Michael Corleone once famously said, "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." I know exactly how he felt. Just when I thought I was through with religion for a week or two those frisky Muslims cause a ruckus in Afghanistan. Apparently several copies of the Quran, along with other religious materials, were burned at the Bagram Airfield. Call it housecleaning. The position of General John Allen, commander of the International Security Assistance Force is that this was a mistake and the burning was stopped as soon as it was discovered. OK, case closed. Well, not so much.
As we all know, Muslims view every slight, every presumed desecration, every affront to their faith as holy war. Whether the offense takes place in Indonesia or Turkmenistan or Iraq we can guarantee an out-of-proportion response. Hundreds, sometimes thousands take to the streets and howl at the perpetrators as great satans and defilers of ...whatever. When I first saw the demonstrations in Tahrir Sq. in Egypt last summer, I assumed someone had used the wrong type-face when printing the Quran.
What mystifies me is why the world allows these religious crazies to continue to terrorize the planet? We wouldn't tolerate this sort of behavior from Lutherans, or Buddhists or, God forbid, Jews. Yet we tolerate fatwahs and faith-based assassinations by Muslims as though they had the right to threaten or murder anyone merely as an expression of religious freedom. What is up with that?
The response from Gen. Allen in Afghanistan is obsequious to the point of embarrassment and we liberals don't embarrass easily. To listen to the general apologize you would think the soldiers at Bagram took a sledge hammer to a statue of the prophet. Oh wait. I forgot. If you create a statue of the prophet you are a blasphemer and subject to a fatwah. These disproportionate demonstrations of offense require a proclamation from the UN, to wit: Hey, Islam! Chill! No one in Mecca raised an eyebrow when ten Pakistani soldiers were found beheaded in a tribal region in Afghanistan but all Islam is in an uproar over U.S. Marines urinating on the bodies of their enemies. Apparently Muslim on Muslim bloodshed is kosher but urine on Muslim action is verboten.
There used to be an old saying that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Likewise, your right to exercise your religion stops where the laws of civilized conduct begin. We are sorry your books got burned. It wasn't deliberate. Please allow us to make a contribution to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Camels. (OK, that was uncalled for.) The point is, you don't have to take to the streets every time some small incident takes place somewhere in the world that involves your people. If you keep this up, no one will take you seriously... like Jesse Jackson.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Friday, October 03, 2008
...or is singing louder a cure for not knowing the words?
For lo these many months, isitjustme has avoided cheap shots, low blows and rabbit punches aimed in the general direction of organized religion. The reason is less about concern for my immortal soul than as a nod toward several friends who take umbrage at my perceived disrespect. Besides, the churches haven't been doing anything funny lately.
Today's screed comes not to bury religion but to question a few of its methods. As the number of my blogs approaches 200 (177 to date, but who's counting?), a new wrinkle is being added. I would like anyone out there who feels compelled, to weigh in on the following issues. I am in earnest. I really don't know how to feel about these religious issues.
Item
The Catholic Church has released a video on a website called Catholicvote.com. Forgetting that it may be the hokiest, clip-art laden 2.5 minutes ever produced, the thrust of the message is that Catholics should vote for the anti-abortion candidate (Hint. His initials are John McCain). The copy is as subtle as a Rush Limbaugh cigar but that's not the point. If abortion is a moral question, and for Catholics it is, should the church suggest to its members that a Presidential candidate is the correct moral choice? The ad does not threaten eternal perdition for an incorrect decision. It merely implies that Catholics who take their faith seriously, should do the right thing.
The question a two parter: Should Catholics ignore all of the complex issues inherent in the selection of a President and vote solely on the abortion question and, does the Church have the right to suggest such a choice? Discuss among yourselves.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Item
On a parallel track, many Christian churches across America took a bold step last Sunday when they advised their congregations that John McCain was the moral, Christian choice for President. The move was designed, in part, to challenge the IRS ruling that prohibits religious institutions from participating in politics(or more logically, prevents political organizations from passing themselves off as churches). Violation of this rule can cause the loss of a church's 501(c)(3) status as a non-profit organization. Contributions to such an organization would no longer be tax deductible.
Once again, does the moral imperative trump the civil?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Item
Finally, in a move bordering on the divinely inspired, a Christian group in Fairfax County, Virginia is protesting the choice of books in the County libraries. Having had no success at torching books that explain homosexuality and evolution, the God Squad has a new trick. They are donating books that present positions contrary to volumes already in the stacks. If you can't burn "Heather Has Two Mommies", you try to position "The Case Against Same Sex Marriage" on the same shelf. These God-guys are shifty.
The Fairfax library has rejected most of the donated volumes as being long on scripture and short on facts and research. Libraries have accreditation rules having mostly to do with positive reviews by recognized journals. The rules apply to donated as well as purchased books.
Once more we have a conundrum: Should unfashionable ideas be banned from library shelves? When controversial issues arise, should not both sides receive an equal hearing? Libraries are large buildings. Couldn't one shelf be devoted to crackpot, loony tune volumes that present, however poorly, the unpopular view?
No one is suggesting, for example, that creationism never be taught. It just should never be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution. Creationism is not science. Nevertheless we don't ban books, including the Bible, which discuss the Divine creation of the universe. It seems that Christians should be entitled to a little shelf space for their narrow-minded bigoted crap. (harsh?) And the crappier the better. Poorly reasoned screeds about gay marriage only serve to further the cause of the really righteous. There must be a Dewey Decimal System designation for "lunatic fringe". We might even house them in a separate building. After all, Heather has two mommies, why not two libraries?
Today's screed comes not to bury religion but to question a few of its methods. As the number of my blogs approaches 200 (177 to date, but who's counting?), a new wrinkle is being added. I would like anyone out there who feels compelled, to weigh in on the following issues. I am in earnest. I really don't know how to feel about these religious issues.
Item
The Catholic Church has released a video on a website called Catholicvote.com. Forgetting that it may be the hokiest, clip-art laden 2.5 minutes ever produced, the thrust of the message is that Catholics should vote for the anti-abortion candidate (Hint. His initials are John McCain). The copy is as subtle as a Rush Limbaugh cigar but that's not the point. If abortion is a moral question, and for Catholics it is, should the church suggest to its members that a Presidential candidate is the correct moral choice? The ad does not threaten eternal perdition for an incorrect decision. It merely implies that Catholics who take their faith seriously, should do the right thing.
The question a two parter: Should Catholics ignore all of the complex issues inherent in the selection of a President and vote solely on the abortion question and, does the Church have the right to suggest such a choice? Discuss among yourselves.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Item
On a parallel track, many Christian churches across America took a bold step last Sunday when they advised their congregations that John McCain was the moral, Christian choice for President. The move was designed, in part, to challenge the IRS ruling that prohibits religious institutions from participating in politics(or more logically, prevents political organizations from passing themselves off as churches). Violation of this rule can cause the loss of a church's 501(c)(3) status as a non-profit organization. Contributions to such an organization would no longer be tax deductible.
Once again, does the moral imperative trump the civil?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Item
Finally, in a move bordering on the divinely inspired, a Christian group in Fairfax County, Virginia is protesting the choice of books in the County libraries. Having had no success at torching books that explain homosexuality and evolution, the God Squad has a new trick. They are donating books that present positions contrary to volumes already in the stacks. If you can't burn "Heather Has Two Mommies", you try to position "The Case Against Same Sex Marriage" on the same shelf. These God-guys are shifty.
The Fairfax library has rejected most of the donated volumes as being long on scripture and short on facts and research. Libraries have accreditation rules having mostly to do with positive reviews by recognized journals. The rules apply to donated as well as purchased books.
Once more we have a conundrum: Should unfashionable ideas be banned from library shelves? When controversial issues arise, should not both sides receive an equal hearing? Libraries are large buildings. Couldn't one shelf be devoted to crackpot, loony tune volumes that present, however poorly, the unpopular view?
No one is suggesting, for example, that creationism never be taught. It just should never be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution. Creationism is not science. Nevertheless we don't ban books, including the Bible, which discuss the Divine creation of the universe. It seems that Christians should be entitled to a little shelf space for their narrow-minded bigoted crap. (harsh?) And the crappier the better. Poorly reasoned screeds about gay marriage only serve to further the cause of the really righteous. There must be a Dewey Decimal System designation for "lunatic fringe". We might even house them in a separate building. After all, Heather has two mommies, why not two libraries?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)