Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
I still don't know for sure what caused all the angst. I wasn't trying to bash religion, but was sarcastically pointing out the absurdity of Romney and Obama stereotyping all the poor people.
anyway;
On another point, I don't feel good about the recent corruption (at large, not you) of the word "fundamental". If some religious person is fundamentally peaceful and loving to all God's creatures, is that such a bad thing? We need another descriptor to describe the "fundamentalists" most people are talking about when they say it.
also; it's good if you can see good and bad differences withing "Christianity" the umbrella term. But that ability doesn't always come through, for example if you attack the bible generally or blaspheme God specifically as you and Foxton often do. It just comes across as vengeful hatred over something gone horribly wrong in your childhood. Even if that's not at all the actual case. (although I think Foxton once said he hates Christians because one of them took his lunch money one time)
The problem is Kepler customarily uses the term "fundamentalist" or "fundy" to describe conservative Protestants (curiously he avoids mentioning conservative Catholics like Mel Gibson's moon bat father). A term of derision, scorn, disdain and contempt meaning "these folks and their concerns should never be taken seriously." Over the years I've disagreed with them on many issues, including their opposition to evolution, and demands that some sort of "alternative" theory be taught side by side with Darwin's theory so the "kids can make up their minds." And sometimes some of them wander into inappropriate territory, wanting to censor art or media or thought with which they disagree.
But whatever their shortcoming, conservative religionists in America do not advocate an 8th century theocratic model which, among other things, prescribes death for "apostates." The various gore websites provide numerous videos of poor devils being beheaded for the "crime" of changing their religions. Sammy Davis, Jr. was born a Baptist but converted to Judaism. Off with his head.
Implicit in Kepler's attitude, repeatedly expressed, in his sanctimonious, pompous style, is the notion that there is no significant difference between (for example) Al Awlaki and Jim Bakker. Oh sure, Bakker had a worse haircut and wardrobe and an uglier wife, but just scratch the surface (according to Kepler) and Bakker will be out there advocating beheadings, and stonings and abuse of women and the whole litany of Muslim depredations.
Let's stick with Al Awlaki for a minute and consider the case of one of his most successful "projects," "Dr." Hasan. Here you have a man, a field grade officer in the United States Army, a doctor, a psychiatrist. who owed everything he was to the taxpayers of America (who paid for his education,paid his salary and to whom he had taken an oath). Yet, after some blandishments from Al Awlaki, "Dr." Hasan figured what he really needed to do was gun down as many unarmed GI's as he could. On his best day, Bakker could perhaps convince some old lady to buy a "lifetime" membership in his Ponzi scheme. But there's no chance he could (or would even try to) convince somebody to become a mass murderer in the name of God.
No Kepler post on religion would be complete without some reference to the various historic sins of Christianity, no matter how many centuries in the past. Its as if Torquemada, or at least his return, is a threat. The intervening centuries don't matter because, as he strenuously suggests, "we're just as bad as they are." His moral equivalency model just doesn't allow us to factor in the considerable progresss in western societies and the continuing backwardness of Muslim societies over those centuries. It's a classic apples/oranges comparison. It is
now that Islamists are murdering ambassadors, torching consulates, beheading apostates, flying airplanes into buildings, stoning and disfiguring women, assassinating unarmed GI's and trying to impose their savage view of the world and their "legal system" on us, not some time in the distant past.
NOW. And it is
now we must consider. What happened several centuries ago is interesting, but we in the West have progressed, much of the Islamic world has not.
So any discussion about religion that focuses primarily (or exclusively) on the sins of the past while ignoring or (giving short shrift) to the threat that Islamism poses to the civilized world
now is the product of prejudice, bigotry and stereotype. As is any expression of moral equivalency between us and them. Jim Bakker is a sleazeball but I'd let him pet my dog. Al Awlaki might try to have the dog for lunch.
