Source: Daily Kos.
Hat tip to Bill Elwell.
Nothing in this statement implies that Sister Joan Chittister supports the pro-choice movement. Rather she indicates where pro-choicers and pro-lifers ought to agree..
The biggest book in the world is an edition of the Pali Canon, a scripture of Theravada Buddhism, inscribed on marble by order of King Mindon of Burma in 1860.
Located in Mandalay, it consists of 1,640 marble pages, each 3.5 feet wide, 5 feet tall and 5 inches thick, sheltered by its own pagoda, and arranged around the central golden Kuthodaw Pagoda. Only one page is devoted to King Mindon’s own deeds.
The project was completed and opened to the public in 1868. Tended by Buddhist monks, it is still visited by pilgrims and tourists.
King Mindon believed that books were the most valuable creation of civilization, and he hoped his edition of the Pali Canon would last 5,000 years.
Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine has published a grim and terrifying account of life under the so-called Islamic State (aka ISIS, ISIL or Daesh).
It reminds me of reports of life in Nazi-occupied Europe during the Second World War or in the USSR under Stalin’s terror.
I think that U.S. efforts against ISIS will be futile so long as they are conditional—that is, conditional on not doing anything to offend Saudi Arabia or help Iran or Syria.
Iran and Syria are not democracies, nor was Libya before the overthrow of Qaddafi, but in these countries it was possible for a normal person to lead a normal life without day-to-day horrors.
The result of destruction of Libya, the proxy war in Syria and any attack on Iran are to create conditions of lawless violence from which movements such as ISIS can emerge.
Reports of Everyday Life Under the Islamic State by Uwe Buse and Katrin Kunz for Spiegel Online.
Hat tip to Tiffany’s Non-Blog.
There are lessons in this chart for people who advocate social change, and that is to never think that electing a particular politician is enough, and especially to never settle for the lesser of two evils.
The labor movement can learn from this. Of course the gay rights movement had an easier task because its goals do not threaten any powerful monied interests.
ThinkProgress had a good article about how a sensible American Imam explained to Muslim teenagers that the Islamic State’s propaganda is contrary to the authoritative teachings and the historic practice of Islam.
When people are ignorant of their own religion, they are vulnerable to those who try to sell them a twisted version of it. The best cure for ignorance is accurate knowledge.
The disturbing thing to me about the article is that Imam Mohamid Magid’s effort is necessary in the first place. It is disturbing that ISIS has such a big presence on American social media. The New York Times reported that ISIS sends out an estimated 500 million messages a day via 46,000 Twitter accounts.
It also is disturbing that ISIS propaganda has an impact. I can understand radical Muslim movements with grievances against the United States, Israel and other Western countries. I do not volunteer to become a victim of such movements, nor advocate that others do so, but they are understandable in a way that ISIS is not.
The primary targets of ISIS are other Muslims and harmless religious minorities who have been living in peace in majority-Muslim countries, and the images that ISIS broadcasts of be-headings and burnings are manifestations of sadistic cruelty. This is very hard to understand.
U.S. government officials estimate that 150 young Americans have gone or tried to go to Syria to join ISIS, the New York Times reported. Imam Magid said some of them were no doubt mentally ill, and I’m sure that is true.
Eric Hoffer pointed out years ago in his book, The True Believer, that people who join extremist mass movements are not those who are rooted in a traditional religion, but people who are uprooted from their culture and desperately need something to give them sense of meaning and belonging.
How This Imam Has Kept Americans From Joining the Islamic State by Igor Volsky and Victoria Fleischer for ThinkProgress.
U.S. Muslims Take On ISIS’ Recruiting Machine by Laurie Goodstein for the New York Times.
When a photographer named Colin Miller visited Chengdu, China, he was struck by the colorful beauty of the nearby Buddhist temples and monasteries. He spent two and a half weeks traveling through small towns in Sichuan province, taking pictures.
My expatriate e-mail pen pal Jack, who called my attention to these photographs, said many of these temples are Tibetan, or at least are dedicated to the school of Buddhism found in Tibet.
The lavish beauty shown in these photos is a contrast to the austere beauty of Zen temples and gardens in Japan. Any religion that can inspire such beauty must have something good about it.
I like time-lapse videos. They show me the world in a unique way.
I got a link to this one from my expatriate e-mail pen pal Jack C.
Ladakh is the northernmost region of India. It is part of Kashmir, high in the Himalayas and close to the Chinese border. According to Wikipedia, it is inhabited mainly by Shia Muslims and Tibetan Buddhists, who live in peace—most of the time.
What this chart indicates is that the big religious split in the United States is not between Protestants and Catholics, or among Christians, Jews and Muslims, but between pro-science religion and anti-science religion.
This chart is based on a 2007 survey by Pew Research. It will be interesting to see if the 2014 survey is significantly different.
Evolution, Science and Religion by Josh Rosenau for the Science League of America.
Our new pro-science pontiff: Pope Francis on climate change, evolution and the Big Bang by Chris Mooney for the Washington Post.
Adam Curtis is a documentary filmmaker for the BBC who makes connections that other people don’t see.
In his new documentary, Bitter Lake, he shows how Afghanistan has been a focal point of a three-way struggle among Anglo-American capitalism, Soviet Communism and Saudi Arabia’s radical extremist Wahhabist Islam.
While Soviet Communism has collapsed and Anglo-American capitalism is in crisis, Wahhabism is spreading and growing stronger.
Curtis doesn’t offer a policy for dealing with Wahhabism, but his documentary shows that mere firepower is not the answer, nor is providing money and weapons to prop up corrupt warlords and governments. The First Rule of Holes applies: When you’re in one, stop digging.
The embedded YouTube video above is a history teacher’s abridgment of Bitter Lake which covers all the main points. Click on Bitter Lake if you want to see the full version or if the embedded video doesn’t work.
About 5 million fewer Americans identified themselves as Christians in 2014 than in 2007, and the percentage of self-identified Christians declined by nearly 8 percentage points.
The decline was most noticeable in the Millennial generation—those born in the period from 1981 to 1996. Only 56 percent of this group identified themselves as Christian in Pew’s 2014 poll.
Evangelical Protestants are the strongest segment of American Christianity. They grew in absolute numbers from 2007 and 2014, and declined only slightly as a percentage of the U.S. population.
But they are growing at a less rapid rate that the religiously unaffiliated. And growth in that segment comes from the “nothing in particular” group, not the avowed atheists or agnostics. I suppose this includes a lot of people who say they are spiritual, but not religious.
I don’t claim to know why this is so.
I can think of possible reasons. One is the sexual revolution and the decline in the belief that marriage is a sacrament received through a church wedding. Another is the growing awareness that scientific belief is incompatible with the literal belief in the Bible. A third is the identification of Christianity in the public mind with conservative politics. The so-called religious right, which is strongest among evangelical Protestants, is a backlash against these trends.
I would be interested in your thoughts.
For the full Pew report, click on America’s Changing Religious Landscape.
Many of us Americans distrust the Iranians because we think of them as apocalyptic religious fanatics who can’t be trusted to behave rationally. We ought to look at the apocalyptic religious fanatics in our own midst—and in Israel.
These are the evangelical Christian Zionists such as John Hagee and Pat Robertson who say that the United States should give unconditional support to Israel because Biblical prophecies say the foundation of Israel is part of God’s plan.
A recent Bloomberg poll indicated that 46 percent of Americans—and 58 percent of American born-again Christians—believe that the United States should support Israel even when it is not in the American national interest.
Now there is a sense in which I believe this myself. I think it was right for the U.S. government in the 1970s to send aid to Israel when Israel was in danger of being wiped out, even though the United States lost some geopolitical advantage by doing so. This is a different thing from saying today that the United States should attack Iran for Israel’s benefit.
It is also a different thing from Mitt Romney saying in 2012 that Americans should not allow any “daylight” between American foreign policy and Israel’s. Or Ted Cruz a few months ago making support for Israel a litmus test for persecuted Middle Eastern Christians.
The U.S. government should beware of being drawn into the conflict in Yemen.
The fight among Shiite Houthi militia, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the government of Yemen are part of a wider Middle East conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
That religious conflict is overlaid with a conflict between two alliances of Middle East powers—Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Shiite militias on the one hand, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf emirates, the Sunni militias in Iraq and Syria and Turkey, with Israel as a silent partner, on the other.
Washington sides with Saudi Arabia and Israel. I have come to realize that sanctions against Iran were never about the imaginary danger of nuclear weapons, but to keep Iran weak. Now Iran has found an ally in Putin’s Russia.
This is a highly dangerous situation. National governments are keeping the religious wars going by sending arms and money to the different religious factions. But religious wars are not controllable. Being drawn in to these wars serves no national interest of the United States, does not benefit the people of the region and puts the American people at risk of being drawn into a wider war.
The USA has had a strange relationship with Iran during the past 35 years. While waging economic war against Iran, the U.S. government strengthened Iran’s position by defeating its main enemies, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. A defeat of ISIS would further strengthen Iran.
By agreeing to end sanctions, the Obama administration appeared to accept Iran as a major power in the Middle East. Now Obama is sending warships to checkmate Iranian power.
I’m by no means an expert on the religious and cultural geography of the Middle East, but I don’t see this ending well.
These photographs of Baroque churches in Europe and Latin America were taken by Cyril Porchet as part of a book entitled Seduction.
You don’t have to be a Catholic or even a Christian to appreciate the love, talent and hard work that went into creating such beauty.
Indiana’s quick modification of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act shows much clout corporate CEOs have when a state government does something that displeases them.
I’m glad the law was modified. I think it went beyond the legitimate purpose of not forcing people to support or participate in religious rites they don’t believe in. But I’m not happy about how easily CEOs of large corporations can force elected officials to cave in when they displease the CEOs.
Of course there’s no way of knowing whether the CEOs were bluffing or making symbolic gestures or threatening to do things they were planning to do anyway. I doubt that institutional investors would tolerate a CEO doing something that would reduce profits just for reasons of personal conviction.
A CEO champions gays (and CEOcracy): “The Party of CEOs” is emerging by Steve Sailer for the Unz Review.
The Hypocrisy of Mark Benioff and Co. by Rod Dreher for The American Conservative.
Should Mon and Pops That Forgo Gay Weddings Be Destroyed? by Conor Friedersdorf for The Atlantic.
Indiana and the Constitution by Andrew Napolitano for the Unz Review. Why the law needed to be changed.
Garry Wills wrote in the New York Review of Books that contrary to appearances, Pope Francis is popular with the Catholic laity. A Pew poll indicates that 90 percent of Catholics approve of the Pope’s statements, and 95 percent of the Catholics who are most observant.
What makes Pope Francis controversial, Wills wrote, is that he follows the teachings of Jesus. In fact, he said, the Pope, in his preaching of charity to the poor, is less radical than Jesus, who said it was harder for a camel to pass through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Perhaps it is wrong to think of a “Catholic right” and a “Catholic left.” It may be more fitting to think of the former as the defenders of Dives, or the Pharisees who do not want people to eat with Jesus, or the flushers of the homeless, or the priestly Levites, or the prodigal’s elder brother—while their opposites are the lovers of Lazarus, or the sinners who eat with Jesus, or the bedroll people, or the “outcast” Samaritan, or the prodigal’s father. These are the two forms of Christianity now on offer. Let Catholics make their choice.
Marriage is both a legal contract and a religious sacrament. The dual nature of marriage makes it a more complicated question than, say, voting rights.
Nobody should be denied access to the benefits of the marriage contract based on race, nationality, religion or sexual orientation. Gay married couples should have the same rights as any other couples in regard to pensions, insurance, credit, hospital visitation or anything else.
Neither should anybody be required to support or participate in a religious ritual they don’t believe in, for the same reason that nobody should be required to recite the Lord’s Prayer in a public ceremony if they don’t believe in it.
For example, an independent photographer who believes on religious grounds that marriage is only between a man and a woman should not be required to take photographs as a gay wedding.
I think that religious institutions should be free to set their own internal rules of moral conduct, including sexual conduct.
On the other hand, I do not believe that owners of a business corporation have the right to impose their private moral beliefs on employees, or to use religion as an excuse for depriving employees of their legal rights, as was done by the Hobby Lobby corporation.
The United States is exceptional among economically-advanced nations in the large percentage of the population who reject Darwin’s theory of evolution.
But the USA has a partner in this respect. A large percentage of the population of Israel also reject evolution.
Religious fundamentalists—that is, those who believe that Scripture should be taken as literal fact as well as teaching a lesson—are strong in both countries, and are politically allied to right-wing nationalists.
Right-wing nationalism is not inherent in religious fundamentalism. The Old Order Amish are fundamentalists. But when fundamentalism and nationalism are allied, they make a powerful and dangerous force, because the nation and its military are treated as if they are sacred.
The Likud Party in Israel is close to the Republican Party in the United States, in spite of the fact that most Jewish citizens in the United States support the Democrats.
I believe that is because the Likud supporters and Republicans have an affinity in their leaders’ assertive nationalism and in their appeal to religious fundamentalist voters. The majority of Jewish people in the United States, on the other hand, are liberal humanitarians who accept the conclusions of modern science.
In Israel, Will Creationists Reign? by Josh Rosenau for the Science League of America.
A Shande Vor De Goyim: Israelis Are as Creationist as U.S. Non-Jews by Josh Rosenau for the Science League of America.
Public opinion polls show there are as many Americans who call themselves religious liberals as who call themselves religious conservatives.
Yet religion has come to be identified with conservatism, and liberalism has come to be identified with atheism and recularism.
Paul Rasor in his book, RECLAIMING PROPHETIC WITNESS: Liberal Religion in the Public Square (2012), blames the timidity of religious liberals.
We religious liberals don’t always preach what we practice, and this is especially true of us Unitarian Universalists, the quintessential religious liberals.
Rasor, who is a professor of religion and a UU himself, said religious liberals are shy about expressing our religious values in public. When we take a stand on a public issue, our rhetoric is no different from any progressive or civil rights group. We argue on practical, legal and ethical grounds, but not on religious grounds—unlike our counterparts on the religious right.
Why is this?
Last September more than 120 well-known Muslim scholars wrote an open letter to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the self-declared “Islamic state,” and his followers rebutting their claim to represent Islam.
This is old news, but it is new to me.
These scholars included Sheikh Shawqi Allam, the grand mufti of Egypt, and Sheikh Muhammad Ahmad Hussein, the mufti of Jerusalem and All Palestine.
In Islam, there is no equivalent of a Pope or a church council that can rule authoritatively on religious doctrine.
Instead Islamic rulers are expected to conform to the teachings of religious scholars, when these scholars are all agreed. So this letter is as authoritative as it gets in Islam.
Here is the executive summary of the letter, translated from Arabic into English.
1. It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an—or part of a verse—to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas, and one cannot ‘cherry-pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith.
2. It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.
3. It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.
4. It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.
5. It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.
6. It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
7. It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.
8. Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.
9. It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.
10. It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.
11. It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.
12. The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.
13. It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.
14. It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.
15. It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.
16. It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.
17. It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.
18. It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.
19. It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God.
20. It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.
21. Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.
22. It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.
23. Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.
24. After the death of the Prophet, Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.
Muslims believe the Qu’ran (Koran) is a transcription of God’s revelation to Mohammad. The Hadith are sayings of Mohammad. Shari’ah is Islamic law, and a fatwa is a ruling under Islamic law.
Muslim Scholars Release Open Letter To Islamic State Meticulously Blasting Its Ideology by Lauren Markoe for Religion News Service. (Hat tip to Jack Clontz)
Is the Islamic State (aka ISIS or ISIL) un-Islamic, as President Obama has said? Or can we best understand the Islamic State as part of Islam as a whole?
It’s not for me, or for President Obama, to say who is a true Muslim and who isn’t. But the facts are that the vast majority of Muslims, including those who think it is right and just to kill blasphemers who insult Islam, are horrified by the killing of harmless people.
The reaction of the Iranian ayatollahs to the 9/11 attacks is a case in point. In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini called upon all Muslims to kill the author Salman Rushdie for his allegedly blasphemous depiction of Mohammad in his novel, The Satanic Verses.
But in 2001, his successor, Ayatollah Khameni, strongly condemned the Al Qaeda’s attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Apparently, for him, suppressing blasphemy is one thing and killing the innocent quite another.
I of course condemn blasphemy laws and fatwas against alleged blasphemers. At the same time I can understand the distinction.
Graeme Wood wrote an enlightening and frightening article in the March issue of The Atlantic on the apocalyptic religious reliefs of the Islamic State, but falls for their claim that they represent a more authentic version of Islam than that held by the vast majority of Muslims.
Mohammad was a warrior as well as a prophet, but neither he or his immediate successors went around be-heading people on a regular basis. The rule of the first Islamic caliphs was in fact tolerable for most Christians and Jews because all they had to do was pay a special tax.
As this chart shows, we Americans are less likely to believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution than the people of any European nation.
Oddly, though, we are more likely to believe in social Darwinism (although we don’t call it that)—the idea the law of life is survival of the fittest, and society does not exist so that people can cooperate for mutually beneficial ends, but so that the population can be sorted into winners and losers.
Why is it not OK to kill people in the name of a religion, but it is OK to kill people in the name of a nation?
via Ian Welsh.
We Americans honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as one of our national heroes, but the only thing we remember that he stood for is that people should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skins.
That’s important, of course. But many of us tend to forget his strong advocacy of economic justice and, even more, we forget his strong commitment to nonviolence, or rather mass defiance as an alternative revolutionary violence.
I am not a pacifist, as Dr. King was. I do not believe that war is always wrong. But the stronger reason is that I do not have the moral strength to following his teaching. I am unable to live up to the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels to love my enemies, resist not evil and do good to them that hate me.
The amazing thing about Dr. King was that he was able, for a short time, to persuade large numbers of Americans to fight without violence and to win.
Alinsky’s career in particular is evidence that successful use of nonviolent techniques did not require Christian love or the turning of the other cheek.
My impression is that many black Americans today regard Malcolm X as a more manly role model than Dr. King. Yet Dr. King made governors and presidents bow to his will, while Malcolm X’s struggles were mostly with other African-Americans.
This statement is not completely fair to Malcolm X, because he was murdered when his work had only just begun while Dr. King was struck down after he had accomplished most of what was in him to do.
But the fact remains that the Black Panthers and other advocates of armed struggle were much more easily crushed than the followers of Dr. King.
The power of oppressive elites is the power to compel obedience. Their power ceases when the oppressed cease to obey. I admit that’s easy for me to say when I’ve never put myself at physical risk in any struggle, nonviolent or otherwise. But I believe it’s true.
In colonial Maryland, relations between Catholics and Protestants were so tense that there were laws that defined an insult to either religion as a breach of the peace.
In the Ottoman Empire, people of different religions lived side-by-side in peace for centuries, all governed by their own religious laws and leaders, subject only to paying taxes to their Turkish rulers.
Dmitry Orlov thinks that such arrangements are the key to peace in countries in which Muslims and non-Muslims live together.
The only solution I see is a duopoly, where Moslems and non-Moslems run their respective segments of society according to different sets of rules.
Some rules they must have in common, such as a ban on incendiary, extremist speech. The prohibition against “shouting fire in a crowded theater” applies to such arrangements.
Examples of such arrangements being successful include the Republic of Tatarstan (Russian Federation) where Orthodox Christianity and (majority) Islam coexist peacefully, and mixed marriages can offer a choice of religions to the children they produce.
Another example is the Republic of Chechnya (also Russian Federation) which, having fought a bloody separatist conflict financed by the Saudis and the US, can now successfully combat Islamic terrorism on its own, without involving federal authorities.
Russia is now a dual Christian/Islamic federation; if current demographic trends continue, then at some point it will become an Islamic/Christian federation. So be it. If peace is maintained, nobody will notice or care.
France can embrace the same choice, forming Les Républiques Françaises, and probably will, because what choice does it have—other than losing the war?
A thoughtful proposal, but I have problems with it—even assuming that dual law works as well in Tatarstan and Chechnya as Orlov thinks it does.