Which Side Saudis? Us or Them?
Saudis' Double Crossing Game
My frustration rises when our government, which is supposed to protect us, acts wishy-washy. First example, when President Bush calls Islam a "religion of peace" while Islam means "submission." I know he's trying to appease the extremely tempermental Muslims and keep them from rioting and killing people, but it's stupid, it's weakness, and in my estimation he's trying to succour bullies. I can't stand it! Second, when our borders are like sieves, allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to cross. Al-Jezeera came to do a report on this. That really infuriated me.
And now, after four years of playing both sides in order to "keep that cash flow," the Saudis have got a major decision to make now that King Faud has assumed desert temperature. They had better cease ALL funding of terrorism, training of terrorists, and supporting them ideologically. Several of their countrymen flew planes into the WTC, and up to now, they really haven't explained themselves very well. This very rich and terrorist-doting country had better make an about face, or face some dire consequences.
I don't have much hope though. The nature of the religion of Islam and its call for all Muslim faithful to "jihad" makes this abrupt change wishful thinking. Also, this would mean tough leadership to come out of Washington. I don't know if it's naivete or if either party is trying to primp and pose for the next election. Republican or Democrat, these contortionists will probably continue singing muffled overtures to the Saudis while performing the ever common rectal-cranial inversion!
I and millions of others are watching our Washington colon crooners! They had better pull out and catch some fresh air or there will be some house cleaning soon!
posted by Underground Logician @ 9:28 PM
16 comments
16 Comments:
I agree with you on several points, but I worry about your ideas on Islam. I agree that the Quran makes several points tha are violent in nature, but so does the Bible. There are clerics advocaing violence and people following them. But I think Muslims in general are of a peaceful nature and those in this country and most industrialized nations are against the violence being committed by the fundamentalists. I also worry about the tendancy in a time of war to see all people of a particular race or religion as bad. I think the Japanese and the Jews would probably agree. That also doesn't mean I don't agree that some profiling is in order. For a while, I would search every Arabic looking person in an airport or bus station.
Thanks for your comments, Polanco. Let me clarify. I don't think all Muslims are fundamentalists. Many are peace loving. The stats that I posted about percentages of Muslims in favor of violence against innocent civilians is quite startling, which tells me, this is not just a fundamentalist problem. Islam has been a major problem for 14 centuries, and as the religion goes, it does not compare to the Christianity. As to the Bible, it is not a religion. And all too frequently, there is some loose cannon creating a new religion from it.
I'm curious as to why you don't think Islam compares to Christianity. Would you mind discussing it?
I wouldn't mind at all. The subject is quite comprehensive so I'd have to gather my thoughts. Also, I probably won't do any blogging tomorrow. My wife's grandmother died, and we will be with family for a few days. I also want to be fair to Islam, so I'll be ready by mid-week, if you don't mind.
Perhaps you could let me know in the mean time the specific areas you want compared. Perhaps we could pool our research.
I'd like to know in which areas you feel Chirstianity is better than Islam.
polanco:
well, in terms of violence today, it's not too often that you see christian preachers advocating the use of suicide-bombings against civillian targets. i mean, you may not like that falwell guy, but he's not *that* bad. so i guess on the score of extremist nut-cases, islam has more than christianity right now.
underground:
about your main post, i think you ignore the fact that osama's financial assets have been confiscated long ago and that al qaeda cells have had numerous battles with saudi police forces in recent years. (not that i like the saudis ... i recently wrote in my own blog about hypocritical u.s. foreign policy.)
Well, I would have to say that TS's answer is a bit too simplistic. After all, we have Christian fundies that have advocated abortion clinic bombings.
However, in the Bible the Old Testament advocates a more violent code than the New Testament. In the New Testament Jesus only displayed or advocated violence once (driving the money changers out of the temple) and it was because it was a defiling of the temple itself. And, may I add, he didn't kill them.
But the Islam equivalent of Jesus (Mohammed) advocates killing infidels, makes it well-known that women are a commodity that can be put to death if they're even accused of infidelity.
Contrast that to Jesus who intervened in the stoning of a woman who was known to have committed adultery.
Sorry to butt in. self cannot claim any particular "religious" affiliation as that seems to require 'dogmatic' adherence. (self is sort of 'calathumpian/pagan/buddhist' - if that makes sense). Which, basically, brings me to a question. If the foundation of the Catholic faith is based on strict adherence to 'original teachings', what makes that so different from Judaism or Islam?
and, witout prejudice, why has the 'christian' church filched 'the festival of oestrus' ?
Wombat:
Welcome aboard!
As to your question, what is the relevance of "original teachings" when Judaism has "original teachings" as well. It's not JUST original teachings. It's the original teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the key to the faith, and what HE teaches, and what HE means is what is being preserved and taught. So "original" is in tandem with Christ.
As to your assertion of not holding to religious teaching because of it containing dogmatism, it is difficult for you to sidestep your own dogmatism. You contradict yourself if you think dogmatism is bad since you hold to the idea of "self" which, according to your own words, has a specific definition. You have a religious dogma as well. If dogma is bad, you would have to relinquish what you believe.
I, on the other hand believe that dogma is not a bad thing, but essential and good. It helps us define between that which is real and true from fantasy and falsehood. In the end the question really is, which dogma is true?
As to your comment on the Catholic Church "filching" of the festival of "Oestra," what charge are you levying? That the Church doesn't hold to original teachings regarding Resurrection Day? The Church doesn't condemn bunnies and eggs, and certainly doesn't condone the worship of the Teutonic goddess "Estre." So, please clafify the rhetorical bomb you laid on us. By the way, the bomb fizzles if you look at Catholic teaching and the histories involved.
yer, sorry about that, was being a bit of a larrikin. I do, actually, appreciate what you have written. Any discussion about 'fundamental faiths' requires far more knowlege, brain power and time than I have, so won't bother you again. Will keep reading you though. Cheers.
Great discussion. As I'm learning abou this, I'm trying not to comment too much. You guys are doing a great job of explaining things!
Wombat:
You are welcome anytime!
Just a pointer, the fact that I may challenge a thought you have is NEVER an insult to you. I look at the thoughts or ideas objectively and comment according to my level of logic. There will be others who have greater powers of logic than I have who will comment on this blog that will be of great benefit to me and others. I will not benefit though, if these greater logicians never say a word.
I hope you are not offended. It is in discourse and putting our thoughts to words on screen that really benefit us. Case in point, when Polanco comments about the Bible containing violent points, or that many Muslims are peaceful in nature doesn't hurt me, it helps me. She may have seen something in my post that needed correction or clarification. My response can be either to restate my thoughts more clearly, or reform my statements according to reality. But, her comments give me a chance to rethink some things. Ultimately, the truth of the matter MUST be served, and we ALL benefit in the process. Even if we disagree, we have participated together in wrestling with things, ideas and concepts that really mean something to us; hopefully we are the better off because of the dialogue.
I think more damage is done because we each try to "win," the 'we' includes myself!!! We can win the "battle" but lose the "war" when we make it personal. It is a character flaw in me that I have purposed to eliminate forever.
Thanks again for joining in!
Samuel, am not insulted, nor offended. Am a bit of a scatterbrain at times. Have reread the post, and am now not sure whether to take a "political" or "religious" tack. I will, at some stage, attempt to organise my thoughts into some sort of 'coherent' and 'logical' order to try to explain in a bit more detail what I meant earlier. Have to repeat, though, that am not a 'scholar'. More of a 'wanderer in the wilderness', trying to make sense out of it all. One of the things that does disturb me though, it the "politicisation" of simple faiths. This is not meant to be a 'criticism' of the Catholic Church, but you have to admit that- to this particular layman - the idea that a church should develop into a 'virtual' nation with a city-state, "emperor'(Pope), parliament (Cardinals) very large 'exchequer' .. is somewhat odd.
PS, and as to whether the Saudis or America 'double-crosses" anybody,would prefer to not get into that particular 'minefield'. Cheers.
Wombat:
I agree that the politicization of the faiths is a growing issue, probably more so among fundamentalist Christian and evangelical rather than Catholic. Perhaps you can chew on this...the Catholic Church does not design to turn the world into a huge city-state. It has a checkered history of trying to rule a large city state around the city of Rome, but often done poorly, since its reputation often rested on not so virtuous military men. Yet in context, most of Europe was dominated by tiny city states that at one time, during the Roman Empire, were provinces of Rome that gave Rome tribute and also recruited men for her armies. So after Romes fall, the leaders of these tiny recruiting centers/provinces took total control of their small kingdoms. It was a very chaotic time in world history.
As to the pope's power, originally, the term "pontifex maximus" that the pope now has was a term that was first given to Caesar, who was both the supreme civil and religious authority in the Roman Empire. Caesar was a classice example of the union of "Church and State" so to speak, rolled into one person.
When the Bishop of Rome took the title, it meant that he was the "high priest:" the Bishop with the highest authority. The Church separated the authority Christ had in His Church from the temporal authority given to civil governments. A perfect example was when Contantius moved the capital of the Empire to Constantinople, he wanted to set up the bishop of Romae at Constantinople as the supreme head of the Church. The Roman Bishop at the time refused Constantius and told him to butt out of the Church's affairs and mind his own business. The Roman See is a position that is connected with a spiritual kingdom not of this world, yet is in it. It was with the Catholic Church that the idea of the separation of Church and State originated.
After Rome fell, all of Western civilization collapsed with it, leaving standing the only remaining human organization with any strength to face the chaos, yet a feeble strength at that...the Catholic Church. Modern christians blame the Catholic Church for asserting a huge amount of power during the Middle Ages, but these folks are woefully ignorant of history. They do not know of the times when particular kings who did not like what certain popes did, would take their armies into Rome, sack it, and put the current popes into exile, and force the choice of new ones. The Church was not this super powerful organization that so many of its enemies would like you to think.
Post a Comment
<< Home