Hitch is slightly less than ignorant when he asserts that those who claim to KNOW that scripture (of any origin ) is to be taken literally are kinda nutty. Of course, the same charge is equally valid against those who claim to know that scripture is solely manufactured by self serving charlatans. Both Hitch and the literal interpretists (is that a word?) belong to the same category of arrogant buffoons who spend their sordid intellectual lives creating a small number of vast, absolutist categories to lump the rest of us in. (Or is that, "in which the rest of us to lump"? Five minutes of reading this doofus, and my own syntax gets FUBAR'd.)

I guess the first response to this drivel is in regard to glass houses. For instance, I don't know very intimately what actual impact Muslim fundamentalists have on the gov'ts of most Muslim nations. From what I read, outside of Iran and a few other far more insignificant places, the role of the Muslim fundamentalist is that of jail bird and torture subject. That's one of the major gripes that Muslims of all stripes have against the GOUSOA (Good Ol' US of A)-- we sponsor gov'ts that repress Muslim practice.

Conversely, in our country, Christian fundamentalists, due to their self promoted and highly dubious claims to electoral muscle, get a direct line into the most influential policy makers in D.C. Combined with the Israeli lobby-- a group of hard core idolators if ever there were-- they have had immense impact on setting the terms of our foreign, and particularly middle eastern-- policy.

Muslim fundamentalists, in seeking to impose Sharia law on whatever society are at least promoting a system that is functional, even if not consistent with our republican form of gov't. Christian fundamentalists, on the other hand, in addition to imposing fundamentalist christian theology on our Republic (read: burn the fags and Muslims), seek, policies which would hasten the coming of Armageddon.

In which case, not only is Hitch throwing stones from a glass house, he's ignoring his housemates who are throwing stones from inside their own glass house, hpping to bring the whole thing crashing down.

Now, I doubt we can really do much about Muslim fundamentalists seeking to install the Sharia on those countries currently ruled by our client regimes, In fact, under the principles embedded in the republican gov't that Hitch allegedly defends, there is plenty of rationale why we shouldn't bother. Self determination of peoples, the inappropriateness of governing others without their consent or representation, and all that.

On the other hand, we do have both the ability and the obligation to put our societal boot on the neck of our own fundamentalist nutbags who confuse crusading with foreign policy and world peace with Armageddon.

Now, it seems clear that I and others can raise our objections to fundamentalist Christian nutbaggery without bringing in the billion or two non-fundamentalist Christians into the mess. Episcopaleans don't have to wake up every morning and fret about what some evangelical a-hole did the night before that he's got to account for. That just isn't right.

Yet, Hitch seems to think it is the duty of every Muslim to wake up and worry about what some Rushdie hating fool might have done or is planning to do. Worse, he asserts that simply by being foolish enough (in Hitch's view) to avow that there is but one God and Mohammed is his prophet, one does indeed take on the sins of all Muslims. Certainly, he seems to think that some extraordinary duty of oversight and correction is imparted.

Well, bullshit. For years, I avoided any claim of being a "Christian" precisely because I felt that in doing so I'd be taking on the sins of the nutbag "christian" assholes who act out. Then I realized how unfair that was to me and to all other Christians. I am not responsible for what they do in Christ's name, and I refuse to impart any responsibility on any Muslim for what others do in the name of Allah.

In fact, under my belief system, which Hitch would undoubtedly ridicule), only one person ever had to take on the sins of everyone else.

Done and done.

Or, as that fella said, "It is accomplished."

Sharia is absolutely not a "functional" system by political, legal, or ethical standards of the modern world. It is wholly antithetical to the concept of progress today. Moreover, it is not one's duty to be responsible for the actions of his or her religion's nutcases, but it is certainly his or her responsibility to take a long, hard look at the institutions that cause such problems. Specifically, I oppose any christians who want to connect church and state in any way. As difficult a problem as that is in the US, it is one of the central problems that permeates the middle east, and tends to follow Islam where it goes.

10 - christians aren't flying airplanes into skyscrapers

9 - christians aren't claiming that wearing a bomb vest entitles you to "72 dark eyed virgins" in heaven

8 - christians didn't use light artillery to destroy thousands of years of buddhist stone carvings in afghanistan

7 - christians aren't threatening to "incinerate" israel

6 - christians don't buy and sell young girls like livestock (notwithstanding that mormon sect in utah which is always getting itself arrested)

5 - christians don't perform clitorectormies on girls as a pre marriage ritual (they still have to work on the male circumcision thing, though)

4 - christians don't put 'fatwah' death sentences out on popular novelists

3 - christians, when they fund religious schools, don't call them madrassas and don't limit the curriculum destroying all nations who don't share their values

2 - christians don't patrol the streets in paramilitary units to attack girls who are dressed "immodestly" (showing a little ankle)

1 - christians aren't beheading those disagree with and showing the videos on TV

Clearly you get the glass houses concept. Good for you.

Your statement about the Sharia is highly debatable. First off, "functionality" doesn't require you to like it or for it to comply with what you think are modern standards of ethics and such. The fact is, Sharia does function quite sufficiently in a number of countries, including Saudi Arabia. Given the demographic pressures on that society, Sharia would have to be highly functional or chaos would have long taken over.

Now, whether it is consistent or functional within a capitalist system operating in a globalized economy, that remains to be seen. The early returns aren't encouraging, but then this process of conforming Sharia principles with a system that can operate interdependently with our own system is really only now beginning. Certainly, to the extent that Sharia principles will not recognize money grubbing as the overriding virtue of man, making it fit into the globalized system will be very difficult.

I am sympathetic. Christian principles are equally, if not more so, in conflict with capitalism. We've just managed to re-define and re-analyze Christian principles to the point where they are essentially meaningless in our society. Maybe that's what you're waiting for the Muslims to do, and perhaps that's how you define "moderate" Muslims-- those willing to subordinate virtually any Islamic principle to globalized capitalism. In which case, if I had to choose sides, I'd choose their side.

Sharia may be harsh and adverse to maximizing profits, but it has heart. Globalized capitalism is just a ravenous beast that feeds on slave labor and misery.

What bullshit. Christians imposed sanctions on Iraq that killed 1.5 million babies. Christians sent 6 million Jews and millions more to the gas chambers. Christians drop cluster bombs and napalm on civilians every day. Christians threaten to extirminate people simply for who they are every day. Christians have completely eviscerated their own most sacred principles in exchange for worship of the dollar. Christians buy and sell people every fucking second of every fucking day. In fact, throwing that stone is about the dumbest goddamn thing I've ever heard.

No one is more ignorant that a person who can only see their own shortcomings in the behavior of others.

You are right Christians aren't doing those things -- NOW.

Amen, doodahman!

But they did in the past. And they probably will in the future. Religons in general breed the "nut-cases' one of those posters mentioned earlier. It also breed normal folks. Problem is humans are weird in that a few nut cases is all it takes to make all the normal folks to act like a nut case.

well, i guess if that many babies REALLY died, it might have more to do with saddam using the oil for food money to rebuild his army, eh?

just a thought

Save the concerns about what "globalized capitalism" is or is not, the modern world is enmeshed with it, as is the internet and increased communication, increased cultural interaction, growing awareness about human rights, and growing interdependency between nations. That is the modern world, and religions cannot function on a society-wide level, including public policy, in the world today. It is "functional" in middle eastern countries in that they are still traditional places. But that is changing, and will continue to change, and I will choose universal human rights over local superstitions any day of the week.

Christianity has largely adapted to these trends, and many - if not most - christians have made religion a personal thing. Christian fundamentalists who wish to have prayer in public schools and the like have largely been blocked from meshing church and state, regardless of their widespread support in congress. This is because western nations (ie., most modernized) are highly secularized. Secularization is part of modernization, not just western culture. I'm sorry you don't like capitalism, but I will not be a cultural relativist on issues of such a large scale.

See, here's where your argument falls apart. You tout modern secularism so much you make it the new religion. It's capitalism/secularism (my way) or death (the highway). That is not at all consistent with our most basic fundamental principles of self determination. I mean, heard of Federalism? What the hell is that other than a recognition that the "pursuit of happiness" cannot be globalized?

As for the separation in religion idea, I think I understand the good part of it-- that one cannot use the organs of government to impose a state religion on non-adherents or to set up a system of second class citizens based on religion. Being an American, I buy into that. But second class citizenship is imposed on most of us, normally on the basis of wealth. Yes, that ol' indictment of capitalism again. But when you try to avoid that issue, you are simply acting under the assumption that capitalism is some meta-religion to which we must all belong or else fall out of favor with the ultimate Powers That Be. I see no reason to subscribe to that idea.

Christians have, indeed, separated their religious life from their public life. I'm not so sure this is a development to be cheered. One thing that Muslims and Christians have in common is the underlying principle that "We are all in this together." I like that philosophy and try to live it, best I can, as a Christian in a capitalist society. The problem is, capitalism is fundamentally, "Every man for himself and devil catch the hindmost."

So what I'm left with is trying to reconcile these two conflicting principles in a way that minimizes conflict with the money grubbers yet still keeps me in the paths that I believe God demands. Which puts me in the same boat as many of these Muslims struggling against wholesale incorporation into a soulless capital system.

And when I view it that way, and try to analyze, objectively, who is doing more violence and causing more misery-- the Muslims or the capitalists, the capitalists are way way way ahead. As we are in rationalization and denial.

It's a completely wrong thought. You are, once again, buying wholesale into the lying rationales of a system that chews up human beings like cow fodder. They died because our list of materials with "dual use technology" (i.e., a bolt that can be used both to put together a cannon vs. a water filtration system) was so broad that Iraq could not clean its water, or provide basic medical care to their infants, or grow it's own food, thus causing infant mortality to skyrocket. Saddam, on the other hand, bad as he was in some aspects, was most responsible for decreasing child mortality until his former handlers, the CIA and the Bushies, decided he needed to go.

your theory that this is a system of lies means that the United Nations, New York Times, NPR and everyone else is in cahoots, and you alone have the truth.

beautiful.

Now we're on even grounds. I have no idea what you're talking about, just like you.

It was the government that imposed sanctions Iraq. Government via the UN as well as many individual nations. That isn't something that can be laid at the feet of Christians. And as the real cause of those deaths wasn't the sanctions but the redirecting of monies by Saddam from humanitarian to hedonistic goals, that accusation leaves much to be desired.

The Nazis weren't Christians. Period.

And the actions of a few misguided military personnel in following the commands of the Pharisee in the White House is hardly a charge that can be laid on "Christians."

And the rest of your list is the same. You seem to be guilty of the same sort of guilt by association that you rant against in the first post.

I'm not a big fan of capitalism myself. I think the best evidence of an active, personal source of evil is the fact that the socialist concepts set forth in the Book of Acts have been adopted by atheist philosophers and governments, while the worship of Mammon has been adopted by mainline churches and our allegedly Christian Nation.