Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Fallen Heroes and Terrorists
by Jeffrey JenaAs I was driving to Wisconsin on Thursday a disturbing report came on the news. A mass shooting had taken place at Fort Hood in Texas. The details were unclear, at first report there were several shooters and seven dead. Several thoughts crossed my mind, solders suffering from PTSD, disgruntled civilian employees and of course a terrorist attack.
As details became clearer the death toll rose and the attack seemed to be the work of a single shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a devout Muslim. As the day wore on it became clear that Major Hasan held radical beliefs concerning United States foreign policy and had shared those beliefs not with just a few close friend but with just about anyone who would listen.
Then it was announced that the President was going to speak about the shootings. I expected to hear a calming voice that would honor those slain and get to the heart of the matter: We have a serious problem in this country with domestic terrorists both in and out of the military and we need to do something about it.
Since I had been in the car all day and listening to news/talk radio I knew the President was at a meeting of American Indian tribal leaders. When he came on the radio his first remarks were not about Fort Hood but about the conference. His tone wasn’t serious but he jokingly made comments about the conference. I don’t want to try to read too much into this but usually when we speak we talk about the most important things first and then move to the trivial. He complimented the Secretary of the Interior for a great day and gave a “shout out” to a conference attendee. He then continued for another 150 words until he got to the shootings. The most important thing he said in reference to the shootings was,
“We will make sure that we get answers to every single question about this horrible incident…”
That is what I wanted to hear! The consequences be damned, we are going to get to the bottom of this. Great! However, before the weekend was over we were being assured, by the President, the Attorney General and the Director of Homeland Security and by any other administration official who could get their mug in front of a camera that this was not an act of terrorism. How could they know? Did they have all the facts? It reminded me of President Obama’s reaction to another much less important incident when his friend was arrested after lipping off to a cop. He said something about not wanting to jump to conclusions but the police acted stupidly.
Why isn’t Major Hasan being considered a terrorist by the White House? Is it because he acted alone? Is it because he used a gun instead of a belt of explosives? Is it because he wasn’t part of a larger group? Is it because he may have been mentally unbalanced?
There have been a number of attacks in this country in recent years that have been dismissed rather than being looked at as acts of terror. Meanwhile some folks are quick to be labeled terrorists. The shooter of an abortion doctor, a lone gunman at the National Holocaust Museum and a bomber at the Olympic Games were all quickly branded terrorists. These were similar to the Fort Hood shooting in that all were done by a single person acting outside any organized group and two of the used firearms rather than explosives. The difference? Major Hasan and others who have committed acts of terror that were not labeled as such were Muslims. Why are we hesitant to label acts of violence by Muslim-Americans “terror?”
Before you go ballistic and claim that I am branding an entire religion as terrorists I want to say I believe that 99.9% of Muslim-Americans are loyal citizens who see their religion as a peaceful one. That being said there are approximately 5000 Muslims serving in the military today. If just .1% of them believe, like Major Hasan, that acts of terror are justified then there are four more guys just like him waiting for their chance.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
96 Comments
This was most definitely an act of terrorism. This guy may have been a fruit loop but he planned this act out in advance. He gave signs through out his life what his thoughts and feelings were on the military etc. I guess if you're not a tea party, bible fearing gun hugger then you can't be labled a terrorist. Like I said before it's a Bizarro world we live in today.
Why is it that the anti-semite who shout up the holocaust museum was branded a right wing extremist (and by proxy all all righwingers were too) even though he was an anti capitalist and anti right.
But this guy who was in contact with terrorist groups and a member of the same faith can't be called either a terrorist or muslim extremist which is what he is?
I keep hearing that the guy was nuts and didn' want to be deployed…yada, yada. Maybe a better explanation was that he knew exactly what he was doing and willfuly and with forethought murdered a dozen fellow Americans. This man is a traitor to his country and an offense to all that is good and just. Hopefully they can get some valuable information from him prior to his execution.
There is something "off" about Obama, something not right and disquieting. Political correctness dictates that we act like nothing is wrong, but the unease in the country is palpable and growing.
We've elected an ACORN community organizer to the White House and we're in serious trouble.
Suicide bombers are "fruit loops", just COMMITTED "fruit loops." And they work alone, in support of a murderous view of an, at best, ambiguous, religion, further perverted by their strange view of "realitiy." No one would deny that blowing up a crowd and yourself is an act of terrorism. So was the act at Ft. Hood. We cannot allow political correctness to be the cause of our defeat. We cannot ignore the presence of a Muslim community, like the one in my town, that is largely publicly silent about Ft. Hood. Why is that? IMO their silence speaks volumes.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kurtis Marsh and Big Hollywood, Claricia Quinn. Claricia Quinn said: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Fallen Heroes and Terrorists http://is.gd/4SCt1 [...]
'Is it because he used a gun instead of a belt of explosives?'
Because he used a gun instead of a belt of explosives, I'd call him an enemy combattant dressed in the uniform of the US Army (a crime in itself since enemy soldiers cannot don the uniform of the enemy in order to infiltrate).
" Is it because he wasn’t part of a larger group?"
He IS a part of a larger group. Radical Islam is a "larger group"? His views, opinions and blatherings were no different than that emitted by Osama bin Laden, KSM and the other killers/soldiers.
"Is it because he may have been mentally unbalanced?"
Is Osama bin Laden "mentally unbalanced"? SKM? Any of the other detainees at Gitmo?
I hope that justice is done swiftly and that if he is found quilty that he is hung quickly. That he is labled a traitor to the uniform that that he wore. Why is a muslim gunman ( Like the one here in my home town of Seattle) is labled insane and should not be held accountable for their actons because of the insanity defense? I bet my bottom dollar that He will claim the insanity defense.
Hasan was allowed to continue in the military despite grave questions out of a perverted desire for 'diversity.' In the wake of his despicable attack, I propose that the administration consider that the military's true diversity is represented by those who fell before his cowardly rampage.
this is what happens when the whole country isn't on board…
And a conflict drags on entirely too long. War weary Americans have, regrettably, 'moved on'. This is Bush's war, remember? The Administration constantly reminds us of that fact. When a war is based on obtuse notions such as 'terrorism' one can easily lose sight of the stated goals.
If McCain was President, the media would be excoriating him to pull out- for they would love a foreign policy disaster to be inflicted on the Republicans. Unfortunately, Dear Leader is now in charge and as much as the Left hates this situation they are aware that Obama will be judged- not Bush- by the outcome.
So we will stumble down the grey road of no defeat/no victory. And the fabric of our society will continue to erode…
This man came to a point where he had to choose between fighting for our country or serving his religion. He chose to serve his religion first.
When faced with choosing between their muslim religion or fighting for a Country that is in a war against fellow muslims, I am afraid their are many more who may make the same choice.
Obama's wooden demeanor is strange. He has always struck me as the scripted Chancey Gardner, the Empty Suit, dragging his childhood baggage which left him an inadequate personality, always seeking praise and not comfortable in his own skin. It's no wonder that he is the perfect media invention. He's as shallow and vacuous as the MSM is.
Why are we hesitant to label acts of violence by Muslim-Americans “terror?”
I fear that the terrorists have won a strategic victory….many Americans are terrified of offending those who would kill us. My challenge to the left: Name one historical instance where appeasement was successful. They cannot, yet they continue to blithely ignore the mounting evidence of their culpability and stupidity. We cannot effectively fight the enemy without until our own internal house in order.
What he did was long planned, thought out, and executed in a precise manner. It well qualifies as premeditated first degree murder.
And what have we found out from the media?
He may have just "gone off." It happens. He also "self-radicalized," which sounds like a drawn-out version of "going off." The religion was not to blame, he was not influenced (and essentially recruited) by radical Muslim clerics, of course not. This is clearly evident when you consider the equal percentages of current Christian murderers popping up daily who engage in massacres for the glory of God by the word of the Messiah, the Christian ministers demanding the extermination of the infidels while proclaiming the heavenly rewards of martyrdom to the faith. And don't forget all those Christian nations asking for the absolute annihilation of non-Christian nations.
Oh, then there was the world news report describing the weapon. While they did not describe it as an assault handgun (this time), they did mention how so many in law enforcement all referred to that particular model as The Cop Slayer, or something like that, and noted how deadly the 20 (!!) round magazine made it, as of course twenty round clips are inherently dangerous and life-threatening.
What did I really learn? If the news revealed there was a machine made of which individual units would "go off," "self-radicalize" and start killing people around it with the same frequency, with "warning signs" that could be so easily dismissed, OSHA would either insist on stronger safeguards and inspections or just outright ban them from the workplace, people would be screaming to the federal government for an immediate recall (and likely get it), there may even be Congressional investigations into this serious threat to Americans. Maybe all in the same week.
Today is the day I will remember the Cook in Afghanistan and an A10 pilot he served breakfast too before strapping in and providing cover for our ground troops. Today is the day I will remember Clerk Typist whom typed up the orders to promote a Private for the first of many promotions. Today I will remember My Dad who served in WWII from North Africa to Italy.
VERY well put…
This man came to a point where he had to choose between fighting for our country or serving his religion. He chose to serve his religion first.
Slight disagreement there. He decided to serve himself. Really.
[...] here to see the original: Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Fallen Heroes and Terrorists This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
How is someone who is yelling "Alluhu Akbar"–translation " Allah is the greatest"– not serving his religion?
Agreed.
Quite simply, I'd call him a traitor. If this example of human debris had any real courage he would have went AWOL, flew to Afghanistan on his own dime, and joined the enemy.
That would have made him only a slightly less a piece of excrement in my opinion, but it would be better than praying on people he knew were vulnerable and unarmed.
Because of all the blow back decent, honest Muslim Americans will suffer because of his actions.
I'm remembering my great grandfather who joined the Union army when he was 14, fought all four years of the Civil War, and then came back home to start a family. Veteran of Fredericksburg, Little Round Top at Gettysburg, and the slaughter at Cold Harbor.
Here's my two cents on the subject: religion had nothing to do with it.
Good people tend to do good things whether they are religious or not. Evil people tend to do evil things, whether they are religious or not.
The common denominator is not religion, it's good vs. evil.
It's way too cheap and easy to excuse Evil as Insanity. It lets 'em off the hook when they know exactly what they are doing. Sorry: Charles Manson was sane. Hitler was sane. Bin-Laden is sane. And Major Hasan likewise is sane, and deserves a noose.
I do not want decent, honest people to suffer, but I also do not want to ignore the fact that there is a sect of the muslim community that believe they are fighting a religious war. From the evidence that I have heard thus far, this man was part of that.
I agree completely.
Of course the gun-grabbers would cynically exploit this crime. Now they're on about "cop-killer" bullets. What a crock! Many of the wounded owe their lives to Hasan's use of so-called "cop killers."
You see, the FN 5.7×28mm cartridge supposedly (not really) can penetrate Kevlar ballistic vests precisely because of its low velocity and small diameter- in other words, it's an anemic little round, and the death toll would have been far worse had Hasan used even a 9mm, much less a serious caliber.
"… I believe that 99.9% of Muslim-Americans are loyal citizens who see their religion as a peaceful one."
I'm getting a little tired of this kind of statement. Why is it when a Muslim murders Americans in the name of their "religion of peace" we feel it necessary to always say, "Well, y'know 99.9% of Muslims are good people, just trying to get along!" Where the hell are the 99.9% of "loyal" and "peaceful" Muslims loudly condemning what happened here in Texas last week? Where were they when army recruiter Pvt. William Long was shot and killed in Arkansas by a Muslim? Where were they when John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo killed 10 people with a sniper rifle? Where were they when a father in Arizona ran over his daughter with his car and killed her? Where were they when another father in Dallas shot and killed his two daughters? And I don't recall 99.9% of American Muslims standing up on Sept. 12, 2001 with one voice loudly denouncing the murder of nearly 3,000 people all in the name of their religion.
Sorry, but the silence has been deafening from the "99.9% of Muslim-Americans" who "see their religion as a peaceful one." I'm not branding an entire group of people as terrorists, but I sure do wonder why they continue to remain silent when yet another member of their group acts like one.
Doesn't really matter if they are sane or not, they still have to be dealt with.
That's exactly the reason the MSM has been stuttering over whether or not this is an act of terrorism.
Can't have that stain on the messiah's resume.
Because we're all dumb ass NASCAR loving, religious clinging, gun lovers.
Why, were so stupid, all we need to see is the words terrorist and Muslim in the same sentence, we're going to running for our white sheets, guns, fire hoses and pit bulls.
So they need to be very precise and say what they're saying, but do it in code words, so they don't accidentally send us off the handle.
Very well said, indeed.
Hey EdSki. Those decent, honest Muslim Americans need to speak out against these radicals that have hi-jacked their supposed religion of peace. Their silence is deafening. Are they afraid the Jihadists will come after them, or do they secretly condone such actions. Inquiring minds want to know? I'm sure there were a lot of quiet celebrations inside many a peaceful Mosque!
I agree Tex. I think the Muslim community needs to take out its trash. I don't agree with the "99.9%" number. I know that in Manhattan during the 9/11 attacks, there were Muslims laughing and cheering as scared people were fleeing uptown–
This fear of "backlash" is paralyzing us…and the Muslims are exploiting it! They need to man-up and earn their desired reputation of being the Religion of Peace…for now …all evidence to the contrary!
Part I
To be clear, I am a Christian before I am an American – before I am a husband, a son, a father, a brother . . . however, the implications of this loyalty are far different than for one who claims such loyalty is a Muslim. I know, even here, people talk about "peaceful Muslims." I agree that there are those, and they may even be a majority. However, I have also read the Koran and all four major versions of the Hadith. Yes, Islam, at its foundational core, calls for the forced conversion, subjugation, or elimination of all non-believers. That is a simple fact. And though I read these texts in translation, I have yet to find a Muslim who can explain those violent surrahs away. Further, it is also true that Muslims are allowed to lie to non-believers (taqiyya) in order to avoid suspicion or intense examination.
Most telling is when one actually arranges the Koran properly. It is currently arranged longest book to shortest book. If you re-arrange the books in conformity with chronology, you see an ever increasing amount of violence displayed toward non-believers. Unlike Judaism or Christianity, there are actual *standing orders* to convert, subjugate or kill non-believers. That God ordered the elimination of specific people at specific times in the OT does NOT compare to actual continual, standing orders such as these. Islam is the only major world religion that does.
Joan Peters, in her excellent work "From Time Immemorial," traces the history of cyclical violence toward non-believers in Muslim controlled regions. This stems from the simple fact that, often, as people, in general, are wont to do, Muslims would not be so "religious" after extended contact with non-Muslims. Such attitudes would lead to periods of peace. With frequent "religious revivals," so to speak, there would be an increase in violence as younger generations would return to the "faith of their fathers," to the Koran and Hadith, as written, to the core tenants of the faith of Islam as it was understood – even by those who refused to act on the commands therein. The natural result were periods of extreme violence and oppression of non-believers.
I actually feel sorry for Muslims who do not wish to engage in such violence. To understand this dilemma, we have to look at Islam from the Muslim point of view: Muhammed was the perfect man (insofar as man can be perfect), and his every revelation and action are the ultimate examples of human behavior, thought and belief and, of course, are outright revelation. With this view of the totality of Muhammed's "revelations" and actions, how can one look on his taking of a child bride, his slaughter of Jews and other non-believers, his claims that Jews are the descendants of pigs and monkeys, his calls to convert/subjugate/kill non-believers (especially in later surrahs), and actually *criticize* them? To do so calls into question the very foundation of the Islamic faith: Muhammed. What would be left over would be the same disastrous result that infected Christianity – a reformation that made the Faith little more than the egocentric salad-bar (pick n' choose what you want, arrange it to mean whatever you want, and leave the rest).
Part II
Unlike most in the West, Muslims, typically, actually believe in the truth of their faith. To ask them to denounce the words and actions of Muhammed would be to ask them to, in essence and in truth, deny their own faith completely. It would be like asking a Christian to just "get rid of that whole, pesky 'Son of God' bit" of their faith. Sorta makes the whole Faith irrelevant.
In my very humble opinion, this places a lot of well-meaning Muslims with truly good hearts in a very tough predicament. How does one stay faithful to a religion whilst undercutting the very foundations of that religion? I know Western Christians do it on a daily basis and, indeed, it is the very foundation of most of Western Christianity. However, this comes from people completely immersed in an egocentric perspective on reality in which "truth" starts with the individual (thanks a lot, Aquinas). Muslims tend not to see reality this way. They adhere to a much older perspective that reality is, in fact, set, and starts from outside the individual. Though I agree with this starting point, I am only saddened by the choice of these individuals to a twisted, misleading, violent, and hate-filled view of such reality.
Add to this perspective the point laid out by so many commentators before me (especially the Caner brothers): in Islam, there is no real "love" from God, there is only uncertainty. Except, that is, to die a martyr. That is the only assurance of entrance in to paradise. Add healthy splashes of poverty and cultural arrogance/ethnocentrism (if not outright bigotry), and it is no wonder that we have such horrific acts of terrorism that we saw recently at Ft. Hood and, previously, in every other terrorist act.
In the end, though, if we don't acknowledge the fundamental reality of the violence inherent in Islam, itself, we well only continue to turn blind eyes to individuals like this terrorist. If we, as a people, continue our purposeful ignorance of Islam, its history and beliefs, then we will do no more than keep ourselves open to such attacks.
I, myself, can only pray for Muslims, like all people, that they will find the love that I know exists in God and abandon the hate and un-Godly fear that their faith embraces.
the sinner,
Patrick
I've never been to a mosque, so I don't know what was going on. But I do agree, the need to find their voices, and at the top of their lungs, proudly proclaim their affection for their new nation, and make it perfectly clear their total revulsion of these acts.
I did see some of that following 9/11, but not nearly enough. The local paper had wire photo of a bunch of immigrants from south east Asia and India, holding a patriotic march, waving American flags.
If they're waiting for the MSM to do a good job of defending them, or leave it up to the likes of CAIR, nothing will happen.
The same reason they are terrified that there will be a backlash against Muslims over this, but gave not a thought or word of worry about backlash against anti abortion folks after Tiller was killed.
Think about it.
Patrick, maybe it is just the cold tablet that is making your post confusing, but – What? And I mean that in the bullet point form of the "What?"
After reading that I have to go lie down. Hopefully you can provide me with Cliff's notes on that.
I agree…. I think that our government and media is being cowardly when it comes to labeling… Crap, even the Muslims HERE are saying that he is a terrorist and to bring on the background checks for Muslims in the U.S. Military and to screw being P.C. (I pretty much heard one Muslim leader say this on national TV)… but no, we can't offend those in Iran or Yeman or where ever the hell they are… give me a break… this guy was an extremist terrorist (though I was holding back judgement about him until more information came out) and so was the guy that shot up the holocaust museum…
And I'm happy he didn't die either…. he should be buried facing the ground and rapped in a pig skin… :/
Interesting commentary.
I know this is off subject from the main topic here…You brought up the Hadiths which to me is the "end of game" for Islam. They claim the Quran is the true book of scripture…and it is complete and perfect.
Yet I can never get a Muslim to tell me why they pray 5 times a day if the Quran only list 3 prayers…the Hadiths are where the the other prayers are listed.
I think you mean "wrapped."
The life of a pig is not worth sacrificing over this P.O.S.
They better start taking care of their own trash. Iraq is a perfect example of what Americans can and will do if we have to do it.
Actually that's the way the New Testament is laid out also. I read somewhere that after the Gospels and Acts, the Catholic Letters are lined up by size.
Never done a word count on them, just assumed the author I was reading knew what they were talking about.
Wanda: the point is that we need to understand Islam from the inside out and engage in the typically Western (and I mean Western, in all my points, as a mindset, not a geopolitcal/ethnic sense) activity of superficial analysis from the outside.
The Q: very true. In fact, it's impossible to understand the Koran, really, unless you read the Hadith. And the 5 daily prayers? This is a vestige from the Arian heretic monk that Muhammed learned everything he knew about Christianity from.
the sinner,
Patrick
I've done some amateur research on the issue my self. As I understand it, the issue with the Koran is that Muslims view the actual book itself as the manifestation of God.
Christians have Jesus as the manifestation, Jews had the Temple. But there was no single object that truly represents God's presence on earth, they use the physical book to reflect it.
Which in my own opinion, is a pretty dangerous belief. It means there is no questioning its contents, at all, period.
In the last 40 years or so a lot of professional research has been done on the evolution of the Bible, from an historical view. Muslims around the world are not going to like it when the Koran receives the same treatment.
I've heard some preliminary stories on the web that it looks like the very earliest versions were written in Syrian, not Arabic.
From what I've learned about Islam over the last several years (I started reading up on it about a week after 9/11, Sun Tzu – know your enemy).
Two things that leaped out at me is first, there is no central hierarchy in the religion, every person is to be their own Imam. So there's no over riding authority like the Pope to officially declare the interpretation.
Secondly, and this one seems to be at the root of a lot of issues, Christians and Jews believe God created the world, and kind of started the universe, but generally doesn't get involved. That means we, as believers, can learn about how God's creation works, physics, science, astronomy, etc. The irrefutable laws of physics are the laws that God created when the universe was created.
Muslims believe that existence is what it it because that's the way God wants it. So it's not as important to worry about the physical world around them, as God could decide tomorrow the sky will be orange. So why waste time worrying about why it's blue today? That leads down a path of adherence to the Koran rather than toward natural scientific curiosity. "Why is the sky blue? Because God wills it, so shut up and recite your scriptures."
My own opinion only.
Yes, you are correct…. I did mean wrapped… well we can just eat the meat of the pig then it's not totally worthless….
Right On Redtex. If people did these heinous acts in the name of Christianity every Lib-tard out there from the Olberfuhrer to Madcow would be calling this clown a religious extremist at best, and at worst a terrorist. Their love for anything Un-American or anti-Christian
Save the pig for the Feast of the Resurrection (Easter), if/when this A-Hole is found guilty, just blow his brains out and wash them down the drain with a garden hose.
What caught my eye about "rapped" is at first glance I thought you typed "raped."
That caught my attention as a possibly great idea.
Good Commentary!
not having Mr Bush to blame has them scurrying…
If all Christians acted like Jesus, the world would be a better place.
If all Muslims acted like Muhammad, we'd all be dead by now.
I get that your saying that its not the idealogy that makes people evil, its the people themselves, but thats only a half truth. To say World View had nothing to do with it is to say National Socialism, or Communism should not be blamed Holocaust or the Great Leap forward. The people choose the ideology, the choice being morally reprehensible, and the ideology is itself morally reprehensible.
Islam is a religion of the sword, and its as simple as that.
"This is clearly evident when you consider the equal percentages of current Christian murderers popping up daily who engage in massacres for the glory of God by the word of the Messiah, the Christian ministers demanding the extermination of the infidels while proclaiming the heavenly rewards of martyrdom to the faith. And don't forget all those Christian nations asking for the absolute annihilation of non-Christian nations."
This is a joke Right? Please tell me this is a joke!!
"Save the pig for the Feast of the Resurrection (Easter), if/when this A-Hole is found guilty, just blow his brains out and wash them down the drain with a garden hose."
That made me laugh.
It's a religion of the sword to it's adherence who believe in life by the sword. It's an excuse, a reason, not the source.
If you want to read some real bloody religion, take a look at the Book of Joshua. It's about his campaign to annihilate the Canaanites.
I've read it, and it in no way wants me to put an entire village to the sword.
What my point is, communism and socialism aren't the cause of millions of death. They are the excuses people who wanted to put millions of people to death used.
There are a lot of evil people in the world. Regardless of what they spout, they are evil, and will cause damage, because they are evil. It doesn't matter what comes out of their mouths, its their actions.
Aww but EdSki (if I remember correctly) wrapping them in the skin of a pig will send them directly to hell without passing Go or collecting $200 dollars (or in their case 70 virgins).
The only piece I even remotely quibble with is the 99.9%, but the sentiment is a good one.
I love ham. Sorry, I don't want to see one of my favorite meats associated with that thing. One of my favorite traditions is after Mass, after the big Easter dinner, after the dishes are done, after the wife and daughter have already slipped into naps because of the size of the dinner, I make a ham & cheese and sit down to watch The Ten Commandments.
I'll, donate the 99 cents bag of pork rinds you can crush up and sprinkle over his corpse.
"What my point is, communism and socialism aren't the cause of millions of death."
An ideology can be just as evil as the person who uses it. Both are to blame. Both are Evil. That's all I'm saying.
I can agree with you, and slightly disagree with you, and I thank you for the polite political debate. That's what's so great about BH. You can actually do this!
Yes, an ideology can be evil, but even if the evil didn't have one, they'd still be evil. It's just a convenient excuse in my opinion.
But I also understand your point, people who may not start out evil, but can be drawn to it, and ideology is a powerful tool evil uses to attract the unwitting.
Blame it on my faith in humanity's inherent goodness (please don't ask me to offer documentation to back that up, its far too easy to prove me wrong), but I think the evil has to already be in one's heart before it can be nurtured by external forces.
We're getting into subjective questions, philosophy, religion, so, we're each going to have our own opinion. And again, thanks for the debate! Beat the heck out of working this afternoon!
Well, actually, that's not true about Christianity or Judaism. Both see God (originally, in Christianity – many in the West have abandoned or modified this belief, following their own whims) as being directly involved at at all times in creation. In fact, original Christianity posits that all creation is sustained, moment to moment, only by God's ever-present energies (also known as grace, which changed into a created action, instead of a direct manifestation of God in the world, in the West as Aristotelian scholasticism took over from original theology).
The difference is that in both Judaism and Christianity, as man is created in God's image (the likeness being lost in the fall), free will is still operative. Thus, God may *know* the outcome, but he doesn't dictate it. His will is all pervasive, but we must respond to it.
For Muslims, there is a perverse sort of Calvinism-predestination kick, along with a capricious and ever-changing God. Christians and Jews do NOT see God as changing (OT verses re: God "becoming" angry or merciful merely reflected our then limited understanding of God's continual presence with us as it was perceived by OUR changing affections/actions/beliefs).
The idea that we can learn about God through creation is a late innovation, and is not actual Christian thought. It presupposes an ontological dualism not present in Christianity and limits man to an egocentric, instead of theocentric, epistemological system. I believe this is the source of the greatest ills the West faces, actually. But, that's another bat-story for another bat-channel.
The Muslims are right to see reality the way they do – the problem is that their view of reality is extremely violent and capricious. Not understanding either Judaism or Christianity (again, getting most information second hand through an Arian heretic), Muhammed sculpted a "god" of avaricious, and most certainly, anthropomorphic, proportions. Instead of a Godly fear, Islam is filled with simple, worldly fear. Lack of a "scientific mentality," as the West worships, really has no effect. Scientific advancement does not mean spiritual, or social or cultural or personal, betterment.
the sinner,
Patrick
Actually, the Bible didn't evolve, as the "academics" at the Jesus Seminar preach. This is typical Western Aristotelian scholasticism. At the same time, however, the idea that the Bible is an "instruction manual" is equally false – it ignores the fact that Christianity is a totality, a Faith, not a "group of common believers" who all ascent to, more or less, the same general, amorphous principles with a few core ones. It is an organic Body, as specifically called in the NT, that encompasses the faith "delivered once for all to the saints." (Jude 3). Though the Bible, OT AND NT, not *just* NT, is authoritative, and important for instruction, it is only properly understood within the totality of the Church, the Body of Christ, as established by Christ in Matthew. Outside of that totality, it is only a document that reflects a malleable ideology. Just like without the Faith, the Church simply becomes an institution.
Islam, separated from the proper understanding of Scripture when Muhammed learned at the feet of an Arian heretic monk, proposed a somewhat similar "doctrinal basis" for the faith he created. He attempted to keep everything oral, but that didn't last. After all, anyone who has read the Koran without the Hadith recognize how confusing the whole thing is.
the sinner,
Patrick
"Why isn’t Major Hasan being considered a terrorist by the White House?"
Are you serious? He'll probably be Obama's next candidate for Psychology Czar. With his "radical beliefs" – he'll fit right in!
Let me clarify that last paragraph – the *methodology* of viewing reality as set and independent of humanity is correct, but the "god" envisaged by Islam is based on human frailties and is anthropomorphic, not transcendent. Thus, the violent "god" that justifies Muhammed's later, and thus "more correct" (by way of abrogation, another little trick of Islam), surrahs regarding the three-choice system of dealing with non-believers.
the sinner,
Patrick
Thank you for your thoughtful, polite and above all intelligent reply. But I'm going to have politely disagree.
Allow me to clarify my position, I was not describing the earliest Christian Church, nor ancient Judaism. Rather I was referring to the Church and Judaism as it evolved during the era leading up to the the Renaissance and the age of enlightenment. Think St. Thomas Aquinas.
I've read dozens of books (apologies, I'm not bragging) one in particular "The History of God" which was a study on how different civilizations through out history defined the word God. And the author made a pretty good argument in favor of my position, which is why I hold it.
I fully admit that I don't remember the scientific terms the author used to posit her opinion. But it was a compelling argument.
Perhaps if I use more simple terms (easier for me, not in the least suggesting you need it) Christians and Jews tend look at the world and think, this is what we've got, now let's figure it out and see what are we going to do with it. And some Muslims (particularly the more backward ones that think their god wants them to blow up people) tend to think, this is what we have, how do we force it to be the way we want it to be?
Its a fundamental difference in accepting and dealing with the reality of the world around us as individuals.
Understood. However, as a Christian, I believe Christ is not a liar and the Holy Spirit is not a failure. Thus, when Christ said he'd establish His Church so that the gates of hades would not prevail against it, and that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church until the end, I believe him. And when the Apostles tell us to stand fast to what we have been "traditioned" (though this often translated as "taught"), whether by word or epistle, and if anyone, be they an Apostle or even an angel of light, teaches otherwise, they are to be anathema (accursed), I believe it. And if the Faith is delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 3), there is no need to rediscover it, nor for it to "evolve."
Modern "scholarship" has a tendency to analyze, and interpret, everything in light of an egocentric epistemology (theory of knowledge). This can be directly traced back to individuals who were exemplified by Aquinas. This theory was an abandonment of the Faith delivered by the Fathers, and was an innovation. It denied God's presence in the world and created, for the first time in Christianity, the idea that the physical and spiritual worlds were separate (ontological dualism). This left God distant and non-interactive, and limited human knowledge to what he could "learn" through interaction with the physical world.
The problem is that this is not Christian. It is humanistic and, necessarily, elevates the human intellect to the highest source of knowledge possible. It is no wonder that, even if Aquinas didn't mean to, we are where we are today – atheistic, egocentric, and worshipful of the human intellect as it manifests itself in whatever is called "science." This is not Christianity, in the least, but is an inevitable result of Aquinas' egocentric "theology." (I'd recommend Phillip Sherrard's "The Greek East and the Latin West" for a better understanding of the actual "evolution" of thought in the West).
Christianity actually posits a source of continual knowledge, of both the created world and of spiritual matters, that transcends the human intellect's limitations. Aquinas' Aristotelian scholasticism necessarily locks man into the created world and into a perverse form of self-worship.
Islam never went through this. Instead, they took an original worldview that was correct, and harnessed it to a series of beliefs that were based on human capriciousness and greed which were transferred to a "god." That is why it is so dangerous – it understands the proper way of seeing reality, but actually sees a reality (and a "god") that is arbitrary and full of despair.
the sinner,
Patrick
"Actually, the Bible didn't evolve…" "It is an organic Body…"
If your faith tells you that, that's fine, I will not disrespect it, I applaud your faith. Faith can be a great rock to anchor our selves through life. I know it is for me.
But the Bible is a book, a physical object, that has changed over time. And those changes are documented. I call that evolution. If you prefer a different term, I have no problem.
The earliest preserved copies of the Gospel of Mark (around 80 AD) do not include the last chapter. That was added later. The earliest preserved copied of St. John do not include the verses on "Let he who is without sin cast eh first stone." (around 120 AD I think). The original wording of Matthew 3:17 was "This is now my Son"
The Bible has changed. It's actually a pretty fascinating story. Because the history of the Bible that I have in my hands today is also the history of western civilization.
The Catholic Church defines the Bible in lose terms (I've had this debate with my Priest) as it is what it is, and we need the Catholic Church to tell us what the true meaning is. Which is a pretty safe stance, lots of wiggle room.
I still submit, my own personal opinion is the main difference between Christianity/Judaism and Islam is a different way of viewing reality through the lens of reality.
All the religious wars of Europe were hundreds of years ago. Christianity has kind of worked that out it. Now it's not about control, it's about peace. My opinion is Islam is still in the middle of those kind of religious wars and its spilling over onto us.
Oh, also, this: you are RIGHT, of course, about what happened in the West regarding the "evolution" of what was called Christianity. I'm not discounting that – I'm simply saying that it is philosophy, not Christian theology. Those views aren't really Christian – they are reflected of a human "wisdom," that's all. In fact, I'd agree that what you're recounting is 100% accurate, sir!
the sinner,
Patrick
First, I'd say that it isn't just a "book," and the "scholarship" that alleges a lot of the changes you suggest isn't on such steady ground. The "documentation" often rests on modernist interpretations and "reading back into history" motivations and concepts that have no reason being there. Thus, it hasn't, in fact, "evolved." No more than actual Christianity has. That the Bible was not a "fax from heaven," of course, I agree. But the idea that interpolations have been added as you suggest isn't really anything more than mere speculation. I'm curious to know where these claims come from, and where that evidence is from! I'm sure it'd be a fascinating read.
And the "lens of reality" is a pretty amorphous term. I posit that it derives from a very Western mindset that sees only the physical world as capable of providing information about anything (I will submit myself to your generous correction, if needed). I don't believe that this is the ultimate source of knowledge and that there is a source greater than the Aristotelian method of the contemplation of physical objects. I'd even go so far as to say that this leads, necessarily, to solipsism (even group solipsism, that relies on the "everybody knows" pool of knowledge to justify various positions).
The "religious wars" of Europe, I think, were little more than the typical, humanist wars dressed up in religious terminology. For the most part, anyway. I am sincerely skeptical that there is any evidence that points to any specific war, or skirmish, even, fought solely on religious grounds with no ulterior motives. At least, not any that I saw in college whilst studying European history. Even the Crusades were, at "best," religiously speaking, a response to the original Muslim crusades. At worst, they were little more than diversionary power/land grabs (and, in the case of the Fourth Crusade, nothing more than looting expeditions that caused more damage and death to Christians than anything any of the other Crusades ever visited upon the Muslims).
I must say, in honesty, that the Latin Church may define the Bible that way but, in my humble opinion, the Latin Church lost its way a long time ago. No offense intended to you, sir. Again, my simple opinion.
the sinner,
Patrick
Just so you know, sir, there is another response prior to the one above that needs to be approved by the moderators. I beg your patience.
the sinner,
Patrick
My friend Rosemary Storm's tribute to all of our fallen veterans…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUg9SDeDYoI
The Muslims are destroying my country and yours. We need justice, not just for about the murderous Arab Hasan, but all the other Arabs and Muslims who have murdered Americans or plotted to do so. How is it possible that there has been no death penalty for any of these cases? You figure it out. I know why.
I was stationed down at MacDill AFB (Tampa, FL) in 2007, and was working on an MBA at UofPhoenix. I had to drive by the local CAIR headquarters once a week to get to class, and they never had an American flag flying, while numerous businesses, churches, and private dwellings along my route had their flags out. Perceptions are important and if anybody is aware of that, it's the thin-skinned CAIRites. If they're not willing to proclaim their allegiance either vocally or through some small gesture as flying a flag of this country, and if there are so many reports of imams in this country being supportive of terrorists and terrorist acts directed against the country and our military, how can we not be suspicious of Muslims' motives and actions?
I own an FN 5.7, and it's a great pistol. I was using it this past summer for varmint hunting out west along with my Mini-14 and it was perfect for the job, particularly for small vermin. It's silly to think that the round could penetrate any kevlar vest – the round looks like a shortened .223 (about the same caliber) but much less power. I don't think I'd carry one around for self-defense, I'd rely on something more robust. Why this whack-job chose it for his rampage I don't know. From what I've read, he was having difficulties reloading the pistol as he went and probably would have had the same problems with any semi-auto. So it still boils down to the operator rather than the equipment.
As far as Mark, ya threw me off! It isn't the "last chapter." Its verses 9 through 20, not the whole last chapter. In addition, just because two early copies don't contain those verses doesn't mean those particular two versions are correct – many more do have those verses. That goes with the other verses. See, that's the problem with this "scholarship" – it reads back into history and, by its very nature, is speculative, at best.
the sinner,
Patrick
Annnnnd my other post hasn't been accepted. Shame – I can't even remember everything I wrote. Thought you' find it fascinating, as it also addresses some of the epistemological issues that are related to my points on Islam.
But the chronology isn't important in the NT. It IS when you look at the Koran, especially when you keep in mind the surrahs on abrogation – that means that the later "revelations" in time are the "more accurate ones." That is why there may *seem* to be contradictory verses in the Koran but, really, they don't contradict at all.
the sinner,
Patrick
An Interesting discussion indeed.
"Blame it on my faith in humanity's inherent goodness"
To put it harshly, what minute infinitesimal Goodness we have, is God given at birth. Humans are a much greater part inherent Evil. Original Sin is a bitch.
Basically, I think we should avoid overplaying Humanities Goodness. We have a word for that: Progressive.
.
To be sure, evil is always a choice. However, when given over to evil or, at least, avoiding that which is good, an evil contained within a religion can misleading even an honest heart. I would also posit that using terms like "good" and "evil" are meaningless outside the context of "religion" – in the sense that only through some sort of religion can we make any internally consistent appeal to notions of good and evil. Without an external source of determination, good and evil are merely man-made concepts that only have worth insofar as man defines them.
Long story short – without absolutes, without an external source of truth, i.e. God, good and evil are just two more subjective words.
the sinner,
Patrick
The trial will probably REALLY set Hasan off. With everyone in the courtroom insisting he is the victim, Hasan will be screaming, "NO, I'M A TERRORIST! SERIOUSLY! I WANT TO F**KING KILL YOU!" Only to be patronized and coddled by the attorneys, etc. "Your honor, as you can see, Major Hasan is clearly in denial about the suffering he endured during the Bush administration's "War on Islam" — Withdrawn! — Your honor, it's only natural that the stress of a possible deployment to his holy land would cause his anxiety to reach such a fevered pitch. Throw in the psychic toll of possibly meeting his Muslim brothers on the field of battle and, your honor, what we have here is a soldier in need; Hasan's actions, while deplorable, were a cry for help." Meanwhile, Hasan is taken away in chains screaming, "I'M A TERRORIST, YOU MORONS! I. AM. NOT. KIDDING!! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE???!!!"
It was domestic terrorism, straight-up.
Not all muslims are jihadists, but all jihadists are muslim…
Pitchforks and torches are right around the corner…
Can you hear me now Obamski?
This blogpost says all that needs to be said.
http://hillbuzz.org/2009/11/10/thank-you-former-p...
I wonder if Obama is related to the former Iraqi Information Minister.
"There are no Americans in Baghdad!"
When a Palestinian walks into a pizza parlor and blows himself up, I never hear anyone say "he just snapped".
Why the caveat?
Always, always the caveat.
It's depressing that we think we always have to reassure and placate the enemy.
The city I grew up in was literally filled with immigrants. They came her for jobs in the shoe factories. Polish, Slovak, Russian, Irish, German, Italian, Greek, Irish, we had everything.
And every ethnic group had their own Catholic Parish, and their own ethnic festival, usually their Church's patron saint's feast day. And every one of them had red, white & blue every where.
We were all immensely proud of where we came from, but as equally proud of where we were.
I agree.
Ha ha ha… it's similar in our house… Only we will watch Jesus Christ Superstar…
I have the sound track, its what we listen to through out Lent!
Here's a few of my favorites from over the years:
This one describes the historical archeology of the Bible from the viewpoint of the academic discipline "textual criticism." It also has fascinating historical perspective. The author gets a lot of crap for interjecting his own religion into his work, but I found it to be minimal.
http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behi...
This one is one of my favorites, and what a unique idea, an atheist sci-fi writers examines the Bible compared to the known historical record.
http://www.amazon.com/Asimovs-Guide-Bible-Histori...
And here's a few shorter ones that deal with specific aspects of the growth and formation on the Bible, the early Church and Christianity in general. While those parts are very interesting, there's still a lot of historical information
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_0_9?url=search-...
I agree with your assessment about religious wars, its humans fighting each other, dressing up their claims in religious terminology. And I think that's exactly what we're seeing throughout Islam today. They're still doing it.
I do agree for a long time the Latin Rite was lost, but I think between Pope Paul VI's address to the UN, Vatican II and Pope John Paul II did a great job of steering the Vatican back towards it's correct path. My opinion.
Yep, you're right, I just checked. I'm working my way through Kings, so I haven't looked at Mark for a while.
And I politely disagree. When you have a physical document in your possession that's accurately dated, you have historical evidence. This is not reading back into history, this is examining historical physical evidence. And if you have a copy from a later date with additioonal verses added, it's a fairly safe bet parts were added.
As to who added what or removed what and why is subjective. The existing physical evidence are facts.
The first book I suggested in another reply to your posts covers that part of the Bible's history very well. The earliest versions of the Gospel were essentially letters that were transcribed and circulated between various early Christian sects. They were copied by non professional, volunteers, who in many cases may not have even understood the language they were written in, and were simply copying symbols. Some groups may have had oral histories that weren't included in the documents they received, so they simply added them.
Other changes are more closely aligned with stamping out specific heresies, such as removing "He is now my Son" and replacing it with "He is my Son" to deal with sects who insisted Jesus was born mortal, and chosen by God.
This is one of the things that I find fascinating. In Church every Sunday I recite "The Word of the Lord." Got me wondering, who decided what was and there by what was not the word of the Lord? I'm funny like that.
"and sit down to watch The Ten Commandments."
*grins* I do that on Passover too; well, minues the ham.
I disagree. I don't think a person need religion to be moral. I know many friends that aren't religious at all, or barely religious (i.e. funerals, weddings, maybe Easter), and they are quite moral.
Religion can help one figure out what their morals are, but I don't think it's a necessity. For years I was an atheist simply because I couldn't think of a decent reason to believe in God. Then one day, I decided I want to, so I did.
Oh yeah.
Feel free to replace "Christian" with just about any modern popular religion. Buddhist, Hindu… Scientology…
You must be logged in to post a comment.