LOGICMAN, TAKE TWO

I am no fan of the religious bigotry routinely displayed on PalTalk. Rooms like Bush HQ, and others that constantly disrespect Islam, are disgusting. The troglodytes that ooze their slime in those rooms are among the worst specimens of humanity. They will go to the special Hell.

But there is such a thing as being legalistic to the point of absurdity. And it certainly doesn't hurt if you're willfully ignorant about context and history. So it is that LordMercifulVoo uses false balance to arrive at a ridiculous conclusion.

Now, I agree with saltspring (nee Sword of the Amish) on a vanishingly small number of things. But he makes sense to me when he says that the difference between what is taught in Islam vs Christianity is frequently a literalist interpretation of the Quran, which is taken to radical extremes in many cases. While it is true that radicalism is often exacerbated by the colonialism of the West, the fact remains that Islam, and arab cultures, are far more religiously controlled than the West. In order to see the difference, note that the "Christian" world passed through an Age of Enlightenment in the 1800s. The result (though not perfect modernism) was that reason and empiricism were given much more status, and society from then on was MUCH less under the control of the Church or religious dogmatism. Again, not that those evils disappeared completely (think of our own religious fundamentalists in the US today), but it is undeniable that Christianity has lost much of its power in the West, especially Europe. Note well, for the next paragraph, that virtually no major groups now regard the Bible as infallible, AND also make that the center of their lives and government.

In response to saltspring, Voo brings up the following from the Bible, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law," (Luke 12:51-53 NASB). Voo says, "See saltspring, Christianity is just as bad as Islam, and it says to do the same things."

This is a truly childish response, but it is typical of Voo. In the modern West, an extremely small number of religious christians would base their lives literally on this bible passage. Even if they are literalists, Christians today generally do not turn against their families any more than they would execute someone for wearing garments of two fabrics, or for eating shellfish (From Leviticus). We certainly do not see the same level of violent fanaticism emanating from radical Christian groups. Keep in mind, though, that in the so-called Dark Ages, Christians could frequently be persuaded to strike out violently based directly on Biblical passages, such as pogroms against "Christ-killing" Jews or the burning of witches.

Most Muslims do not take the Quran literally, and many muslims are quite liberal and moderate. But this is the key point: There still exists within some cultures this strict adherence to the literal word of the Quran. And in many of these cultures, such as in Saudi Arabia and in the madrassas of Pakistan, to name two, people are still taught that Jews are pigs, and that infidels and nonbelievers must be converted or killed. To put it simply, Islam has not had it's Enlightenment yet. Remember, though, that this is a difference in degree and not kind.

This, then, is the fallacy in Voo's reasoning. He is looking at each book outside of its current context. Where the Bible is generally considered to be a collection of parables, and (most importantly) is not frequently used as a literal basis for modern actions, the same cannot be said of Islam. How foolish is it then, to try to win an argument by willfully ignoring 2000 years of history?

JC