you, or any other Anti- Christian Liberal may think - It's not what man says, but what thus sayeth the Word of God!
Follow? It's not what we think, what God says and commands of us!!
God's Law is above and far more powerful than all the laws man could EVER devise!!
So to put it quite bluntly - NO! The Constitution and Bill of Rights is NOT the highest law in the land!!! The entire meaning of our existence rests upon the Will of God, and He can take it away any time He pleases!!
Jesus said 'Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all these other things will be added.'
So, ya see, there's only ONE way that we can have true peace, and abundance in our land, and that's by putting God first, and everything else second.
BTW, I believe that we should put the following words into the Consitution as the very first words uttered in it,
'We commit the United States of America on this day, in a trusting and able Creator, God the Father, that He will bestowe His Will upon each and every government body, and in all Educational facilities bound in His direction of Hope for mankind, and re-birth of the Spirit of Hope'
Now, I just made that up, but does'nt that sound like it would be more fitting for a Nation in decline such as we the people?
To be continued....
Jeremiah
Posted by: Jeremiah at August 1, 2007 01:34 AM
Tract,
We are in Judeo-Christian civilization, thus something Christian is not outside our way of doing business. We can debate it, of course - and we will come to a conclusion based upon debates, votes and judicial rulings...in the Moslem world, if something is forbidden by Islam, then that is pretty much it...that is there way of doing business.
When in Rome, as they say - in our way of life, we don't cover our faces in public (in fact, when you think about it, in our way of life only criminals do that), nor do we set up a public pool and say that certain people can't be there at certain times because it would offend others who are there.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at August 1, 2007 02:01 AM
Casper,
I, too, have no particular desire to go to Mecca - but it is an insult when Moslems say that my mere Christian presence in that city would defile it. It is also my firm conviction that Islam will not be fully rational until Jews and Christians are allowed to freely practice their religion in Mecca...as an aside, I don't know if any Jews are in Mecca - but there are Christians there. In hiding, and only able to attend Mass by going outside the country (I understand they listen to Mass on the radio) - and every day at risk of their very lives if they are discovered.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at August 1, 2007 02:04 AM
"nor do we set up a public pool and say that certain people can't be there at certain times because it would offend others who are there."
OT, Did ya ever play Online pool, Mark?
:)
Jeremiah
Posted by: Jeremiah at August 1, 2007 09:21 AM
Mark,
Guess I'm just not that easy to insult. Now if they tried to ban me from Vegas, then I would be ticked. LOL
Posted by: Casper at August 1, 2007 09:45 AM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
People who get offended are funny...
Anyways, Sam Harris makes an interesting point about religion in general in his book The End of Faith.
I don't remember the quite exactly, but the gist of it was that if you told someone that their significant other was cheating on them, or that the founding fathers were black, that person would demand that you would provide evidence for your claims. However, if you were to tell them that your lord and savior was the son of god, was crucified, and then came back to life and ascended bodily into heaven, then he would take you at your word. Simply put, we don't demand evidence for religious belief in the same way that we demand evidence for other beliefs.
There is a difference between questioning the merits of a faith, which offends people, and saying that all members of a faith are evil or some other insult, which is also offensive. The former leads to one being offended because what they hold to be sacrosanct is being challenged and they might not know how to defend it; the latter is an insult that is not useful in any way.
Don't get offended if someone questions the merits of a belief system; debate them based on evidence or experience. If you can't, then you might need to rethink a few things.
Mark,
This is one area I agree with you. Respect needs to go both ways. I wouldn't expect a public pool in Saudia Arabia to be open to both my wife and I at the same time, why should Moslems expect different times for men and women in our public pools. Frankly, if you aren't willing to respect the customs of the people of another country, you shouldn't go there.
As for Mecca, I have no desire to ever visit the city. There are way to many places in the world I would find more interesting. As far as I'm concerned, they can keep it.
It's not disrespecting someone to ask them to follow your rules while in your country.
pollute them with our foul presence. Insult must not be met with insult, but when such demands are made - demands entirely outside our way of doing business - we must politely but firmly tell them, "no"; no matter how much they claim we have thereby insulted Islam.
So when Muslims ask to go "outside our way of doing business" due to their deeply held religious beliefs, the only answer to give them is a polite but firm "no." But when a Christian pharmacist declines to do his or her job, preferring to overrule a doctor and not dispense the prescription, then we must allow them to go "outside our way of doing business" and must never, ever cross their deeply held religious beliefs. And this is not hypocrisy...how, exactly?
on the issue of religion - hitchens is my hero. loved his latest book.
Mark: LAN ASTASLEM. I will NOT Submit.
I agree 100%, you're absolutely right, Mark!!
Now, what about this, and I don't necessarily say this to offend anyone, but! - Is it not, or should it not, be an offense, or assault on our American Tradition to be sworn in on the Quran?
Personally, I think it is, How 'bout you?
Should'nt we change this, and stick to our American Tradition?
Again, not trying to be sarcastic or anything, Just wondering!
Jeremiah
J-
I personally think that people should swear in on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, since it is those documents that elected officials are supposed to uphold, not the bible. However, if people want to swear in on a "holy" book, then I think that they should swear in on the book that they revere and find holy. A Muslim swearing in on the bible would just be an empty gesture.
hitchins maintains that religion is the greatest cause of war...implying that w/o religion war would be greatly reduced.
perhaps, but control of water is another whether for transport, comsumption, or agriculture.
sooo, w/o water war would therefore be greatly .. ahhh, well...never mind.
Rana,
The only Freedom, and the only Hope, we will ever have is in Jesus Christ!!
We should put God first, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights second!!!
Jeremiah
Hitchens is an ass when it comes to religion.
OT, but significant:
Did anyone catch what James Clyburn (D-SC), House Majority Whip, said? No? Well, here goes, and this was in an interview by WaPo:
Q. What if General Petraeus says, in September, that the surge is working very, very well, and we would be foolish to back away at this point?
A. "Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about it."
Well then, there you have it--the third-ranking Donkaroach in Congress, invested in our defeat.
So is flip-flopping Biden, who last week in the YouTube debacle, said it would be unwise, impossible, to withdraw our troops rapidly. Now he wants to withdraw because the "political process is in a shambles."
What's up with these Donkaroaches?
on the issue of religion - hitchens is my hero. loved his latest book.
As if you can even read, constripper. Trying to get under our skin with your third-grade tactics?
Nice try, girly-boy...
J-
Regardless of what you think should be the case, would you rather an elected official swear on the holy book in which they believe or just use the bible as an empty gesture to appease people?
And... uh... isn't the Constitution legally the highest law in the land? All theology aside, that is the assumption that our entire government is premised upon...
"Regardless of what you think should be the case, would you rather an elected official swear on the holy book in which they believe or just use the bible as an empty gesture to appease people?"
Ya see, Rana? That's where you make that broad and false presumptious generalization, about the situation. The fact is, and will stand, regardless of what you, or any other Anti- Christian Liberal may think - It's not what man says, but what thus sayeth the Word of God!
Follow? It's not what we think, what God says and commands of us!!
God's Law is above and far more powerful than all the laws man could EVER devise!!
So to put it quite bluntly - NO! The Constitution and Bill of Rights is NOT the highest law in the land!!! The entire meaning of our existence rests upon the Will of God, and He can take it away any time He pleases!!
Jesus said 'Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all these other things will be added.'
So, ya see, there's only ONE way that we can have true peace, and abundance in our land, and that's by putting God first, and everything else second.
BTW, I believe that we should put the following words into the Consitution as the very first words uttered in it,
'We commit the United States of America on this day, in a trusting and able Creator, God the Father, that He will bestowe His Will upon each and every government body, and in all Educational facilities bound in His direction of Hope for mankind, and re-birth of the Spirit of Hope'
Now, I just made that up, but does'nt that sound like it would be more fitting for a Nation in decline such as we the people?
To be continued....
Jeremiah
Tract,
We are in Judeo-Christian civilization, thus something Christian is not outside our way of doing business. We can debate it, of course - and we will come to a conclusion based upon debates, votes and judicial rulings...in the Moslem world, if something is forbidden by Islam, then that is pretty much it...that is there way of doing business.
When in Rome, as they say - in our way of life, we don't cover our faces in public (in fact, when you think about it, in our way of life only criminals do that), nor do we set up a public pool and say that certain people can't be there at certain times because it would offend others who are there.
Casper,
I, too, have no particular desire to go to Mecca - but it is an insult when Moslems say that my mere Christian presence in that city would defile it. It is also my firm conviction that Islam will not be fully rational until Jews and Christians are allowed to freely practice their religion in Mecca...as an aside, I don't know if any Jews are in Mecca - but there are Christians there. In hiding, and only able to attend Mass by going outside the country (I understand they listen to Mass on the radio) - and every day at risk of their very lives if they are discovered.
"nor do we set up a public pool and say that certain people can't be there at certain times because it would offend others who are there."
OT, Did ya ever play Online pool, Mark?
:)
Jeremiah
Mark,
Guess I'm just not that easy to insult. Now if they tried to ban me from Vegas, then I would be ticked. LOL