Here.
When Sen. John McCain was forced to distance himself from Pastor John Hagee earlier this year, he denounced the pastor’s attacks on Catholicism. But asked why he wouldn’t “repudiate” Hagee’s endorsement of him, McCain found something to praise.
“I'm grateful for his commitment to the support of the state of Israel, and I'm very grateful for many of his commitments around the world, including to the independence and freedom of the state of Israel,” he told CNN’s Campbell Brown on April 29.
Hagee’s commitment to Israel, however, is itself controversial: It’s rooted in the belief that the Jewish state will — soon — be the site of Armageddon.
It's not even so much a critique on McCain for seeking out and enjoying his endorsement. It's mostly just a comment on how some people out there are batshit insane.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Thinking about Islam...
My dad sent me this bit by Sam Harris, author of "End of Faith" and "Letters to a Christian Nation." I have only read the former of the two titles, and I confess I don't remember it well. It had some compelling points, but I was not entirely swayed by his argument that religion in moderation is basically as bad as religious extremism because it sanctions it somehow. Despite not having any kind of religious upbringing, I have a soft spot for religion. I don't like to condemn my friends who do have a religious faith. Maybe it's just me being a sentimentalist. I also have some respect for the traditions and forms of faith -- and being ridden with anxiety like I am, I have a longing for a kind of solace and inner peace that I imagine religion offers some people.
Still, it's very interesting to read Sam Harris' points of view. He is willing to say things that people don't like to say, and this article proves that at the same time that it asserts the necessity of such speech. He certainly does put his money where his mouth is.
I recently finished reading "Three Cups of Tea," which I could talk about at length but which is essentially just a story of this guy, Greg Mortenson, who after a failed trek up K2, stumbled across a remote rural village in Pakistan and became crazy committed to building a school there. After a lot of false starts and adventures, he ended up building more than 50 schools, "women's activity centers," and various random other things (for example, in order to build the first school, he realized he had to build a bridge, and he helps them get clean water which completely halved the infant mortality rate). Mortenson believes that education is at least a major key to bring about the end of terrorism, because schools like his, which teach math and writing instead of Islamic extremism like the madrassas (which in the chronology of the book start cropping up everywhere, like mushrooms, and scare the shit out of him), and give villagers options beyond sticking around where they were born tending to yaks and joining up with terrorist organizations. His other big sticking point is how important it is to education women, an assertion that is not totally backed up with facts/evidence from his own schools; however, there was some statistic in the book that shows that communities with more educated women have better health and life expectancy or something like that.
The reason why all this is relevant is because the entire book is filled with assertions both from the author and the Americans and from the local Pakistani people who work with Mortenson to bring about these changes that they are not like the Muslim extremists or the terrorists of whom we are all afraid. It's a major, major theme in the book. So I am torn when I read these "academic" perspectives on the intrinsically violent nature of Islam and then these anecdotal, experience-based stories which indicate the opposite. Or which focus less on the textual shit, the stuff buried in the Qur'an, and instead focus on the lifestyles of the people whose faith rests with and in that book. I mean, in one example in this book, the leader of a village has a Qur'an that he cannot even read, and he is a paragon of virtue, open-minded, dedicated to providing a school for his village, especially for the girls. His granddaughter ends up being the first educated woman in the region. I like to think that there are more men and women like that out there, and indeed, there are more mentioned in the book. But he also can't read his holy book, which academics inform me is filled with all this bad stuff. So what does all that mean? What's the takeaway?
All I can think is that it's very important for us to try to get to know Islam on both an intellectual level and on an experiential level. I think in Harris' case, although I don't know for sure what kind of Muslim-country-tourism he's gotten up to, he relies at least somewhat on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has had first-hand experience with some of the worst that Islam has to offer. (I have her book "Infidel" on my to-read stack and I keep thinking I really need to push it higher up in the queue.) But what am I supposed to do? Just reading "Three Cups of Tea" I learned tons about Pakistan. I vaguely knew that there were different tribes there, but had no real grasp on that fact. And I'm not planning on making a trip out there anytime soon, so I have to reach for information where I can find it. I think if nothing else, that is something I'd like to take away from this Harris piece -- more information, not less, is good.
Something worth thinking about.
Still, it's very interesting to read Sam Harris' points of view. He is willing to say things that people don't like to say, and this article proves that at the same time that it asserts the necessity of such speech. He certainly does put his money where his mouth is.
I recently finished reading "Three Cups of Tea," which I could talk about at length but which is essentially just a story of this guy, Greg Mortenson, who after a failed trek up K2, stumbled across a remote rural village in Pakistan and became crazy committed to building a school there. After a lot of false starts and adventures, he ended up building more than 50 schools, "women's activity centers," and various random other things (for example, in order to build the first school, he realized he had to build a bridge, and he helps them get clean water which completely halved the infant mortality rate). Mortenson believes that education is at least a major key to bring about the end of terrorism, because schools like his, which teach math and writing instead of Islamic extremism like the madrassas (which in the chronology of the book start cropping up everywhere, like mushrooms, and scare the shit out of him), and give villagers options beyond sticking around where they were born tending to yaks and joining up with terrorist organizations. His other big sticking point is how important it is to education women, an assertion that is not totally backed up with facts/evidence from his own schools; however, there was some statistic in the book that shows that communities with more educated women have better health and life expectancy or something like that.
The reason why all this is relevant is because the entire book is filled with assertions both from the author and the Americans and from the local Pakistani people who work with Mortenson to bring about these changes that they are not like the Muslim extremists or the terrorists of whom we are all afraid. It's a major, major theme in the book. So I am torn when I read these "academic" perspectives on the intrinsically violent nature of Islam and then these anecdotal, experience-based stories which indicate the opposite. Or which focus less on the textual shit, the stuff buried in the Qur'an, and instead focus on the lifestyles of the people whose faith rests with and in that book. I mean, in one example in this book, the leader of a village has a Qur'an that he cannot even read, and he is a paragon of virtue, open-minded, dedicated to providing a school for his village, especially for the girls. His granddaughter ends up being the first educated woman in the region. I like to think that there are more men and women like that out there, and indeed, there are more mentioned in the book. But he also can't read his holy book, which academics inform me is filled with all this bad stuff. So what does all that mean? What's the takeaway?
All I can think is that it's very important for us to try to get to know Islam on both an intellectual level and on an experiential level. I think in Harris' case, although I don't know for sure what kind of Muslim-country-tourism he's gotten up to, he relies at least somewhat on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has had first-hand experience with some of the worst that Islam has to offer. (I have her book "Infidel" on my to-read stack and I keep thinking I really need to push it higher up in the queue.) But what am I supposed to do? Just reading "Three Cups of Tea" I learned tons about Pakistan. I vaguely knew that there were different tribes there, but had no real grasp on that fact. And I'm not planning on making a trip out there anytime soon, so I have to reach for information where I can find it. I think if nothing else, that is something I'd like to take away from this Harris piece -- more information, not less, is good.
Something worth thinking about.
Friday, April 18, 2008
America and Muslim countries
There is a pretty interesting article about the founding fathers relationship with religion, and, therefore, the separation of church and state. All this bullshit about the country being founded by evangelicals is wrong, which I guess I sort of knew (Franklin, Jefferson and all that), but didn't really know with a lot of conviction, I suppose. I guess I figured when people talked about that they meant all the Pilgrims and such, not the founding fathers themselves. However, that's not the issue here. What stood out to me in the article (although I liked the whole thing) was this particular passage:
In June of 1797, just three months before Tyler’s novel was published, the American captives in North Africa were freed by the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams. The treaty’s Article 11, an assurance that the United States would not engage in a vengeful holy war, read, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
I know we're not in a holy war or anything, and terrorism is a legitimate problem, but it's just an interesting comparison to George W's language about evil and such.
You can read the whole thing here. (That was just a tiny part of it, most of it is not about Muslim countries at all.)
In June of 1797, just three months before Tyler’s novel was published, the American captives in North Africa were freed by the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams. The treaty’s Article 11, an assurance that the United States would not engage in a vengeful holy war, read, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
I know we're not in a holy war or anything, and terrorism is a legitimate problem, but it's just an interesting comparison to George W's language about evil and such.
You can read the whole thing here. (That was just a tiny part of it, most of it is not about Muslim countries at all.)
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Pastors
In case you care about Hillary Clinton's religious affiliations, read these two articles.
Obviously, I believe that politicians' religions should have nothing to do with their electability, because it shouldn't influence their policy and should be kept private. And I'm not trying to drum up gossip about Hillary Clinton, who I am fully voting for if Obama does not get the nomination (unlike these folks). I don't like muckracking. However, I'd like to us to consider the creepiness of everyone's contacts, not just Barack Obama's. Like, especially this guy, whose endorsement John McCain sought out.
(All this via my own obsessive Googling and New York Times reading.)
Obviously, I believe that politicians' religions should have nothing to do with their electability, because it shouldn't influence their policy and should be kept private. And I'm not trying to drum up gossip about Hillary Clinton, who I am fully voting for if Obama does not get the nomination (unlike these folks). I don't like muckracking. However, I'd like to us to consider the creepiness of everyone's contacts, not just Barack Obama's. Like, especially this guy, whose endorsement John McCain sought out.
(All this via my own obsessive Googling and New York Times reading.)
Friday, February 15, 2008
Stuff White People Like
Ah, shit. Cristina, you will pretty much love this site. (Their archive is a little funky, so you may have to click on the calendar to get back to the very beginning.)
#2 was what made me click on the link, and while they didn't mention my own particular obsession (you all know what it is), they might as well have.
*ducks in shame*
(via)
#2 was what made me click on the link, and while they didn't mention my own particular obsession (you all know what it is), they might as well have.
*ducks in shame*
(via)
Thursday, January 24, 2008
The New Atheism
I haven't mentioned her in a while but I have mixed feelings about Jessa Crispin, who founded and runs Bookslut. It's a great blog/magazine, but sometimes Jessa herself seems to be on a high horse or otherwise just hammering away at the same topics (science, feminism, how awesome graphic novels are). It brings a level of specificity to her site, but sometimes it feels tired. At any rate, she wrote this interesting review of a new book "God and the New Atheism," rebutting all the atheist lit that's come out recently (Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens -- isn't there a way to combine those three names into something catchy? Darchens? Hawchens? Boo).
First there was Dawkins’ calling an education in religious faith — even moderate faith — “child abuse.” Sam Harris chided religious moderates for being “in large part, responsible for the religious conflict in our world.” They didn’t simply want an end to fundamentalism or the use of religious doctrine in governmental policy. They treated Christians as if they all believed the Earth was only 6,000 years old, and Muslims as if they were all strapped with explosives. If you pray to Jesus when your world is falling apart, or blame Mercury being in retrograde when your car won’t start, you are part of the problem.
I haven't read any of the books in question except for "The End of Faith," so I don't have a super super strong opinion on Jessa's review. And to be honest, it focuses more on the "new atheist" books than on the book that she purports to review (see what I mean about her pet issues?). Anyone else have any insight?
(It was only just this morning I looked into my bookcase and thought to myself, huh, I should read that Hitchens book. Must be some kind of sign.)
(via, what else, Bookslut)
First there was Dawkins’ calling an education in religious faith — even moderate faith — “child abuse.” Sam Harris chided religious moderates for being “in large part, responsible for the religious conflict in our world.” They didn’t simply want an end to fundamentalism or the use of religious doctrine in governmental policy. They treated Christians as if they all believed the Earth was only 6,000 years old, and Muslims as if they were all strapped with explosives. If you pray to Jesus when your world is falling apart, or blame Mercury being in retrograde when your car won’t start, you are part of the problem.
I haven't read any of the books in question except for "The End of Faith," so I don't have a super super strong opinion on Jessa's review. And to be honest, it focuses more on the "new atheist" books than on the book that she purports to review (see what I mean about her pet issues?). Anyone else have any insight?
(It was only just this morning I looked into my bookcase and thought to myself, huh, I should read that Hitchens book. Must be some kind of sign.)
(via, what else, Bookslut)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)