There is a lot to unpack here, and I'm going to try to break things down over a few posts.
I think the first and most obvious question is; What is an extremist?
2.
a supporter or advocate of extreme doctrines or practices.
That's what the dictionary says, but I'm not sure it's very helpful.
noun
1.
a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or
fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical
This one maybe is a little better.
So how abut a definition for Muslim extremist?
Definition
A number of definitions have been offered for Islamic extremism, sometimes using overlapping but also distinct aspects of extreme interpretations and pursuits of Islamic ideology:- The use of violent tactics such as bombing and assassinations for achieving perceived Islamic goals;[5]
- An extremely conservative view of Islam,[7] which does not necessarily entail violence[.[6] Key identifiers of the ideology may include:
- a belief in the applicability of Sharia law in contemporary times,[2][9]
- the concept of belonging to a single Muslim community internationally (the umma),[2]
- belief in the legitimacy of jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world, including armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military,[9] (or more sympathetically belief in "resisting attack and occupation through the use of force";[2]
- advocating a caliphate, i.e. a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.[2][9]
- Others have included positions such as
- refusal to condemn the killing of soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, that were serving the Western country they live in (such as the UK or US).[9]
- Can we find something comparable for "christian extremism"?
Not really.
I think the problem is that it is a matter of taking the tenets of a particular religion and taking them to an extreme in terms of applying them. The problem is that in the case of Muslim extremists that are taking actual tenets that actually exist both in the Koran as well as in the official teaching of Islam and taking then to a level that non Muslims find extreme.
For example, if one looks in the Koran, finds the verse below and simply takes it at face value I think many would call that an instance of Muslim extremism yet it's pretty clear what is being said.
"The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.",
So, it's one thing to take something that is clearly a part of the official scriptures of a religion and to apply it in a way that seems extreme to others of different religions.
It's another thing all together to suggest that someone who engages in an act that is clearly not a clear part of the scriptures or an official doctrine of a religion and suggest that the act is a representation of whatever group they claim to represent.
As I looked at the web to find examples of "christian extremism", what I found was people who called themselves (or were called by others) "christians" engaging in actions that Christianity does not endorse.
For example, anyone who murders in the name of "christianity" is obviously engaging in an act that is counter to the teachings of both Jesus as well as The Church.
So to draw any sort of parallel between someone engaging in a act that is something that the teachings of the religion clearly teach and someone engaging in an act which is the opposite of the clear teachings is at best shallow and at worse intentionally false.
It has been suggested that one example of "christian extremists" were the slaveholders in the American south who used (misused) the Bible to justify their actions. The contention is that for these folks slavery and oppression were part and parcel of christain teaching and the the sole (primary) reason these people engaged in the practice of slavery. It completely discounts any other possible primary motivation and posits that these (relatively few) people saw it as their christian obligation to hold slaves. This fails on several levels.
1. It is based to some degree on assumptions about motivations.
2. It ignores the fact that slavery was/is not exclusively a "christian" practice.
3. It ignores that fact that there is nothing in specifically Christian teaching that mandates the owning of slaves.
4. It claims that the owning of slaves was a primary official tenet of The Christian Church.
5. It is based on the assumption that all of the slave holders claimed to be christian.
6. It is based on the assumption that all of the slave holders actually practicing christians.
This is not to suggest that there was not an attempt to use out of context passages of scripture to justify owning slaves, of course there was. Unfortunately, this practice (using scripture to justify human desires) is not limited to simply this issue. It is all too common, and becoming more so. The problem is that because it is possible to use scripture to "support" something, doesn't mean it is being used correctly or appropriately.
I think that most of us would agree with Jesus that the #1&2, most central, unambiguous, non negotiable official Christian tenets are; 1. Love God with all your heart, mind, soul, strength. and 2 Love your neighbor as yourself.
By any measure the slavery as practiced in the American south clearly is the complete opposite of the central tenet of Christianity. So, for anyone to suggest that something so opposed to "Love your neighbor as yourself." is in any way representative of Christianity is simply nonsensical.
I'd argue that a "Christian extremist" is someone who takes the actual teachings of Christianity and applies them is reckless and unselfish ways.
I'd suggest that starting with Stephen that the legions of people who have literally given their lives for the faith are Christian extremists.
I'd suggest that the people like Mother Theresa who have chosen to give up material comfort in order to succor those in need are Christian extremists.
I'd suggest that those who risk life and limb to go into countries hostile to Christianity in order to preach the gospel are Christian extremists.
76 comments:
For example, anyone who murders in the name of "christianity" is obviously engaging in an act that is counter to the teachings of both Jesus as well as The Church.
Muslims would say the same about extremist Muslims.
It sounds like you want to get to define Islam for Muslims and not let others hold Christians to the same level of scrutiny that you are holding Muslims.
By "extremist" in the context of the conversation we were holding, I was referring to those Christians who would defend oppressive/harmful behavior in the name of Christianity. Slavery was defended by Christians who cited Christianity/the Bible in their defense. Racism has been defended by Christians who cited Christianity/the Bible in their defense.
So, I have now clarified how I was using extremist, if it was not clear from my conversation.
I think the problem is that it is a matter of taking the tenets of a particular religion and taking them to an extreme in terms of applying them. The problem is that in the case of Muslim extremists that are taking actual tenets that actually exist both in the Koran
Moderate Muslims would disagree with your "learned" opinions on the matter. You don't get to define Islam for Muslims, any more than you get to define Christianity for Christians.
That appears to be the root of the problem here, as noted earlier.
It's interesting that according to the top 10 Worst terror attacks by "christians" the total death toll is a whopping 186 people. This includes the OKC bombing which was a protest against the federal government not a religious statement. So if we subtract that we end up with a death toll of 18.
Let's compare.
9/11 3000 plus
Charile Hebdo 11
Paris 130
Madrid Trains 191
This doesn't count the thousands killed in attacks on Israel, ISIS, etc.
Even being generous as to what constitutes "christian", it's still incredibly lopsided in favor of Islam.
I have to note that over at your place on this topic you stated; "What is there to "continue..."?"
Yet, now all of a sudden you want to continue, interesting.
"Muslims would say the same about extremist Muslims."
And yet those same Muslims support and are a part of "moderate" Muslim regimes that engage in all sorts of oppression. What gives them any credibility the fact that they are less oppressive than the "extremists"?
"It sounds like you want to get to define Islam for Muslims and not let others hold Christians to the same level of scrutiny that you are holding Muslims."
Not at all, there are plenty of clear unambiguous texts in the Koran just like the one I quoted. Please show me one Christian text that suggests anything of the sort.
"So, I have now clarified how I was using extremist, if it was not clear from my conversation."
Yipee, you can repeat yourself here as well as at your blog. The problem is, as I pointed out, you haven't justified the leap from "citing" to essential doctrine. The problem is that the Muslims (even the Moderates) agree that things of an oppressive nature (Jihad, martyrdom, conversion by force) are clear essential teachings of the Koran, while slave owners don't seem to have made a similar claim. Of course I dealt with this in the post and you just think repeating some variation on your premise magically overcomes any objections.
"Moderate Muslims would disagree with your "learned" opinions on the matter. You don't get to define Islam for Muslims, any more than you get to define Christianity for Christians."
Let's knock off this "you have to be a scholar" crap right now. It's simply a bunch of crap. Anyone with a high school reading comprehension level can read and understand the Koran. Anyone who has done any research at all will realize that there is nothing within Islam that compares to the textural criticism in Christian scholarship. I'm not trying to "define" anything (although you appear to be), I'm giving one (of several I've given already) example of passages in the Koran that have no counterpart in Christianity.
"That appears to be the root of the problem here, as noted earlier."
You keep on believing that if it helps you ignore everything I've already dealt with.
he total death toll is a whopping 186 people
You appear to be ignoring the 12.5 MILLION slaves (give or take) enslaved largely by people who would have claimed Christianity and supported by and large (or at least tolerated by) a Christian nation.
Or how about the hundreds of thousands of Japanese men, women and children killed by Christian bombers at Hiroshima/Nagasaki... arguably one of the largest single acts of terrorism in world history?
You can't just ignore the inconvenient cases.
Again, it appears you want to point to any and all Muslim extremists, speak for all Muslims as if you know best what their religion is, and object to it when people do the same for your tradition.
Yet, now all of a sudden you want to continue, interesting.
Here, you are offering something to which I can respond. There, I didn't see anything. Not so hard to understand.
yet those same Muslims support and are a part of "moderate" Muslim regimes that engage in all sorts of oppression.
You keep saying this as if it were a fact. It's just an empty claim. Many Muslims do, in fact, support religious liberty and do NOT support religious oppression. Who are you citing here?
Anyone with a high school reading comprehension level can read and understand the Koran.
And YOU get to decide for all of Islam? Arrogant much?
Look, the fact of the matter is that both the Bible and the Koran have to be interpreted by individuals. There is NO AUTHORITATIVE spokespeople for either document. You do not get to claim that you are the one speaking for the Bible/God any more than the KKK fella does, any more than I do. The same is true for Islam/the Koran.
This appears to be the basic gaping hole in your whole made up theory is that you think you can decide which Muslims are "truly" speaking for Islam. Sorry, but from a strictly rational point of view, no, you do not get to do that.
Humble thyself, man.
"You appear to be ignoring the 12.5 MILLION slaves (give or take) enslaved largely by people who would have claimed Christianity and supported by and large (or at least tolerated by) a Christian nation."
Nope.
1. I reject your premise.
2. I prefer to live in the present
3. No one else agrees with your pet position
4. I was making a specific reference to specific claims about the top 10 worst acts of Christian terrorism. So, if some whack job leftist blog doesn't count slavery, I'm not either.
"Or how about the hundreds of thousands of Japanese men, women and children killed by Christian bombers at Hiroshima/Nagasaki... arguably one of the largest single acts of terrorism in world history?"
Really? Are you suggesting that every single person involved in the dropping of the atomic bomb was a practicing Christian who was doing it in the name of Christ?
But lets look at a few facts (stubborn thing those facts).
Total casualties from Hiroshima and Nagasaki 199,000
Total deaths from the Rape of Nanking over 300,000
"In December of 1937, the Japanese Imperial Army marched into China's capital city of Nanking and proceeded to murder 300,000 out of 600,000 civilians and soldiers in the city. The six weeks of carnage would become known as the Rape of Nanking and represented the SINGLE WORST ATROCITY during the World War II era in either the European or Pacific theaters of war."
"Their first concern was to eliminate any threat from the 90,000 Chinese soldiers who surrendered. To the Japanese, surrender was an unthinkable act of cowardice and the ultimate violation of the rigid code of military honor drilled into them from childhood onward. Thus they looked upon Chinese POWs with utter contempt, viewing them as less than human, unworthy of life."
"After the destruction of the POWs, the soldiers turned their attention to the women of Nanking and an outright animalistic hunt ensued. Old women over the age of 70 as well as little girls under the age of 8 were dragged off to be sexually abused. More than 20,000 females (with some estimates as high as 80,000) were gang-raped by Japanese soldiers, then stabbed to death with bayonets or shot so they could never bear witness.
Pregnant women were not spared. In several instances, they were raped, then had their bellies slit open and the fetuses torn out. Sometimes, after storming into a house and encountering a whole family, the Japanese forced Chinese men to rape their own daughters, sons to rape their mothers, and brothers their sisters, while the rest of the family was made to watch."
Oh and let's not forget the Japanese did regard their emperor as a god and were in point of fact engaged in these atrocities because their god told them to.
So, I guess that's one benefit of actually studying history rather than regurgitating talking points.
"You can't just ignore the inconvenient cases."
I'm not ignoring them, although as I just demonstrated you are.
You can't just pick random historical events and ascribe religious motivation to them simply because you want to buttress your made up theory.
"Again, it appears you want to point to any and all Muslim extremists, speak for all Muslims as if you know best what their religion is, and object to it when people do the same for your tradition."
Nope. Yet you feel somehow qualified to speak on the personal motivations of every single slaveholder in the American south without any hesitation.
"Here, you are offering something to which I can respond. There, I didn't see anything. Not so hard to understand."
Really, you "didn't see' the questions you didn't answer. Convenient.
"You keep saying this as if it were a fact. It's just an empty claim."
No it's not. Any Muslim country which has the death penalty for conversion from Islam is a great place to start. Surely you agree that that is oppression? Or how about forcing women into the hijab and chador? That's not oppressive? How about preventing women from driving, voting or education? Not oppressive? Killing homosexuals seems pretty oppressive, but maybe you don't think so.
"Many Muslims do, in fact, support religious liberty and do NOT support religious oppression. Who are you citing here?"
Really, what "moderate" Muslim countries do not have the death penalty for conversion from Islam? To be clear, I'm sure there are are individual Muslims that are fine with religious freedom, unfortunately in places where Islam rules the laws aren't quite so liberal.
"And YOU get to decide for all of Islam? Arrogant much?"
Nope,never said that. I can't help but notice that you think it's arrogant for me to claim to be able to understand the clear teaching of the Koran, while you have no problem ascribing motives to thousands of people in order to try to prop up your theory. But somehow that's not arrogant.
"You do not get to claim that you are the one speaking for the Bible/God any more than the KKK fella does, any more than I do. The same is true for Islam/the Koran."
Never said I was, anything else you'd like to invent from thin air?
"This appears to be the basic gaping hole in your whole made up theory is that you think you can decide which Muslims are "truly" speaking for Islam."
Actually no, I'm not. Again it's interesting that you have no problem deciding which Muslims are "truly" speaking for Islam, while criticizing me for the same thing.
"Sorry, but from a strictly rational point of view, no, you do not get to do that."
But it's rational for you to speak for every single slaveholder and assign them motivation 180 years after the fact. It's rational for you to ascribe a religious motive to national policy decisions made by the secular US government.
So, I have to admire how you try to set the rules for discourse that allow you to engage in things that you claim are wrong when others do them, then to accuse others of doing what you do without any evidence.
I'd ask if you are inconsistent much, but I already know the answer.
I have to love how you consistently take the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki out of context.
It's also interesting that you combine Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Fact #1. Neither city would have been bombed had Japan not engaged in an unprovoked war of aggression that resulted in the deaths between 3 and 10 million people at the hands of the Japanese.
Fact #2. Had Japan ceased hostilities after Hiroshima, Nagasaki would not have been bombed.
So, how about we take a little more realistic look about responsibility.
1. I reject your premise.
Christians supported slavery. Slavery is a horrific form of oppression.
What is there to reject?
2. I prefer to live in the present
My point that led to this was that Muslims need to do AS CHRISTIANS HAVE DONE (in the past). I'm citing a specific set of actions that worked in the past as an analogy for what they are doing now. Are you making a claim that analogies are only valid if they are comparing two things in the exact same time period? If so, you fail to understand analogies.
3. No one else agrees with your pet position
Support?
4. I was making a specific reference to specific claims about the top 10 worst acts of Christian terrorism.
Okay, I'm speaking specifically of Christian terrorism, in general. Clearly, capturing, killing and enslaving people is a form of terrorism. Doing so to 13 BILLION people is a monstrous atrocity, often done in the name of Jesus, or at least defended by Christians as acceptable by Christianity.
Fact #2. Had Japan ceased hostilities after Hiroshima, Nagasaki would not have been bombed.
Fact #3. WE INTENTIONALLY TARGETED A CITY OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN TO BOMB WITH THE INTENT TO KILL, MAIM AND DESTROY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN, to terrorize them into surrender.
This is the definition of terrorism.
Speaking of taking things out of context.
"Christians supported slavery. Slavery is a horrific form of oppression."
The fact that some minority of christians supported slavery does not support you claim that southern American slavery was entirely or primarily driven by "God told me to hold slaves". The fact that you (and only you) are willing to impute motives to people who lived hundreds of years ago just speaks to the weakness of your argument. I would be shocked if you can find one example of a national/worldwide denomination who ever has as it's official position that God mandated that slaves be owned. I also suspect that you would be hard pressed to find any state or national level American governmental entities that promulgated laws requiring slavery based on "God said so".
1. So while I acknowledge that some minority of "christians" did support that slave system in the Southern US, I reject your premise that they were in any official sense holding slaves only because "God told them to." Again, it's interesting that when you reject someones premise you act as if that ends all debate, yet your premises must be accepted uncritically. Just one more inconsistency.
2. You are equating something from 180 years ago with current events. Further, speeches and declarations didn't end slavery, elections, laws and a war ended slavery. There were speeches along the way, but it was the actions that actually ended slavery.
3. "Support?" I understand that the concept of offering support for your position is not something you often do, as in this case you are perfectly satisfied to assert "I believe this." and in your mind that settles it. In the rest of the world, I have found no one else who subscribes to your "Southern slaveholders were christian extremists" theory. For many people that lack of support would cause them to reassess their position, you just seem confused.
4. "Okay, I'm speaking specifically of Christian terrorism, in general." Again, that's you and only you who holds this notion. I'm not defending slavery in any modern sense, but for you to ignore the culpability of Muslims in the African slave trade is hypocritical. Again, please show me any actual instance of anyone saying that Jesus commanded that they were required to hold slaves. Oh, you need to provide some serious support for your 13 BILLION number (especially since it's magically grown from 12.5 in just the last few hours. I have yet to see any number over 100 million and most hover in the 13-20 million range. So, please either provide some reputable sourcing/retract your claim/ or I will delete any reference to the number. You could be right, but given that I haven't been able to find anything over 1 billion, I am not just going to accept your number.
OK, here's the deal. You completely and totally ignored multiple facts that bring context to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and instead come back with this load of crap.
"Fact #3. WE INTENTIONALLY TARGETED A CITY OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN TO BOMB WITH THE INTENT TO KILL, MAIM AND DESTROY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN, to terrorize them into surrender."
Yes, the intent was to pressure the Japanese leadership into surrender, but had the US had to invade the home islands there would have been millions more Japanese killed.
But, let's just ignore the fact that the Japanese brutally raped and killed a minimum of 30% more people in Nanking alone with absolutely ZERO provocation. Let's ignore that thousands of Japanese captives that were starved to death because the Japanese state religion taught them that gaijin weren't inferior beings and unworthy of living. Let's ignore the evil "medical" experiments performed on prisoners. Let's ignore all of that and more so you can try to cram the Bombing of Hiroshima into some arbitrary box to try to force it to support your ridiculous theory.
It's obvious you chose to ignore/skip the facts that were inconvenient for your little theory but instead revise history.
I'm totally serious. If you pull that crap one more time, I'm going to start moderating you and either ignore or edit any further examples of this.
The fact that you expect people to take you seriously and treat you with respect when you just pretend as if things that you don't like/don't have a response for/don't fit your little mold/call your premise into question, makes me question your ability to reason.
"Speaking of taking things out of context."
Once again, you are oblivious to the fact that you have intentionally taken this event out of context, but have the gall to accuse me of doing what you do with regularity.
You started your response with two claims and at least three strikes right away.
The fact that some minority of christians supported slavery does not support you claim that southern American slavery was entirely or primarily driven by "God told me to hold slaves".
1. You cite a "fact" with no support. I don't believe you can support the claim that it was "some minority" of Christians that supported slavery. Even if you could (and almost certainly, you can't, as I doubt it is a fact and almost certainly isn't a demonstrable fact).
2. You cite my "claim" that slavery was entirely or primarily driven by "god told me to own slaves." Point of fact: I made no such claim, I don't know that I believe that claim, it's nothing I've ever suggested at all.
The fact that you (and only you) are willing to impute motives to people who lived hundreds of years ago just speaks to the weakness of your argument.
3. I've imputed no motives. I've cited the reality that many, many churches by and large either outright supported slavery (a demonstrable historical fact) or tacitly supported slavery or at the least, did not speak out against slavery, in affect, supporting slavery.
4. You also appear to imply that I'm speaking only of slave owners. I'm speaking of the US religious folk, regardless of whether they owned slaves or not.
So, before going on, do you recognize these factual errors?
1. The "fact" I cited was simply repeating your claim "Christians supported slavery.". Now if I was to apply the same standard to you I would point out that your claim that "Christians supported slavery" as written is not true. Obviously not all "Christians supported slavery" so I was merely agreeing with a more accurate form of your claim.
2. Your premise is that slavery in the southern US was your very best example of "christian extremism", you also expressed the premise that "christian extremists" (or Muslim extremists are driven by "God told me so.". So, while I may have combined a couple of your claims, I'd hardly suggest it's a factual error.
3. Sure you have, you've imputed that slave owners were driven by "christian extremism"
4. So your complaint is that I've limited you too much. Instead of claiming that just the slave owners were "christian extremists" you are now saying that "US Religious folk" were all "christian extremists.
How about this, you make the rules at your blog and stop trying to make them here.
How about before you keep up with this attempt to divert attention from your bizarre theories, you start by answering the questions you've been asked.
I wasn't going to say anything until you tried the "So, before going on, do you recognize these factual errors?".
But, by all means why don't you specifically correct these "factual errors" so that your specific detailed theories are laid out is precise detail.
So, before going on, how about you answer the questions asked and actually be specific about what the hell you're talking about.
See, it's ok for me to make demands, it's my blog.
No, you have misunderstood each point and are simply factually mistaken. Try again?
No, why don't you just explain your position in a clear and unambiguous way?
You could start by explaining how "Christians supported slavery." is the equivalent of "christian extremism".
Then you could explain whether "Christians supported slavery" is a blanket statement that all "Christians supported slavery", or it means that some "Christians supported slavery", or it's intentionally ambiguous so it can mean whatever you need it to mean at any given point in time.
Then you could explain how you get from "Christians supported slavery" to "...the US religious folk,...". It was certainly impressive that you felt qualified to speak on behalf of "Christians" and "christian extremists" and to so intimately know the motives of all of them. But now, you can speak for all "the US religious folk" no matter what religion, even more impressive.
You could start by explaining how "Christians supported slavery." is the equivalent of "christian extremism".
? Seriously? You don't think people who thought God supports slavery are Christian extremists, in the sense that I've been talking about? A reminder: By Christian extremism, I was speaking about those who took the Bible or parts of it so woodenly that it allowed even oppression and other harmful behaviors.
"God clearly did not condemn slavery, in fact, God told Israel to enslave people, God told slaves to obey their masters. God doesn't change. Ergo, God supports slavery..."
That is an ugly and oppressive understanding of Christianity. Do you disagree?
Again, I don't know what you're asking. Of course using Christianity to support slavery is a perverse, "extremist" view of Christianity! Perhaps your objection is to the word "extremism." No problem, I've explained to you a couple of times what I meant by extremism. I get your point in your post... In an ideal world, a "Christian extremist" is someone extremely dedicated to following the teachings of Jesus. A "fundamentalist" is someone dedicated to the fundamentals of Jesus' teachings. But that is not how those words have come to be used in our culture.
So, now you understand? I can't imagine you disagree, if you do.
Then you could explain whether "Christians supported slavery" is a blanket statement that all "Christians supported slavery", or it means that some "Christians supported slavery", or it's intentionally ambiguous so it can mean whatever you need it to mean at any given point in time.
It is quite specific, not vague. SOME Christians did support slavery. It is specific because we don't have any source for exact numbers. But by all evidence, it appears to have been the mainstream view. How do we know this? Because historically, the abolitionists and those opposed to slavery were considered the outsiders, the ones rocking the boat. What boat? The mainstream boat.
We can say with authority that SOME Christians supported slavery. Literally. I'm not willing to be more specific on numbers because we don't have the data.
Now, I've answered two of your questions (again). Will you at least go back and deal with ONE question from me.
"The fact that some minority of christians supported slavery does not support you claim that southern American slavery was entirely or primarily driven by "God told me to hold slaves".
1. You cite a "fact" with no support. I don't believe you can support the claim that it was "some minority" of Christians that supported slavery. Even if you could (and almost certainly, you can't, as I doubt it is a fact and almost certainly isn't a demonstrable fact)... [and here, I realize I didn't finish my sentence... even if you could, it doesn't affect my point. dt]
So, you cite a "fact" ("the fact that some minority of Christians supported slavery..."). It is not a fact. Can you admit that?
"You don't think people who thought God supports slavery are Christian extremists, in the sense that I've been talking about?"
You mean the sense that these "christian extremists" are the best closest analogue to Muslim extremist terrorist, since that's the context where you introduced the concept of "christian extremist"? Look you may be willing to make assumptions about the motivations of people who've been dead for over a hundred years and to broad brush entire groups of people based on your assumptions, but I'm not. I usually look for evidence before I make pronouncements.
"That is an ugly and oppressive understanding of Christianity. Do you disagree?"
Actually it's not an understanding of christianity at all. It's an understanding of the reality during the period when Israel was a theocracy. It has virtually no application to the Christian faith.
"So, now you understand?"
Understand what? You introduced the term "christian extremist" in order to somehow link Christianity and Islam. You then were very clear and specific that "christian extremists" were equivalent to Muslim extremists, and that your very best possible comparison was people who supported slavery. So, now are you backing away from your comparison? Remember,I specifically asked you if this was the best comparison you could come up with and you said it was. But now you're backing away, interesting.
"It is quite specific, not vague. SOME Christians did support slavery"
But you did not actually say "SOME Christians" you actually did say "Christians". Not only did you not say "SOME Christians", when I made the correction and said "some christians" you got all pissy and claim I made an error of fact. So, I guess it's reasonable to say that in light of your "clarification" that I did not make an error of fact, lending credence to my theory that the entire "error of fact" comment and the subsequent refusal to clarify is simply a tactic designed to divert attention away from your failure to answer questions and your bizarre revisionist history
"By all the evidence,it appears to have been the mainstream view."
As I've pointed out numerous times when you make broad sweeping generalized assumptions based on how things "appear", you tens to get into trouble. I'm pretty sure I asked you to provide any documentation that supports your claim that "God requires slavery" was the official position of any national ecclesiastical body or any state or local government unit.
"How do we know this?"
Since you admit you don't have evidence it appears we can't "know this".
Because historically, the abolitionists and those opposed to slavery were considered the outsiders, the ones rocking the boat. What boat?"
Again, in the absence of evidence of official ecclesiastical sanction, this remains an assumption.
"We can say with authority that SOME Christians supported slavery."
Yet when I said that you called it a "factual error", interesting. It's strange when I say it you consider it a "factual error", but when you say it, not so much. It's even more interesting that you original claim "Christians" was actually a "factual error", yet you somehow fail to acknowledge that.
"So, you cite a "fact" ("the fact that some minority of Christians supported slavery..."). It is not a fact. Can you admit that?"
Leaving aside the fact that you just said essentially the same thing, and that you admit that you have no evidence to support that a majority of Christians supported slavery, I'll say that I agree that "some" Christians is reasonable (not "Christians", your original claim. Let alone your later claim that all ""the US religious folk" were "christian extremists). Even with that your premise is still based on multiple assumptions that you have not supported.
So, now that you've answered two whole questions, is it too much to hope that you'll get back on track and answer the rest?
? You're not making any sense. You're not answering the questions asked of you and you're not correctly stating what I have said. How is a person supposed to deal with that?
One more problem with your assumptions. Even if it is true that a "majority" of christians believed that God allowed slavery, that is still a far cry from "God commanded slavery".
First, the irony of you complaining that I haven't answered the questions asked is really quite amazing. Second, I'm just quoting the actual words you used, I'm sorry if that confuses you.
I'll tell you what, I'll go back through this thread and re answer any questions you've asked in the vain hope that you might do the same.
"Or how about the hundreds of thousands of Japanese men, women and children killed by Christian bombers at Hiroshima/Nagasaki... arguably one of the largest single acts of terrorism in world history?"
This appears to be rhetorical, but just to make sure I'll try to answer anyway. The attack on Hiroshima was not perpetrated by "christian extremists", rather by the entirely secular governments of the United States, Great Britain, France and others in an attempt to do two things. 1. Save millions of Japanese and American lives who would have died in an invasion of the home islands. 2. To persuade the Japanese government that the war they had started should end. To paraphrase the words of Isuroko Yamamoto in 1941. Japan had sown the wind, and they reaped the whirlwind.
"You keep saying this as if it were a fact. It's just an empty claim. Many Muslims do, in fact, support religious liberty and do NOT support religious oppression. Who are you citing here?"
I don't have links on this computer, but do a quick google search for how apostasy is treated in the majority of "moderate" Muslim countries as well as for what the punishment for homosexuality is in those countries. If you're unable to do so I'll post links later today.
"And YOU get to decide for all of Islam? Arrogant much?"
Never claimed to, so no.
"What is there to reject?"
That support of slavery automatically makes someone a "christian extremist". That "christian extremists" are morally or functionally equivalent to Muslim extremists. That there really are a significant number "christian extremists".
"Are you making a claim that analogies are only valid if they are comparing two things in the exact same time period?"
No.
"Support?"
My inability to find anyone who agrees with your position that slave holders are an example of "christian extremism".
"So, before going on, do you recognize these factual errors?"
Given the fact that one of the "factual errors" you claim was a "factual error" on your part. I don't believe that you are able to recognize "factual errors". Having said that I refer yo to my earlier response.
"Try again?"
Nope, if you can't explain yourself clearly, concisely, and consistently, I'm not going to play "guess what the secret meaning behind the clear text of Dan's words". It's my blog and you don't get to make demands or rules.
"? Seriously?"
Yes.
"You don't think people who thought God supports slavery are Christian extremists, in the sense that I've been talking about?"
You mean the sense that these "christian extremists" are the best closest analogue to Muslim extremist terrorist, since that's the context where you introduced the concept of "christian extremist"? Look you may be willing to make assumptions about the motivations of people who've been dead for over a hundred years and to broad brush entire groups of people based on your assumptions, but I'm not. I usually look for evidence before I make pronouncements.
"That is an ugly and oppressive understanding of Christianity. Do you disagree?"
Actually it's not an understanding of christianity at all. It's an understanding of the reality during the period when Israel was a theocracy. It has virtually no application to the Christian faith.
"So, now you understand?"
Understand what? You introduced the term "christian extremist" in order to somehow link Christianity and Islam. You then were very clear and specific that "christian extremists" were equivalent to Muslim extremists, and that your very best possible comparison was people who supported slavery. So, now are you backing away from your comparison? Remember,I specifically asked you if this was the best comparison you could come up with and you said it was. But now you're backing away, interesting.
"What boat?"
Since you answered, I assume this was rhetorical. However in the absence of the evidence I've asked you for twice, this is still just an assumption.
"It is not a fact. Can you admit that?"
I'm not sure what you mean. You clearly have back off of your original claim "Christians" supported slavery, which you modified to "some christians", so since we seem to agree why are you denying that your position is fact. If it makes you happy, I can stipulate to "some" and not "some minority".
There, every single #%@##^&*** question answered at least once.
I'm not afraid to answer questions (even multiple times), you?
You know, I was tempted to just let your lack of answers sit and build up to testify to your inconsistency. But given the fact that you brought it up, please explain why I shouldn't expect the same from you as you expect from me?
I'm still trying to decide if your latest is enough reason to moderate/delete your comments or not.
Understand what? You introduced the term "christian extremist" in order to somehow link Christianity and Islam. You then were very clear and specific that "christian extremists" were equivalent to Muslim extremists, and that your very best possible comparison was people who supported slavery. So, now are you backing away from your comparison?
sigh. I'm not backing away from anything. This is the last time I'll try to explain, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are actually not understanding my point.
I. It is a fact that Christians (not all Christians, but certainly many, apparently in the mainstream of Christianity in the US at the time) supported slavery... which is to say that they think the Bible indicated that God was okay with slavery. That is a fact that I can demonstrate with historical documentation, if you are unaware of that reality.
II. I am making the claim of opinion (but one that I think most Christians would be glad to agree with) that holding support for slavery as being within the realm of something God would approve - thus allowing the atrocity that was slavery to occur - is a horrible, atrocious evil... and that the resulting killing and enslavement of BILLIONS of people is an atrocity that compares to any Muslim atrocities (that is, atrocities carried out by some Muslims).
III. I am referring to such atrocious support (slavery, cutting off heads, lynching, bombing churches, cutting off hands, etc) to be an ugly "extremism" on the part of any religion that supported such behavior.
Do you understand the comparison? Do you understand that I am not backing away from anything, just clarifying - again - to try to get you to understand my actual point. Do you?
"It is not a fact. Can you admit that?"
I'm not sure what you mean.
You said... "the fact that some minority of Christians supported slavery..."
It is not a fact that a "minority of Christians supported slavery..." not one that you can support. Can you admit that?
I don't know how else to phrase it.
Do you have data supporting the fact claim YOU made that it was a "MINORITY" of Christians that supported slavery?
I'm willing to bet that you don't have support for the claim because it is almost certainly not a fact, and certainly not one that you can demonstrate.
You clearly have back off of your original claim "Christians" supported slavery
No, I am not backing off. It is not a claim. It is a fact statement. Christians supported slavery. As a matter of demonstrable historical record, Christians supported slavery. I am not saying ALL Christians, I never said that. You can tell by the way that I specifically cited Christians who did not support slavery, so clearly I was never saying that.
Do you recognize the reality of the fact statement that Christians did support slavery, as a matter of historical record?
One clarification: I accidentally (and multiple times) cited "12.5 B-B-Billion" slaves. Of course, that number is MILLIONS, not billions. Just a typo (repeated, but still, just a mistake). Suffice to say, Enslaving and killing MILLIONS is still atrocious.
so when you went out of your way to use ALL CAPS and to repeat "B-B Billion+ because of a typo, OK if you say so. I've never seen a typo quite like that. But at least you owned up to it, that's something. I guess adding 500,000,000 to your number was just a typo as well.
So, how about you pick just one number and provide sourcing for that one number.
"...and that the resulting killing and enslavement of BILLIONS..."
Whoops, I guess you just made another TYPO, right ;)
I apologize for being a fallible human.
I apologize for being a fallible human.
Well I guess a few responses are better than none.
I. You are making several assumptions about the people you are broad brushing.
1. You are assuming that they were actual practicing devout Christians.
2. You are assuming that their "support" for slavery was active.
3. You are assuming that active support for slavery was the official ecclesiastical position of a majority of mainstream churches.
4. You are assuming "support" rather than tolerance or acceptance.
5. You are ignoring that fact that the very people you condemn, elected Lincoln, and fought a war to end slavery.
II. I realize that you consider atrocities committed in a historically limited time and place to be equivalent to ongoing and increasing atrocities being committed by Muslims.
1. You still refuse to acknowledge that the "moderate" Muslim states are (who the Marrakesh Declaration praises) are engaged in the very same sort of atrocities and oppression that you lay at the feet of "christian extremists".
2. When "christian extremists" behave in the same way as "moderate" Muslims, then the Muslim extremists must be worse that the "moderates", right?
III. Do you understand that while many people supported slavery, that support for slavery did not automatically mean support for some of the more atrocious things you mention here. You've made a multiple leaps in logic. First you equate "support" for "God told me...", then you equate support for one thing to automatic support of other things. Perhaps if you could operate on facts, not opinion or seems like, things would be more clear.
"It is not a fact that a "minority of Christians supported slavery...""
1. I already said I would retract "minority" if it would make you happy, I guess you either stopped reading before then or had another typo.
2. Unless you can demonstrate what the total number of Christians in the world at the time as well as the total number of Christians you've decided to label "christian extremists", we really have no way to determine how factual the claim is. But in the absence of any proof, you can't really definitively label my statement one way or another.
"Do you have data supporting the fact claim YOU made that it was a "MINORITY" of Christians that supported slavery?"
Do you have the data that supports your claim that all "Christians" or that all "the US religious folk" actively supported slavery? You made the claim first, so how about you prove your claim, then I'll go from there. Oh, I already said I'd retract "minority" if that made you happy. But keep beating the dead horse.
"Do you recognize the reality of the fact statement that Christians did support slavery, as a matter of historical record?"
Once again, I'm answering all of your questions while you do otherwise. Look, I'm sorry, but when you make unqualified blanket statements like "Christians" did x or that "the US religious folk" did x that your lack of specificity at a minimum makes it reasonable to conclude that this was one more broad brush blanket condemnation that you seem so willing to engage in. I'm sorry you couldn't be troubled to qualify your statement. Your imprecise use of language has gotten you in trouble before, and continues to. I like how you now pretend that you didn't try to lump people of all religions into your "christian extremist" category. But, you did, and it's going to keep biting you in the ass.
So, I recognize the fact that "Christians" had a variety of views on slavery (as did non Christians, but it's much more fun to bash Christians who've been dead for over a hundred years). Some Christians supported slavery, some tolerated slavery, some opposed slavery, some were ambivalent about slavery. The problem is that your faulty premise requires that you treat "Christians" as a monolithic bloc and ascribing the highest level of devotion to Christianity to them while simultaneously ascribing the lowest motives to them. The problem you still have is that anyone with a high regard for Christian teaching (ie not Hebrew Theocracy teaching) literally cannot reach a conclusion that God tells people that they must hold slaves. It's just not there.
So, answer or don't, but unless you can come up with a really compelling reason why I should do what you won't, I'm done answering every question you ask and I'm really done answering them multiple times.
If you were trying to post the "fallible human" comment as many times as you committed the same "typo", you're at least one short.
Is you lack of settling on one number and providing a source also a "typo"?
"My point that led to this was that Muslims need to do AS CHRISTIANS HAVE DONE (in the past)."
And herein lies the biggest problem. It deals with the 180 degrees difference between the religions. As such, what the Christians had done, essentially, is to be more Christian, as they abolished slavery, for example.
But what happens when muslims do as Christians have done? If they do as Christians had done by being more Christian, that means they would be more muslim. And THAT means they'd be more aggressive in murdering non-muslims, poor (in their eyes) muslims, and committing all the other oppressive and despotic acts we want them to stop doing.
So, we do NOT want them to do as Christians had done, unless by doing as Christians had done they, too, will become more Christian, which I fully support and encourage. But if they become more of what their religion truly is, as Christian abolitionists were doing, the war goes on with greater intensity.
Here's an interesting fact: Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, only about 388,000 were shipped directly to North America. Some scholars estimate that another 60,000 to 70,000 Africans ended up in the United States after touching down in the Caribbean first, so that would bring the total to approximately 450,000 Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade. That's over a span of 341 years.
And of course, it must be remembered that for most of this time, most every nation in the world engaged in slavery of some form or degree. That's not to absolve Christians of course, but context is important. As it was common, one cannot call it "extreme" in any way, shape or form. The extremist was the abolitionist.
Dan has also been dodging the role that "moderate" Muslims had in the transatlantic slave trade as well as in the modern current slave trade.
Translation: Dan has NOT been dodging the role... etc.
Keep in mind the inverse rule. If YOU THINK I believe X, Y and Z, you are safest in assuming that I do NOT believe X, Y and Z.
Translation: Dan has not been addressing this issue, so therefore he has. Or some stupid BS excuse.
OK since you have failed to address this issue the multiple times it's been brought up, I have to ask what excuse do you have for failing to address it? Had you acknowledged this subject in any way, that would be one thing, but given your lack of even acknowledging the fact of the matter, you've either forgotten, had a "typo" or are dodging it.
It's not the only thing you've failed to address (dodged), so I guess you can come up with a creative excuse or address it.
Your call. Your idiotic inverse rule might make sense had you actually said anything on the topic but in this case the inverse of nothing is nothing.
You can't argue that since you've said nothing about that that somehow the inverse is true and that saying nothing actually means you've said something.
I'm going to point out that this is one of those occasions when you have the opportunity to score huge points and make me look like you usually do. All you have to do, is provide a quote with a link and context that you've dealt with this. that's it. I can't recall anytime in the past when you've taken advantage of one of these situations, but it's possible.
I guess we'll have to see.
Hey Art,
I don't know if you saw this over at Dan's but apparently he's got the inside skinny on who is in and out of the "realm of God" and apparently you are out. I wonder if he just saw a list somewhere, or if he actually got you tossed.
As always, you misread and misunderstand, then repeat false claims.
Remember that formula, Craig: IF I THINK Dan thinks X, Y and Z, it's a safe bet Dan does NOT think X, Y OR Z.
"As always, you misread and misunderstand, then repeat false claims."
So, instead of providing evidence that my claim is false, you just respond with another false claim.
I'd ask you why you don't respond to the more substantive issues you've so far managed to dodge, but you'd just keep accusing me of making false claims. but at this point that's really all you have to offer is false claims accusing other people of making false claims. It's getting sad.
Remember Dan, If Dan has not ever once responded to something that it's a safe bet that Dan has (or will claim that he has)responded to it.
Or if Dan says "I don't have a plan.", then we must assume the inverse.
How very Orwellian of you. Black is white...
Craig, I do not think this style of back and forth speaks very well of the Realm of God. If you want to try to start over some time with a more mature and respectful conversation, please do.
Impressive excuse, after years of claiming you just want a two way conversation, now you claim that it doesn't speak very well of the "Realm of God". Maybe if you'd have engaged in the kind of 2 way back and forth conversation you always claim you want earlier in the thread things might have gone differently. Instead, you resort to your ridiculous formula, false claims, and excuses.
I'll tell you what, If you agree to have a civil real back and forth conversation where you respond to points made and answer questions, I'll delete my last few comments which have leaned toward the snarky. I'll follow your lead from here on out. If you start engaging, I'll dial back the snark. If you just want to spin increasingly creative excuses for why you won't then I see no reason to show you the respect you won't show others.
Your call. What could be more fair than that.
No matter which course you choose I will continue to work though all of the problems I have with your poorly conceived equivalence over the course of another post or two. Obviously if at any point you have something relevant to say or wish to engage on any of the items you've chosen not to or missed, feel free.
Okay, I'm willing to give it another try. How about with something that seems pretty easy and straightforward...
You started your response with two claims and at least three strikes right away.
The fact that some minority of christians supported slavery does not support you claim that southern American slavery was entirely or primarily driven by "God told me to hold slaves".
1. You cite a "fact" with no support. I don't believe you can support the claim that it was "some minority" of Christians that supported slavery. Even if you could (and almost certainly, you can't, as I doubt it is a fact and almost certainly isn't a demonstrable fact).
2. You cite my "claim" that slavery was entirely or primarily driven by "god told me to own slaves." Point of fact: I made no such claim, I don't know that I believe that claim, it's nothing I've ever suggested at all.
The fact that you (and only you) are willing to impute motives to people who lived hundreds of years ago just speaks to the weakness of your argument.
3. I've imputed no motives. I've cited the reality that many, many churches by and large either outright supported slavery (a demonstrable historical fact) or tacitly supported slavery or at the least, did not speak out against slavery, in affect, supporting slavery.
4. You also appear to imply that I'm speaking only of slave owners. I'm speaking of the US religious folk, regardless of whether they owned slaves or not.
So, before going on, do you recognize these factual errors?
We've been able to agree that yes, it is a mistake to say that it is a "fact" that a minority of Christians supported slavery. Very good. How about the other three errors, do you recognize them?
OK, I guess you're not really winning to give this a try. If you were you would not simply trot back out something to which I've already responded to twice. If you have problems with the specifics of my specific responses to your questions and comments, that is one thing. But for you to simply think that you can dictate where and how we start over is quite another.
Since it's my blog, how about I get to make the decisions.
If you're really willing to start over, then I'll give you something to start with from earlier in the thread, and we'll work down from there. But, so far, this doesn't look good for you. You whined about me not answering your questions, so I went back and answered/re answered every single one of them, now your idea of starting over is to expect me to answer them a third time. Not a chance.
"And yet those same Muslims support and are a part of "moderate" Muslim regimes that engage in all sorts of oppression. What gives them any credibility the fact that they are less oppressive than the "extremists"?"
"Really? Are you suggesting that every single person involved in the dropping of the atomic bomb was a practicing Christian who was doing it in the name of Christ?"
"No it's not. Any Muslim country which has the death penalty for conversion from Islam is a great place to start. Surely you agree that that is oppression? Or how about forcing women into the hijab and chador? That's not oppressive? How about preventing women from driving, voting or education? Not oppressive? Killing homosexuals seems pretty oppressive, but maybe you don't think so."
"Really, what "moderate" Muslim countries do not have the death penalty for conversion from Islam?"
"No, why don't you just explain your position in a clear and unambiguous way?"
"So, how about you pick just one number and provide sourcing for that one number."
So, let's start with those, see how well you do, then move on. If you do demonstrate a desire for a reasonable conversation I'll start deleting snarky comments.
You've responded, Craig. But you are not answering the questions asked. But I'll gladly trade you one for one. You start.
"And yet those same Muslims support and are a part of "moderate" Muslim regimes that engage in all sorts of oppression. What gives them any credibility the fact that they are less oppressive than the "extremists"?"
Which "same Muslims..."? I don't know who you're speaking about here.
My question for you remains:
You cite my "claim" that slavery was entirely or primarily driven by "god told me to own slaves." Point of fact: I made no such claim, I don't know that I believe that claim, it's nothing I've ever suggested at all.
Do you recognize that error, that I made no such claim?
Nope, it's not your blog so it's not your rules. I'm not sure why it's so hard for you to grasp that simple concept which I've articulated before. When we're at your blog you get to set the rules, but not here. I've answered your questions at least twice.
"Which "same Muslims..."? I don't know who you're speaking about here."
The same Muslims you're so giddy about.
I'll give you a little hint. You came up with this ridiculous comparison, and you've been quite clear that one of the hallmarks of "extremism" is acting on the belief that "God told you to do...". So, if you are going to establish "God told you..." as the standard for an "extremist", than you need to apply that standard consistently to all those you have decided are extremists.
Now, when you are done with your answers, you can identify the specific problems you have with my multiple previous answers and I'll deal with them specifically.
One more thing I'd point out. Had you answered these questions when they were asked the first time they would still be in the context of the first time I asked them. At this point, I did you the favor of finding them for you, but if you want context you can find that yourself.
No, I'll gladly engage in two way question and answers, but not one way.
To answer the ONE question you're asking me (and leaving the ball in your court to take a turn answering questions), I still don't know which Muslims you are speaking of. I am speaking of the ones at this meeting in Marrakesh, is that who you mean?
As to them, I certainly can't speak to their motives or beliefs of each of them, but certainly many of them are moderates who believe in religious liberty in much the same way as we do. They do not support oppression.
Is it possible that some of them are still leaning a bit towards sharia law in the negative sense (white Christian men in the US do not get to define Sharia law any more than they get to say what is and is not "good, Muslim teaching" or define the Koran for Muslims)? Sure, it's possible. I don't that this is the case, but I would certainly allow that their may be a spectrum of beliefs in that particular group.
By all means, provide some specific answers as to what the beliefs are of some specific participants in this event and we can talk.
The thing is, and perhaps you know this, but in effecting social change on the large scale, you form alliances, sometimes with people who aren't firmly in your camp, but who are in a place to make change in a positive direction. For instance, in the gay rights battle, we/they may have had allies who still believed homosexual acts were sinful, but who believed that it should be against the law to be gay or engage in gay activities, or for two gay guys to get married. You make allies with people who can help affect the change you're looking for. That is how one affects change.
So, even if some of our allies in this instance are not exactly where we want them, if they are speaking out in favor of religious liberty, that is a good starting place. Which has been my position all along.
Now, your turn. Be reasonable, I'm not going to answer questions one way. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are interested in genuine dialog, but I am trusting, but confirming. The ball is in your park.
One more thing I'd point out. Had you answered these questions when they were asked the first time they would still be in the context of the first time I asked them.
One more thing. By and large, I did answer them and beyond that, I was dealing with a father who was dying and then his funeral, so forgive me if I didn't go into exacting detail or hold your hand through my explanations.
sorry. That was not as gracious as I would have preferred it. My apologies
"No, I'll gladly engage in two way question and answers, but not one way."
But it's not one way. It's been one way so far as I've answered all of your questions while you have hardly answered any of mine. So, if you want two way as you claim then you have a lot of catching up to do.
Remember it's not your blog. You don"t get to make demands or set conditions any more than I do at your blog. So either catch up not, I don't care. But if all you have is demands and conditions then I'm not sure you understand the concept of a two way conversation.
" I still don't know which Muslims you are speaking of. I am speaking of the ones at this meeting in Marrakesh, is that who you mean?"
Yes and those who support them.
"As to them, I certainly can't speak to their motives or beliefs of each of them, but certainly many of them are moderates who believe in religious liberty in much the same way as we do. They do not support oppression."
Any chance we can get facts, not assumptions? For example much is made of the support of the Moroccans in the declaration, yet Morocco has persecuted Muslims who converted as recently as 2009. Maybe you should have done some more research before you supported these people. Do you deny that "moderate" Islamic nations do not oppress non Muslims?
"By all means, provide some specific answers as to what the beliefs are of some specific participants in this event and we can talk."
You're the one who uncritically supports them, why didn't you do some due diligence before you hopped on the bandwagon?
"Now, your turn. Be reasonable, I'm not going to answer questions one way. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are interested in genuine dialog, but I am trusting, but confirming. The ball is in your park."
Actually, no. You ignore the fact that I've already answered all of your questions and continue to do so as this comment demonstrates. So once again, until you get caught up, the ball is in your court.
"One more thing. By and large..."
No you didn't. If you had you could scroll right back up to the top and show me where.
"I did answer them and beyond that, I was dealing with a father who was dying and then his funeral,..."
The problem with this tactic (and honestly to use that as an excuse is kind of despicable) has some factual problems.
1. This post and therefor the questions, did not exist until after your father's funeral.
2. I told you repeatedly in the thread at your place that I did not want or expect that you would do anything but get through all of the family and funeral before you even invested any time at all into any of these conversations.
So, it would seem that in you search for an excuse, you made two critical factual errors. I guess you'll have to blame something else now.
"...so forgive me if I didn't go into exacting detail or hold your hand through my explanations."
As I have pointed out multiple times. I did not expect anything from you during that period. In fact I expected you to put your family first and this second.
Two, if this was a question of insufficiently detailed or incomplete answers I would have copy/pasted your actual words that were the source of my confusion so you could deal with them specifically. Once again, if you're looking for an excuse, try one that at least kind of lines up with the facts of the situation.
If that wasn't as gracious as it could have been, why didn't you delete it and try again?
I'm going to go off topic for a moment and get a little personal.
When my dad died suddenly, I was thrown into a week long whirlwind of long drives, hastily made plans, an overwhelming amount of people around, and dealing with both my personal grief as well as the grief of my mom, wife, and kids. At some point during that time I made the personal decision that I was going to pick back up with several blog conversations that I had set aside. The people involved in those conversations were gracious and kind in granting me the space I needed to deal with more important matters. The reason I made the choice I made was that engaging in the blog conversations gave me a chance to take a break from what was an overwhelming week and allowed me the opportunity for a distraction from everything.
That was the right decision for me at that time. But I would never expect anyone else to make the same decision I made, I certainly would not ask or demand that they do. To that end I was very intentional in making sure that you knew that I did not expect any response from you at the time and that I was willing to wait until you felt you had the time or to chuck the whole thing and pick up somewhere else down the road. I did say that I would continue to post comments because it helped me not to forget them,not that I expected anything.
So, it's a little disappointing to see you try to turn back all of my efforts to extend to you all of the time and latitude that you needed or wanted by using this as an excuse. To the extent that you engaged with anything during that period that was your choice as I made it clear that I had no expectations from you at all.
Honestly, I know we disagree on a lot of things, but I thought that this shared experience might transcend those disagreements, I guess I was wrong.
Certainly, it is your blog, your rules. No problem there. But my rules as to what I will respond to. I will not respond and give answers when you won't do the same. No offense, that's just my rule. I don't mind at all if you want to continue to not answer this question, but I will respond in kind.
Let me know if you change your mind.
Peace.
"But my rules as to what I will respond to. I will not respond and give answers when you won't do the same."
You are certainly welcome to your rules. The problem that you keep ignoring is the fact that I have ALREADY ANSWERED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS, yes, EVERY SINGLE ONE. So for you to pretend otherwise indicates that you are being intentionally obtuse, delusional, or laying the ground work to once again leave with unanswered questions.
"I don't mind at all if you want to continue to not answer this question,..."
1. This is not a question, there is not one single question in your last comment
2. I've already answered EVERY SINGLE QUESTION you've asked. Some of them multiple times.
Is this more your your absurd "inverse equasion", in which you somehow conjure up that my answering EVERY SINGLE QUESTION in this thread really gets twisted into more of your "Craig never ever answers any of my questions." BS.
Grow up, buy a spine, suck it up and do what I have already done. But whatever you do stop the lying. (At this point your acting as if I haven't answered all of your questions is simply perpetrating a lie) I guess lying is OK when it's you or your favorite politician.
"Let me know if you change your mind."
What is there to change my mind about. It is factually, literally, demonstrably true that I have answered EVERY ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS. It's also factually, literally, demonstrably true that after you said you would engage in a two way conversation you've sort of answered one question, then stalled, made excuses, made demands, ignored the facts, blamed me for your intransigence, and lied.
So, I don't think changing my mind about the truth is going to happen.
You can change your mind, or apologize, or take your cowardly behavior somewhere else.
NOTE:
1. I did not call you a coward.
2. The above contains elements of rant and hyperbole
You have commented on many, maybe all my questions. You have not answered them.
See the difference?
Here, I'll repeat one of them again for you, bolded, again, to make it harder to miss:
You cite my "claim" that slavery was entirely or primarily driven by "god told me to own slaves." Point of fact: I made no such claim, I don't know that I believe that claim, it's nothing I've ever suggested at all.
Do you recognize that error, that I made no such claim?
"You have commented on many, maybe all my questions. You have not answered them."
Nope I've answered them all, some more than once.
"See the difference?"
Yes, and for the sake of argument (the facts say differently) let's say you are correct.
In theory that would mean that I have answered or responded to EVERY ONE of your questions, while you have partially answered one or two.
So, even if your claim was factual, the scales would still be tipped so far in my favor that it wakes no difference.
Look, I've said it numerous times, you get caught up and I will gladly clarify any specific points you have with the answers I have given.
"Here, I'll repeat one of them again for you, bolded, again, to make it harder to miss:"
You can repeat yourself all you want. The demonstrable fact remains that I have answered that question more than once. Once you even the scales, I will deal with the specific problems you have with my answer.
As long as you continue to demand the I operate my blog your way, you will be disappointed.
If you really want an answer, you can just scroll up and get it instead of going through that moronic charade over and over again.
You know that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result.
Well, if you want to appear insane, I can't stop you. Your problem is you do not have demonstrable objective fact on your side.
One more reminder, just because you don't like an answer or the answer isn't what you want it to be doesn't mean it's not an answer. No matter how much you wish otherwise.
Just for the record, Craig, it's not just one unanswered question. I read that one comment of yours, I read down the first three sentences, and I found the four mistakes, the four factual errors. I stopped there.
I only skimmed the rest, because the first four were such blatant factual errors, that I really felt the need for you to understand where you were going wrong. I am quite confident if I keep reading the rest that one comment I will find other errors, other mistakes for you to clarify.
So, no. It's not just one unanswered question. Do you understand, then, why trying to talk with you is so time-consuming and questionably wise?
Also, it has nothing to do with whether or not I like an answer. It's that your responses were not answers to the questions that were asked of you.
"So, no. It's not just one unanswered question. Do you understand, then, why trying to talk with you is so time-consuming and questionably wise?"
No, but I understand why trying to talk with you is so time consuming and frustrating.
Here are the demonstrable facts.
1. I have answered EVERY SINGE QUESTION you have asked.
2. Not only have you not answered all of the questions I've asked, you admit that you haven't even put forth the effort to read them.
3. I have addressed every one of the so called "factual errors" (one of which was actually a "factual error on your pert, not mine) as well as answered EVERY SINGLE QUESTION you've asked.
4. You don't know about my answers/responses because as you just admitted, you haven't read them. " I stopped there." "I only skimmed the rest,".
5. You have chosen to be intransigent, not because of anything factual, you have chosen to be intransigent because of what you assume. " I am quite confident if I keep reading the rest that one comment I will find other errors, other mistakes for you to clarify."
Here's my last word on the subject. If you want to come out of your fantasy world where you get to make determinations based on your imagination, that's fine.
If you don't that's fine too.
But if all you are going to do is continue to make stuff up and choose to ignore the fact that you have been given EVERY SINGLE ANSWER you asked for, yet are to scared, or lazy, or cowardly, or arrogant to actually read them, the stop wasting my time and stop continuing to perpetrate the lie that you want a two way conversation.
Right now it's incredibly lopsided in favor of me answering you and you ignoring my answers while choosing to whine like a petulant child.
As long as you're going to admit what you've always lied abut before (that you don"t actually read or pay attention to what others say), then you need to stop the whiny bitching and step up and hold up your side of the conversation.
I will admit that you've done an admirable job of steering this conversation away from the actual topic and therefore dodging/running away from actually answering any questions.
"Also, it has nothing to do with whether or not I like an answer. It's that your responses were not answers to the questions that were asked of you."
How would you know, you just admitted you haven't read them. I've offered multiple times to deal with specific problems you have with specific answers, now we know why you haven't pointed out specifics. You haven't read them. So, you're right, It's not that you don't like the answers it's that you haven't bothered to read them.
Speaking of trying to float a "crap log".
I might be able to take this slightly seriously if yo weren't so frantically engaged in not answering the question you were asked in a different thread. Especially how much effort you've put into trying to conjure up reasons why you shouldn't have to answer the question asked.
It's also amusing considering you just acknowledged in the comment at at 5:45 that you hadn't read any of my answers and responses because you just assumed they wouldn't be worth your time and effort.
Finally, why not just man up and admit that you have no intention of acknowledging or responding to the ANSWERS TO EVERY QUESTION YOU'VE ASKED or of answering any more of the questions you've been asked.
That would be so much more honest that simply pretending that I haven't answered your question(s).
As gesture of good will, I am going to re post all of the answers to all of your questions, so that I can save you the effort of scrolling back up to find them.
I'll tell you what, I'll go back through this thread and re answer any questions you've asked in the vain hope that you might do the same.
"Or how about the hundreds of thousands of Japanese men, women and children killed by Christian bombers at Hiroshima/Nagasaki... arguably one of the largest single acts of terrorism in world history?"
This appears to be rhetorical, but just to make sure I'll try to answer anyway. The attack on Hiroshima was not perpetrated by "christian extremists", rather by the entirely secular governments of the United States, Great Britain, France and others in an attempt to do two things. 1. Save millions of Japanese and American lives who would have died in an invasion of the home islands. 2. To persuade the Japanese government that the war they had started should end. To paraphrase the words of Isuroko Yamamoto in 1941. Japan had sown the wind, and they reaped the whirlwind.
"You keep saying this as if it were a fact. It's just an empty claim. Many Muslims do, in fact, support religious liberty and do NOT support religious oppression. Who are you citing here?"
I don't have links on this computer, but do a quick google search for how apostasy is treated in the majority of "moderate" Muslim countries as well as for what the punishment for homosexuality is in those countries. If you're unable to do so I'll post links later today.
"And YOU get to decide for all of Islam? Arrogant much?"
Never claimed to, so no.
"What is there to reject?"
That support of slavery automatically makes someone a "christian extremist". That "christian extremists" are morally or functionally equivalent to Muslim extremists. That there really are a significant number "christian extremists".
"Are you making a claim that analogies are only valid if they are comparing two things in the exact same time period?"
No.
"Support?"
My inability to find anyone who agrees with your position that slave holders are an example of "christian extremism".
"So, before going on, do you recognize these factual errors?"
Given the fact that one of the "factual errors" you claim was a "factual error" on your part. I don't believe that you are able to recognize "factual errors". Having said that I refer yo to my earlier response.
"Try again?"
Nope, if you can't explain yourself clearly, concisely, and consistently, I'm not going to play "guess what the secret meaning behind the clear text of Dan's words". It's my blog and you don't get to make demands or rules.
" I still don't know which Muslims you are speaking of. I am speaking of the ones at this meeting in Marrakesh, is that who you mean?"
Yes and those who support them.
"As to them, I certainly can't speak to their motives or beliefs of each of them, but certainly many of them are moderates who believe in religious liberty in much the same way as we do. They do not support oppression."
Any chance we can get facts, not assumptions? For example much is made of the support of the Moroccans in the declaration, yet Morocco has persecuted Muslims who converted as recently as 2009. Maybe you should have done some more research before you supported these people. Do you deny that "moderate" Islamic nations do not oppress non Muslims?
"By all means, provide some specific answers as to what the beliefs are of some specific participants in this event and we can talk."
You're the one who uncritically supports them, why didn't you do some due diligence before you hopped on the bandwagon?
"Now, your turn. Be reasonable, I'm not going to answer questions one way. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are interested in genuine dialog, but I am trusting, but confirming. The ball is in your park."
Actually, no. You ignore the fact that I've already answered all of your questions and continue to do so as this comment demonstrates. So once again, until you get caught up, the ball is in your court.
"One more thing. By and large..."
No you didn't. If you had you could scroll right back up to the top and show me where.
"I did answer them and beyond that, I was dealing with a father who was dying and then his funeral,..."
The problem with this tactic (and honestly to use that as an excuse is kind of despicable) has some factual problems.
1. This post and therefor the questions, did not exist until after your father's funeral.
2. I told you repeatedly in the thread at your place that I did not want or expect that you would do anything but get through all of the family and funeral before you even invested any time at all into any of these conversations.
So, it would seem that in you search for an excuse, you made two critical factual errors. I guess you'll have to blame something else now.
"...so forgive me if I didn't go into exacting detail or hold your hand through my explanations."
As I have pointed out multiple times. I did not expect anything from you during that period. In fact I expected you to put your family first and this second.
Two, if this was a question of insufficiently detailed or incomplete answers I would have copy/pasted your actual words that were the source of my confusion so you could deal with them specifically. Once again, if you're looking for an excuse, try one that at least kind of lines up with the facts of the situation.
If that wasn't as gracious as it could have been, why didn't you delete it and try again?
"You have commented on many, maybe all my questions. You have not answered them."
Nope I've answered them all, some more than once.
"See the difference?"
Yes, and for the sake of argument (the facts say differently) let's say you are correct.
In theory that would mean that I have answered or responded to EVERY ONE of your questions, while you have partially answered one or two.
So, even if your claim was factual, the scales would still be tipped so far in my favor that it wakes no difference.
Look, I've said it numerous times, you get caught up and I will gladly clarify any specific points you have with the answers I have given.
"Here, I'll repeat one of them again for you, bolded, again, to make it harder to miss:"
You can repeat yourself all you want. The demonstrable fact remains that I have answered that question more than once. Once you even the scales, I will deal with the specific problems you have with my answer.
As long as you continue to demand the I operate my blog your way, you will be disappointed.
If you really want an answer, you can just scroll up and get it instead of going through that moronic charade over and over again.
You know that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result.
Well, if you want to appear insane, I can't stop you. Your problem is you do not have demonstrable objective fact on your side.
One more reminder, just because you don't like an answer or the answer isn't what you want it to be doesn't mean it's not an answer. No matter how much you wish otherwise.
Post a Comment