caroljane

Silence is golden. Another good lesson. A pox on all your houses. Damn, I've got Phil and Ted serving me up double shots of Haterade. I'll show you the way to the Hatequarters and Mr P. will be with you soon.

What I wanted is to be shown how those historical events are tied to Jesus saying I come not to bring peace, but a sword. If Christianity is indeed militant at heart, then it will always be militant at heart, no matter how far it's followers, including you, might stray, they'll always be under threat of being called back to its heart. So, how do you make the link between Jesus's comments and the Crusades, opposed to the Crusades being a response to imperialist Islam? Those comments were USED to help start the Crusades. Medieval clerics were not in the habit of explicating Bible texts to their flocks. They told them what God wanted them to do. When Urban II ignited the Crusades at Clermont in 1095, he came "as a herald of Christ" to urge an eradication of the Muslims from "the lands of our friends" and liberate the holy places from the infidel. He promised they would be doing Christ's work and earn remission from their sins, and go to Paradise if they died fighting. Sound familiar? So your point is that because some long dead Christians justified reconquering previously Christian land from the Muslims (who themselves conquered by force from the Christians, following the words of their prophet who explicitly preached war and the murder of non-believers) in contravention of the teachings of their own messiah, that Gert Wilders is a bigot for holding that one can meaningfully distinguish between the explicit teachings of the two religious figures? I don't know or care if Wilders is a bigot. The religious leaders, as you point out, are long dead, and to view the actions of their billions of followers through the narrow prism of the words those leaders said or wrote alone, instead of the layered centuries of thought, non-thought, knowable and unknowable circumstance, is unproductive of anything except further dissension.

What I wanted is to be shown how those historical events are tied to Jesus saying I come not to bring peace, but a sword. If Christianity is indeed militant at heart, then it will always be militant at heart, no matter how far it's followers, including you, might stray, they'll always be under threat of being called back to its heart. So, how do you make the link between Jesus's comments and the Crusades, opposed to the Crusades being a response to imperialist Islam? Those comments were USED to help start the Crusades. Medieval clerics were not in the habit of explicating Bible texts to their flocks. They told them what God wanted them to do. When Urban II ignited the Crusades at Clermont in 1095, he came "as a herald of Christ" to urge an eradication of the Muslims from "the lands of our friends" and liberate the holy places from the infidel. He promised they would be doing Christ's work and earn remission from their sins, and go to Paradise if they died fighting. Sound familiar?

I always used to tell the more serious of my students in San Francisco that the first sign your receive that you are making progress in learning about a field is when you begin to realize how much there actually is to know about it - and how much there is to know that, up to that moment, you had never even dreamed existed at all. I'm sorry, Phil, but I've known you long enough and had enough literary conversations with you to know that, where literature is concerned, you've never yet reached that point. You have no idea how much more there is to this subject than you have supposed. You believe you know far, far more about it than you actually do, and, sadly, this renders you incapable of learning as much more about it as your native intelligence would otherwise permit. It does, however, leave you able to take umbrage at what you believe are needlessly insulting remarks about your alleged ignorance. I suppose there's some consolation in that. JR Now wait a minute. Knowledge of literature and study of literature and wide reading are usually concomitant, but not always. There is no more subjective, contentious area than Great Books and Great Authors; after 400 years readers and critics have managed to mostly agree that Shakespeare was great,but he still gets criticized, and some smart people don't like him. (Ayn Rand didn't). A reading-discussion group is the exact place to expand your knowledge of books and get the first impression of them which is most valuable. If you like them you might want to read another book by same author, if they knock you out you will want to read them again, if they don't hold your interest, next book please, life is too short. There is a time to learn to appreciate the finer points of authors and literary movements, and a time to discover the writers who can draw you into their world and enchant you. Neither is a time to worry about other readers' reader's credentials.

Look, Richard, You talk a lot about the "heart of Islam" as if it exists in a book and not in the actual hearts of the people who practice it. I had a student who was a professor of theology in Turkey and he asked me once what were the pillars of Christianity, as compared to the five pillars of Islam. To my distress I could only think of the Ten Commandments, then dimly remembered from my Sunday school days that there was only one. (I forgot the first one, monotheism altogether. None of the five pillars, which most of the Muslims I know adhere to in their ways, mentions violence of any sort. This is the "heart of Islam" that exists, alive and beating, not the desiccated scrolls you brandish to justify your own beliefs and fears. This is not to say the words don't matter; "in the beginning was the Word" after all. But we are long past the beginning now, and many more words have been said, and written, and heard.

What I wanted is to be shown how those historical events are tied to Jesus saying I come not to bring peace, but a sword. They are tied in exactly the same way Mohammed's words are tied to historical and current events. They are used by religious leaders to urge actions which those leaders want to happen, for the variegated contextual reasons that people want things to happen.

I figure it will probably look better if I just tell you now. Someone else will discover it soon enough. Donald Henry Rumsfeld. Pure coincidence, I assure you. And it is undoubtedly true that you have never seen me in the same room with Diana Hsieh. But I can explain that. You see. . . She would probably never go to a conference or lecture that would allow tolerationists like me as a guest. There. That should explain it. No, really. . . Of course, of course that explains it. Heh, heh. Just a coincidence, like the fact that oh I don't know, David Hassellhoff is said to be in "rehab" whenever you are out and about in public...isn't it ridiculous the silly things people notice....

Just came across this and loved hearing it again! I only knew it from an old Beyond the Fringe record and it's great to see Moore actually performing it. I loved that record = "Why I'd Rather be a Judge than a Miner" and "The End of the World" were two of my favourites on it. As I remember: (End-of-worlders atop mountain awaiting end of world) Disciple: So here we are at the end of the world as it has been foretold,then? Leader: Yes, according to my Ingersoll watch. Disciple: And will there be a mighty, mighty wind then? Leader: Yes, a mighty, mighty wind. D: And will it lay low the mountains of the Earth? L: Of course not, why do you think we've come up the mountain, you great git?

You attribute the crusades to that verse? I'm interested to see how you link the two. Why did that verse hold sway for only two hundred years? If Christianity is militant in and of itself, like Islam actually is, then why are Christians today not acting on it? Why do you ignore everything else that was going on that led up to the Crusades, forces that had nothing to do with Christian teachings whatsoever but spurred the Crusades? Um, the Church Militant is an active concept today, though the militancy has gone from literal to metaphorical, as has jihad in the lives of the majority of Muslims. Salvation Army anybody? What two hundred years? Christians killed non-Christians, principally Jews, enthusiastically under the Inquisition until around the 1600s, to give them the benefit of a few years.Like Muslims they reserved the worst ferocities for apostates and heretics after that (the Thirty Years War etc) all urged on by preachers or priests who had the Bible memorized. Christianity is now over 2000 years old. For the record, I am a Christian.

Does this mean that your reading list is the widest, longest and biggest on OL? It's all due to the magic socks.Rumour has it they double as a reading lamp.

Does this mean that your reading list is the widest, longest and biggest on OL? It's all due to the magic socks.

I have an historical one, the Crusades, the pogroms - actually that's two. 1300 years after the words were written, and later.

How does recognizing the essential difference between a religion whose founder says "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword", "my kingdom is not of this earth" and "render unto Caesar that which is Casear's" and a militant who demands war and murder to establish a religious dictatorship amount to "bigotry"? The accusation is superficial, baseless, and offensive. "I come to bring not peace but a sword"... the New Testament like the Koran has a saying of Jesus or Mohammed to support any theory or course of action the follower wants to take. No it doesn't, because if you put it in its wider context it's taken as metaphorical, not literal. When Muhammad personally beheaded people though, and had his goons do it for him, it was literal. What is your purpose in trying to equate Christianity and Islam as one and the same, as opposed to just looking at each for what they are? Yes it does, because when you put anything in its wider context, which in this case is 1300 years, it becomes metaphorical, and only literal to those who wish to regress literally . You are saying that the recorded actions and words of the founders of a religion are more important than the actions and words of all the followers of that religion, who number in the billions, 1300 years later. You are saying this because a fraction of those followers have become homicidal maniacs who could harm us in terrible ways. To prevent that harm, you would take action against any portion of those billions which you would consider applicable and effective. Joseph Smith was an oversexed plagiarist, and polygamy is an oppressive doctrine, and there could be a group of rogue Mormons right now plotting to blow up the Parliament Hill and kill all the men to create a fundamentalist Mormon Canada. But I'm not going to round up the teenage missionaries who appear regularly in pairs to enlighten godless Toronto, or besiege Bountiful. The moral price of such preventive measures is too high, and I don't think I could pay it.

How does recognizing the essential difference between a religion whose founder says "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword", "my kingdom is not of this earth" and "render unto Caesar that which is Casear's" and a militant who demands war and murder to establish a religious dictatorship amount to "bigotry"? The accusation is superficial, baseless, and offensive. "I come to bring not peace but a sword"... the New Testament like the Koran has a saying of Jesus or Mohammed to support any theory or course of action the follower wants to take.

Rire en haut voix

We must warn the others - but how can we know who isn't in on it too? Who can we trust? Ninth Doctor, I don't think so. And who knows how many PhD's those guys in the Corner of Insight have.? There may not be much time! Oh, what to do, what to do?

Stephen: I typed in Dr. Death without any mental connection to Dr. Mengele. Carol merely played off that Dr. Death post which I made. I also did not make that connection. Since that post, I believe that I have called her Dr. Noodles which is how I will refer to her hereafter. My apologies to all for inartfully [sp?] making any reference to that evil Nazi. No one deserves that reference except it's evil owner. Sorry. Adam It was folie a deux again Adam, as when we simultaneously discovered Dennis's hideous secret.(I was just going to type DH! talk about putting both feet in it) I shall refer to her as Dr Mrs Dr or DMD for short henceforth, defying your ban on acronyms. Yet...yet...Dennis Hardin, Diana Hsieh...they're both Doctors... I don't even want to know what Rumsfeld-s middle name is...get those yaks back in the pasture!

Just to be clear, I think Karen Armstrong’s view of Islam and its history is filtered through rose-colored glasses, she’s too selectively positive. Meanwhile Spencer’s view is even more distorted, with a negative bias. They’ve both written books on the subject, and putting them side by side it’s hard to believe they’re writing about the same thing. After reading the Koran and the Bible, and studying history, my conclusion is that the Abrahamic religions are about equally bad, and theocracies based on any of them are no place to live. Is bigotry against one of them the answer? The one that happens to still have theocratic regimes in power? I’ve worked with Muslim immigrants, young second generation types who have comparatively conservative parents, but who are so well assimilated you wouldn’t know their religion unless they told you. Hell, they’re so secularized, they only pay lip service on holidays, presumably to please their parents. What effect does the rhetoric of a Geert Wilders have on people like this? People with relatives that would like to come here, or who otherwise exert pressure to modernize their home countries? It’s comparable to a Klansman calling for more Jim Crow laws. Well said. As someone who has worked with and come to know at least a thousand Muslims over 13 years, I entirely agree.

I think he should focus a few episodes on diet, wardrobe and grooming, since his physical appearance is as much of a disgusting blight on our cultural landscape, and is as within his power to correct, as the trivial matters over which he incessantly damns others. I think he should lead by example: take the time to study and learn something about diet, fashion and hygiene, and then actually acquire the discipline to improve himself before demanding that others improve themselves. J And he should have memorized his speech thoroughly so as to not have to refer to notes. It wasn't that long. Surely he is an experienced enough speaker to do that.

Your objection is that people dare agree with one another? Perigo's piece was bad, mostly because it was boring, a very stereotypical Objectivist bromide rehash. If he's not going to say something new and topical he might as well just recite Philosophy, Who Needs It? That's not even to mention that he calls the podcast "PERIGO!" Not only all caps, but an exclamation mark AS WELL! Should have left off the PERI part. Maybe he should call it Perogi to attract more viewers who will think it's a cooking show. Perogies are very tasty and perhaps not well known in New Zealand, thus would be new and topical.

Thanks Shayne. And congrats on your assist on the Best Retort winner which was scored by Brant. He couldn't have done it without you!

"Only on the outside" was said by Ted. Now the technical credits.....

Oh Lord... This thing is even finding its way into other threads. I'm never going to live it down. Michael Look on the bright side Michael. If it goes viral you can tie it into your internet marketing and become the Merchant indeed. Also, you could trademark it for your space exploration company, Rationally Integrated Solar Systems.

Oh Lord... This thing is even finding its way into other threads. I'm never going to live it down. Michael Look on the bright side Michael. If it goes viral you can tie it into your internet marketing and become the Merchant indeed.

You are entirely right and I apologize, I will stop doing it. I picked it up from someone else and just added the Mrs to make it sound funnier, and to my shame I forgot the Mengele association altogether."Dr Death" I thought of as a video-game comic book type character. I usually write satirically but I would never, ever consciously make such an allusion. I'm sorry.