Congressman wants to use the Qur'an when sworn in

[metadigital]

The peaceful example set by the more extreme doctrinaires of the Abrahamic religions?

[Walsingham]

Maybe the point was "You can't swear on the Q'uran. You're not violent enough to be a Senator."

[kirottu]

I

[Tigranes]

Yes you can. I've never had the opportunity to sit down and read the Qu'ran extensively, but any casual reader of the Bible need only sit down and think a bit. One of the examples - one of many - I can remember is Joshua in OT.. he's pretty much ordered by God to go and kill children, women, men, everyone in a city, just because they didn't feel like submitting to the Israeli migration into their lands and put up a fight. No baby-killers or Sodom or nuthin'.

 

Of course, even more interesting is Joshua.. ch10? 11? Somewhere that says, roughly, that these men were doomed to fall under the Israeli because God had hardened their hearts and made them refuse the overtures of the Israeli. Could be interpreted very badly for God. But that's not the point here.. both the bible and the Qu'ran have passages that, taken literally - and for some, even when not taken literally - are very, very aggressive. Is interesting to see how others that are religious / want to be religious reconcile these passages.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Has the swearing in of the new senators actually happened yet? It'd be interesting to know what actually happened in this case...

[metadigital]

I

[Dark Moth]

Yes you can. I've never had the opportunity to sit down and read the Qu'ran extensively, but any casual reader of the Bible need only sit down and think a bit. One of the examples - one of many - I can remember is Joshua in OT.. he's pretty much ordered by God to go and kill children, women, men, everyone in a city, just because they didn't feel like submitting to the Israeli migration into their lands and put up a fight. No baby-killers or Sodom or nuthin'.

 

Of course, even more interesting is Joshua.. ch10? 11? Somewhere that says, roughly, that these men were doomed to fall under the Israeli because God had hardened their hearts and made them refuse the overtures of the Israeli. Could be interpreted very badly for God. But that's not the point here.. both the bible and the Qu'ran have passages that, taken literally - and for some, even when not taken literally - are very, very aggressive. Is interesting to see how others that are religious / want to be religious reconcile these passages.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not really a valid counterpoint. The problem with the verses you quoted is that they're just a history, more or less. What you just used was not the Bible actually instructing believers in general (for all regions and time periods) to go out and kill unbelievers as part of religious requirement. In other words, unless you're living in Jericho around Joshua's lifetime, you really have nothing to worry about from that passage.

 

There's a problem with merely quoting verses, as I and Colrom just did. You have to look at them in context. Very often people just pull a random verse out of context and use it to justify whatever point they're trying to make, while not grasping its true meaning. The context is always as important as the verse itself. Yeah, of course there's plenty of violence in the Bible, but what is its nature? Who is the speaker? To whom is he or she speaking? Why is he saying it? Are calls to violence aggressive, or reactionary? It would be a significantly different verse if God instructed that the Israelites go out and slaughter unbelievers in the entire middle east throughout their lives instead of just the people in that particular place at that particular time. Hurlshot did the smart thing and look at the context instead of just the verses themselves. He interpreted it differently than I do, but IMO a whole lot of confusion would be cleared up if people did that.

 

Have I reconciled it enough for you?

Edited January 2, 2007 by Dark Moth

[Colrom]

I went looking for a few words about violence in the Book of Revelations since I noted that the bit I found and posted earlier neglected to include advocations of violence from Revelations - and there is certainly plenty to mention.

 

Revelations is cast in the future and is clearly taken by many as a guidance for their current and future actions. So it is certainly relevant.

 

While looking for a serious commentary I found this - which while not serious - and having some flaws - certainly captures the gist of the matter with tongue in cheek.

 

Here:

 

 

[Dark Moth]

 

 

 

 

 

Its "Revelation", not "Revelations".

[Colrom]

 

 

 

 

 

Its "Revelation", not "Revelations".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry.

[metadigital]

 

 

 

 

 

Its "Revelation", not "Revelations".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's "It's" not "Its".

[Dark_Raven]

:crazy:

Revelation 9

Edited January 2, 2007 by Dark_Raven

[Dark Moth]

It's "It's" not "Its".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry.

[metadigital]

Your postcount will be frozen for a penalty period.

[julianw]

Has the swearing in of the new senators actually happened yet?  It'd be interesting to know what actually happened in this case...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I am pretty sure no legal actions can be taken to stop congressman Ellison from using the Qu'ran when swearing in since it's only an unofficial tradition to use the Bible. In fact, I think a past Supreme Court justice actually sworn in on a law book in front of his father.

 

Here is a story on how the congressman responded to the criticism:

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Virginia lawmaker criticized for writing an "Islamophobic" letter to his constituents would be wise to learn more about Islam, the first Muslim elected to Congress said Thursday.

 

Minnesota Rep.-elect Keith Ellison told CNN that he is not angry about a letter Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode wrote that said Ellison should not be allowed to place his hand on the Quran during his unofficial swearing in ceremony.

 

"I think the diversity of our country is a great strength," Ellison told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "It's a good thing that we have people from all faiths and all cultures to come here." (Watch Ellison play down Quran flap )

 

Goode wrote that to "preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States," an immigration overhaul was necessary to avoid "many more Muslims elected to office demanding the use of the Quran."

 

Defending his statements Thursday, Goode, a Republican, told Fox News he wants to limit legal immigration.

 

He also said he wants to do away with "diversity visas," which he said allowed people into America "not from European countries" and "some terrorist states."

 

Ellison responded to Goode's sentiments by saying that he would like to meet with Goode to talk about Islam and find some "common ground."

 

"We all support one Constitution, one Constitution that upholds our right to equal protection, one Constitution that guarantees us due process under the law, one Constitution which says there is no religious test for elective office in America," Ellison said.

 

Blitzer asked the new lawmaker-elect directly if thought Goode is a "bigot."

 

But Ellison refused to partake in what he characterized as "name calling."

 

"I don't know the fellow and I'd rather just say he has a lot to learn about Islam," Ellison said.

 

The congressman-elect said he looks forward to meeting Goode.

 

"What I'd tell him is that there might be a few things about Muslims that he might want to know," said Ellison. "He might want to know that Muslims -- there are about 5 million in the country -- that they are here to support and strengthen America.

 

"They are nurses, doctors, husbands, wives, kids, who just want to live and prosper in the American way and that there's really nothing to fear," the new lawmaker said. "And that all of us are steadfastly opposed to the same people he is opposed to, which is the terrorists, so there is nothing to be afraid of.

 

"And, that what we should do is to tell our constituents -- we should reach to each other and not be against each other and we should find ways for common ground."

 

Ellison then said he'd like Goode to reach out to leaders at mosques and synagogues to encourage understanding and tolerance of the country's variety of religions.

[Sand]

Goode is a bigot, plain and simple. He wants to use fear as a tool to strengthen his position while discredit those who he sees as a threat. At least that is my interpretation of Goode's actions.

[Tigranes]

That's not really a valid counterpoint. The problem with the verses you quoted is that they're just a history, more or less. What you just used was not the Bible actually instructing believers in general (for all regions and time periods) to go out and kill unbelievers as part of religious requirement. In other words, unless you're living in Jericho around Joshua's lifetime, you really have nothing to worry about from that passage.

 

Not really. Many Christians interpret the Bible in terms of symbolism, allegories, anecdotes and parallels. Can God condone such brutal murder in one time and one place and condemn it in another? For some, yes. For some, no. Even when placed contextually, it tells you that God is capable of ordering such things and does not see wanton murder of those with different religion as inherently bad. Following this, it would not be 'unlike' God to order mass genocides of Muslims in the Middle East right now.]

 

There's a problem with merely quoting verses, as I and Colrom just did. You have to look at them in context.

 

Uh.. that was pretty much what I was responding to, no? I was pointing out that while you can find lots of KILL quotes in the Qu'ran as has been quoted last page, so can you with the Bible. That was all. Now if you want to look at the context as well, then see what I wrote above. To say a portion of the bible doesn't apply at all because it's in a diff. time and place is not valid.

[Sand]

The way I see God is that he created three religions whose purpose was to cause conflict and to kill each other. What a loving God!

[Walsingham]

I'd like to put good money on the fact that we'd not be having this debate about Christianity being non-violent after a couple of hours listening to speeches by both Potestants and Catholic extremists in Northern Ireland. You can't tell me the Rev. Ian Paisley is non-violent.

[thepixiesrock]

That's where you're wrong. I can tell you that. Sure it might not be true, but hell if I'm going to let you take away my right to say things like that!

[Dark Moth]

Not really. Many Christians interpret the Bible in terms of symbolism, allegories, anecdotes and parallels. Can God condone such brutal murder in one time and one place and condemn it in another? For some, yes. For some, no. Even when placed contextually, it tells you that God is capable of ordering such things and does not see wanton murder of those with different religion as inherently bad. Following this, it would not be 'unlike' God to order mass genocides of Muslims in the Middle East right now.

Ya, really. There are certain parts of the Bible which are clearly meant to be taken literally and others not. The accounts of Joshua are mostly history, not allegory or spiritual lessons. The Israelis did not make violence a part of their religion, they carried it out whenever they were specifically instructed to do so. Also, the tales of Joshua were war, not "wanton murder" or genocide as you put it. The Bible discourages violence, but it also makes it clear that sometimes violence is necessary. God is not an advocate of genocide or wanton murder, as you seem to make it out to be. I guess my main point is that the Bible makes it clear that violence is normally to be avoided, and if it's not necessary or if God doesn't tell you to, don't do it. That's why the verses you used from Joshua are weak examples at best.

 

Now if you want to look at the context as well, then see what I wrote above. To say a portion of the bible doesn't apply at all because it's in a diff. time and place is not valid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, it is. If it's not didactic, it's not meant to apply. If it's meant for a specific time and a specific place, it does not apply. Plain and simple.

 

I'd like to put good money on the fact that we'd not be having this debate about Christianity being non-violent after a couple of hours listening to speeches by both Potestants and Catholic extremists in Northern Ireland. You can't tell me the Rev. Ian Paisley is non-violent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People say the same things about Islam. One man does not represent an entire religion or its followers.

Edited January 3, 2007 by Dark Moth

[Walsingham]

People say the same things about Islam.  One man does not represent an entire religion or its followers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That was supposed to be my inexpertly made point. I think it's redundant to complain about religions when the problem is people. As the RSPCA said about the recent killing of a small girl by a pitbull "Blame the deed, not the breed."

[metadigital]

Not really. Many Christians interpret the Bible in terms of symbolism, allegories, anecdotes and parallels. Can God condone such brutal murder in one time and one place and condemn it in another? For some, yes. For some, no. Even when placed contextually, it tells you that God is capable of ordering such things and does not see wanton murder of those with different religion as inherently bad. Following this, it would not be 'unlike' God to order mass genocides of Muslims in the Middle East right now.

Ya, really. There are certain parts of the Bible which are clearly meant to be taken literally and others not. The accounts of Joshua are mostly history, not allegory or spiritual lessons. The Israelis did not make violence a part of their religion, they carried it out whenever they were specifically instructed to do so. Also, the tales of Joshua were war, not "wanton murder" or genocide as you put it. The Bible discourages violence, but it also makes it clear that sometimes violence is necessary. God is not an advocate of genocide or wanton murder, as you seem to make it out to be. I guess my main point is that the Bible makes it clear that violence is normally to be avoided, and if it's not necessary or if God doesn't tell you to, don't do it. That's why the verses you used from Joshua are weak examples at best.

Now if you want to look at the context as well, then see what I wrote above. To say a portion of the bible doesn't apply at all because it's in a diff. time and place is not valid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, it is. If it's not didactic, it's not meant to apply. If it's meant for a specific time and a specific place, it does not apply. Plain and simple.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

These arguments are actually MORE VALID for Islam than Christianity, actually.

 

Islam is a religion based on key religious leaders interpreting the holy scripture; it is a religion that depends on the holy scholars, rather than literal interpretation. That is why there are, amongst the denominations, there are differences of opinion (and splinter groups who make up the tiny minority that become extremists, like the Salafis), and Muslims (both Shi'a and Sunni) are the more spiritual Sufi, for example.

 

It has been stated by many Muslims that the Qur'an, Islam's sacred text, denounces killing, while others believe that some verses actually encourage it. Militant Islamists sometimes justify terrorism against fellow Muslims, in particular against regimes they consider non-Islamic, on the basis that their enemies are (apostates Abu Hamza Al-Muhajir: Al-Zarqawi's Death Will Not End the Jihad, MEMRI, Special Dispatch Series - No. 1188, June 20, 2006). Islamic law traditionally designates death as the penalty for apostasy (converting) from Islam. Opinions within the Muslim community vary as to the grounds on which an individual may be declared to have apostatized. The most common view among Muslim scholars is that a declaration of takfir (designation of a Muslim as an apostate) can only be made by an established religious authority. Mainstream Muslim scholars usually oppose recourse to takfir, except in rare instances. Takfir was used as justification for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.

(My emphasis)

 

Regarding the criticism that the violence practiced by extremists is based on the Qur'an, Michael Sells, Professor of Islamic History and Literature at University of Chicago, states that such is the case with other scriptures: "During the Inquisition, killing a heretic was considered to be more compassionate than allowing him to lead others to damnation. Gospel passages that have helped inspire compassion have also been used to justify persecution of Jews. The Koran is read by the Taliban and by the Muslims who were persecuted by the Taliban. Verses that inspired Gandhi are cited by those who recently massacred unarmed Muslims in India."

(Michael Sells, Understanding, Not Indoctrination, Thursday, August 8, 2002; Page A17, The Washington Post)

A good wiki link with some interesting scholarly thought on the matter.

[Fionavar]

Thread Pruned: I know it's a rather hopeful course of action ...

[Surreptishus]

So Keith Ellison (along with a bunch of new people) was sworn in today using a copy of The Quran that was once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

 

Keith Ellison sworn into Congress.