Who would Jesus bomb? yrs, andreas www.andreas.com----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 6:29 AM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Mike's acumen in judging SpencerAs I said previously, I haven't read these books and doubt that I ever will, so I can't comment on them specifically. I can, however, state my belief that the titles of the books give me little hope that they are a serious critique of Islam, but rather the assertions of a bigot in pursuit of a personal agenda. You realize don't you, Lawrence, that there are one and a half billion Muslims in the world. To try to characterize Islam is about as meaningful and trying to characterize Christianity. One can sumarize a few common beliefs among the multitude of Christian sects, but the import of those beliefs in the moral and ethical life of the adherents is so disparate as to be meaningless.. The assertion that Christianity is a religion of peace is laughable. >From the time of Charlemagne to the Peace of Westphalia was a period of relentless bloodletting by the Christian Church. Heretics, Jews, Muslims, witches, infidels, for a thousand years all were butchered in furtherance of the Christian faiths. Just 60 years ago the Christian nations of Europe (and America) threw themselves into an orgy of death of destruction unparrelled in human history. Peaceful? We do tolerate each other's beliefs now -- somewhat -- but not because Christianity is peaceful, rather because the peoples of the Western nations threw off the yoke of religious leadership for secular leadership.
Is that what you think, Mike? That the Christians shouldn't have opposed the onward expansive march of Islam? That would explain a lot if that's what you think, since that is what present day Islamism is about, i.e., resuming Mohammad's Jihad that is supposed to end only when the entire world has bowed its knee to Allah and Mohammad.<<
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this isn't a serious question.
The last title [The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion.] suggests that Spencer is going to be critical of Mohammad himself...But what is there in this that makes Mike think Spencer an intolerant bigot? Because he attacks the founder of a religion and the religion itself?<<
The title of the book, Lawrence, says it all. Surely even you can see that. Mike Geary Memphis----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 1:20 AM Subject: [lit-ideas] Mike's acumen in judging SpencerI took the dogs for an extra-long walk this evening and as I was tiredly winding down here on the Left Coast my mind flitted about for awhile and finally settled upon Mike Geary's remarkable acumen. From just the titles of Spencer's books, and knowing nothing else about him, he was able to determine that he was an "intolerant bigot," unless of course he was being ironic. I believe we can safely eliminate the possibility that his titles are ironic which leaves Geary's "intolerant bigot." Let's review these titles:
1) The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims, 2) Religion of Peace?; Why Christianity is and Islam isn't, 3) The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), and4) The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion.
I haven't read these books either but it is easy to see in book number one that Spencer doesn't believe Islam is a tolerant religion. Does this title mean that Spencer is an "intolerant bigot"? An intolerant bigot for arguing, as I assume he does, that Islam is not tolerant? I can't follow Mike's thinking if that's the case, but perhaps he didn't have that title in mind even though he said "titles."
In Title number two, Spencer apparently will be arguing that Islam is not a religion of peace while Christianity is. Is there something intolerantly bigoted in such an argument. The official position of the Christian church in all its denominations, pretty much since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 (if my old memory serves me) has been one of tolerance. Tolerance is built into present day Christianity -- at least the bulk of it. Some minority sects have taken an intolerant stance on single issues, but by and large Christianity is tolerant in the sense of letting non-Christians do whatever they like. But perhaps Mike thinks Spencer is an "intolerant bigot" for suggesting that Islam is not a religion of peace. Perhaps all those killings, mutilations, fatwas etc have tricked Spencer into thinking Islam is not a religion of peace. It's late and I'm getting tangled up. Maybe Mike should explain why he thinks Islam is a religion of peace and Christianity is not. Maybe some vengeful priest or nun has put a fatwa out on him.
In Title Three we can't tell too much other than he probably doesn't take the popular view about Islam and he probably thinks Islam was more to blame in the Crusades than the Christians. Actually, Islam was moving right ahead conquering mile after mile of land that once belonged to Christians until the latter very ineptly and reluctantly fielded some armies to oppose them. That isn't a popular view among Leftist non-scholars (not to mention Islamists and Jihadists). They prefer seeing the Islamic armies as somehow justified in being wherever they managed to get and the nasty Christians perverse for challenging them. Does that make Spencer an intolerant bigot? If so, I recall Mike attacking Christianity. Does that make Mike an intolerant bigot? Mike never claimed not to be an intolerant bigot, but he seemed to view that state with disapproval -- at least he seems to apply that term to Spencer in a pejorative sense. But maybe one is only an intolerant bigot if one attacks Islam. Maybe if one attacks Christianity one is merely taking a position that is true. I know the Islamists and the Jihadists would agree with Mike on that . . . if that's what he's saying.
Lawrence ------------Original Message------------ From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Wed, Aug-8-2007 1:30 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: One of the better fatwa's LH:>>If I have offended your Leftist sympathies for the Jihadists and Islamists, feel free to send me your fatwa.
No, you haven't offended my leftist sympathies for anyone or anything, I was just curious as to why you sent the post. Was it just another rant against Islamists? That's what I assumed at first, but then you did quote from someone as if that were evidence of something. -- I couldn't figure out what the something is. I've never heard of Spencer so I can't comment on whether or not I think the lawsuit is justified or not. The titles of his books suggest that he is an intolerant bigot, but one can't go by that, perhaps he was being ironic. If your motive was to get a good laugh at the idiot who spoke of ripping Spencer's spine, etc, well, you know, we have Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, they have their idiots as well. Trash talking is the solace of the impotent. I pay it no mind.
Mike Geary Memphis----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 2:29 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: One of the better fatwa's MikeWell, the point I thought was obvious, namely that the Jihadists aren't able to make the logical connection; they can't think logically -- or they don't give a rat's ass about logic. The offense (according to the Islamists) was that Spencer argued that Islam isn't tolerant, and isn't a religion of peace. The Islamists responded by the fatwa ""May Allah rip out his spine from his back and split his brains in two, and then put them both back, and then do it over and over" which demonstrates Spencer's point. Such a Fatwa is neither tolerant (they don't want Spencer to write any more such books) and isn't peaceful. I find this amusing. My point is that it is funny. This is one of the funnier sequences moving from the offense (Spencer's books and articles) to the response (which proves the point of Spencer's books and articles).
Lawrence ------------Original Message------------ From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Wed, Aug-8-2007 12:14 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: One of the better fatwa's What's your point, Lawrence? Mike Geary Memphis----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence Helm
To: Lit-Ideas Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 11:31 AM Subject: [lit-ideas] One of the better fatwa'sOne of the most active anti-Islamists I've run across is Robert Spencer. He wrote such books as The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims, Religion of Peace?; Why Christianity is and Islam isn't, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), and The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion.
Anyway, the Islamists have had enough of him. They've filed a lawsuit against him: "A powerful Washington, D.C. law firm told YAF that Robert was, in essence, a hate-filled liar and that CAIR had ordered the law firm "to purse every available and appropriate legal remedy to redress any false and defamatory statements that made" at the conference." [sic]
And I suppose to distance themselves from the hate-filled Spencer, they've issued a fatwa: "May Allah rip out his spine from his back and split his brains in two, and then put them both back, and then do it over and over."
You've got to love their thought processes: You say we aren't peaceful and tolerant? You can't get away with that: May Allay rip out your spine from your back and split your brains in two, and then put them back, and then do it over and over. You've got to love it.
Lawrenceps: Where did I get this information? I was sent a letter asking me to contribute to Spencer's legal defense fund. It was in that letter.
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html