Unblock Eve’s Blog
This is really stupid:
Saudi ISP have blocked SaudiEve’s blog, and it is said that other blogs will follow.
At this point, it is unclear why exactly SaudiEve has been targeted, as she is neither the most outspoken nor the most political of the Saudi bloggers, as she mostly blogs about personal issues and not Saudi Arabia, and has never written about the Saudi government. Some bloggers surmise that her inclusion of a Christian and a Jewish travel prayer (together with a Muslim one) in her last post before a long journey was used as the excuse to request her blog being banned in Saudi Arabia, raf* said.
Many bloggers have voiced their concern and have called for activism.
You can also help by filling this unblock request form.
After I wrote the above roundup on my daily posts to Global Voices, something struck me.. Come again? Because of prayers? I can’t believe the prayers be the reason. Eve’s payers were of Christian, Islam and Judaism:
Christian Travel prayers »
Alone with none but thee, my God,
I journey on my way.
What need I fear when thou art near,
Oh king of night and day?
More safe am I within thy hand
Than if a host did round me stand.
St. Columba (521-597)Islam Travel prayers »
By Allah I commence my journey; by Allah I seek to
accomplish the purpose of my journey.
O Allah, make me overcome all; and make easy for
me all difficulties; and give me more of goodness than
I hope for; and keep away all evil of which I am
apprehensive for my health, O the most Merciful.Judaism Travel prayers »
May it be Your will our God, that You make us reach
our desired destination for life, gladness, and peace.
May You send blessing in our handiwork, and grant
us grace, kindness, and mercy in Your eyes and in
the eyes of all who see us. May You hear the sound of our
humble request. Blessed are You, Who hears prayer.
So, what the hell is wrong with these prayers?
Putting aside the stupid decision that a person sitting at the Saudi ISP has taken to block this blog, I tend to believe the theory that this incident was triggered by someone who watch the blog, from inside Saudi, and asked to block this blog.
But the question is: What on earth could Eve write that would harm anyone in Saudi? Judaism and Christian travel prayers?
If the person who asked for this blog to be blocked is reading, just one question please:
Can you please tell me what are you trying to protect or defend or fight for, here? Is it religion? Is it culture? Are you protecting your kids from reading unwanted material? (I guess Google trends proves your search for sex). What is it? For God sake, what does this proof or show for the rest of the world?
Enjoy this post? Get future updates sent to you for free! Join by 
89 Comments on “Unblock Eve’s Blog”
I just sent the applicarion form for unblocking her site…. First time i saw such a service. Good Gracious God…
On top of it all, aren’t all of these prayers almost identical? What about any one of these prayers is contrary to the tenets of Islam (or Judaism, or Christianity)? Silly.
Dear Haitham,
I am glad that this story is being noticed beyond the Saudi blogosphere. I personally think this happened because some consider her writing to be blasphemous. And yes, there are few Saudi bloggers out there who openly denounced her writings and fired up requests to block her blog. It is funny though that this move will create an opposite effect because a blocked blog is a notorious blog, hence more popular.
Dear Aya,
I’m glad to see the cyber activism that you and others are doing in this case. It is really alarming (although not surprised) to start seeing blogs getting block because some stupid reader thinks it is not appropriate.
Please keep us updated about the story and I’ll be happy to post follow ups on Global Voices so that more people can help and support for the freedom of speech at we all need to fight for.
Guys, please going the Aya and others in there cyber activism. Least you can do is filling this unblock request form:
http://www.isu.net.sa/saudi-internet/contenet-filtring/forms/unblock-requist.htm
(Thx, Vas for doing this already).
Haitham,
I’ve been checking out all the links you gave which linked to other links. One Saudi link suggested that it is not a good idea for non-Saudis to submit a form and that it might be counterproductive coming from outsiders seeing as how it is “outside Saudi influences” that are to blame in the first place. Is it a good idea or not to sign it as a non-Saudi?
Well, Robin… s/he maybe right. But, the history of such cases in this part of the world is not encouraging. Therefore, I would prefer to support and make my voice heard than keeping quite, especially that deeply I know that it won’t make a difference, so I’ll make a noise about it!
OK, I’ll do it. Everytime I see a Saudi blog I think to myself, “this person using a screen name might possibly be someone I know there (or by this time the child of someone I know) or a relative going by an alias”. My heart goes out to all of them reaching out from behind the curtain seeking to squelch their freedom of expression. The beauty of so many of their posts brings back the memories into my today, keeping them alive. So upon agreeing with your suggestion, I will submit a carefully phrased form that hopefully will not backfire. Thanks for connecting me to the noise. My Christian prayers to share with SaudiEve’s and all other’s in my former home.
Everything I’ve tried to say for three years has been blocked because I believe in God. But you know what?
God gave me somewhere else to speak.
See how everything works out?
Shalom,
If the kingdom is already famous for regulating what type of Islam dominates the two Holy Cities, why the surprise over the suppression of other religions?
Submitted unblock request! But like you, Haitham, I sadly do not believe it will make a difference.
A question about Saudi: isn’t it legal to watch Arab Sat television? Stations like LBC and Future TV and all the redundant music-clip TV stations?
If those are legal, why would a blog like eve’s be seen as a threat?
Perhaps: the blog in question isn’t as mind-numbing as the soft pron music videos constantly streaming into Saudi living rooms. It’s like they’d rather have racy cable TV wash over us than have us READ (non-democratic regimes are fond of uninformed masses).
I filed the URF. It won’t get them to unblock you, SaudiEve, but like Haitham said, MAKE SOME NOISE!
Dear Haitham,
Thank you for the encouragement and support. Nothing new on the horizon so far! But I don’t think this is the end of the story. The only way to get back at these people is never to quit. At least this is how I see it.
This is so sad.
Your beliefs can control someones thought.
Being a nonbeliever I read this and I find that both Islam and Christianity have the most racist beliefs I have ever encountered.
Religious individuals are the most understanding people I have ever encountered.
Is it the religion or is it the people?
I am starting to lean against the extreemists of both religions.
Good excuse to be a nonbeliever!
Religions are the cause of most griefs in the world today and yesterday.
Kimmy,
Please explain what is racist about Islam and Christianity.
Philip,
Bush is a racist, many Imans are racist.
My faith is right and yours is not. That is racist.
The fact that you asked me about the racist views, makes you a racist.
I don’t judge anyone. You asked me about what is racist about Islam and Christianity!
As long as you have religious leaders telling people how to act or to do whatever. You will have racism.
As a nonbeliever I see so much racism in the name of religion that it makes me sick.
Defend your religion to your ends. I will defend everyone’s personal beliefs to their ends.
My god is the one who hates big corporations.
Kimmy,
I’m afraid you still did not answer my question.
Your premise appears to be this:
1) Bush is a racist because he is a Christian. that being because all Christians are racists.
2) Believing that one belief is correct and that another is not is racist.
3) Any religion/faith that includes standards of conduct is racist.
4) Your god hates corporations.
Okay, then. Well, there are a few issues here, respective to the above numbering:
1) By your “logic,” fair enough, but…
2) You believe that Christian and Muslim beliefs are wrong, based on your statements. So are you a racist?
3) Thus all religions are to some degree or another racist.
4) Your god hates stock owners, which is an awfully large number of people ranging from middle to upper class (and a few in the lower classes). Is s/he a racist, too?
Maybe I should expand my inquiry:
What races does Bush hate, making him a racist?
What races do the Imams (as much as I otherwise disagree with them) hate, making them racist?
What races are hated in Islam? In Christianity? Think hard, because both faiths include people of all races.
Since Christianity (like pretty much all belief systems) includes certain standards of conduct and certain basic tenets, should I reject it in order to be politically correct?
Should I deconstruct the words of the very one I worship and tell him which ones I will and will not follow? If so, do I then really believe anything at all?
Since I am a Christian, that makes me racist, correct? What races do I hate?
Tell me now what races these prominent Christians hate or hated:
a) Martin Luther King, Jr.
b) Michael Youssef
c) Dinesh D’Souza
d) Billy Graham
e) Cai Zhouwa
Philip,
You are very good at twisting words.
If your religion accepts other religions and their views, you are not a racist. But you are using biased views to twist my words.
Both Christianity and Islam share the same views, even though they are different religions. I accept them both.
Bush made a great tactical error when he said (you can argue about this one) that God told him to invade Afghanistan and he did, God told him to attack Iraq, and he did!
That is his radicalism.
Telling Islamic youths to hate the west is radicalism.
You throw in people who are great in the name of freedom.
You are now telling me to make a choice as to who is right. I will not make that descision because the radicals on both sides are wrong.
The honest believers on both sides are right.
Tell me to make a choice puts you in the Bush league. “Either you are with me or you are against me.” That is his quote!
Try to be neutral and some Bush supporter will be there to repudiate you.
That is you Philip!
Kimmy,
I am not saying that you cannot be neutral. That is your choice.
But Jesus said, “There is no way to the Father except through me.” He also referred to himself as the Son of God and equated himself with God. By the record of his life, Jesus was crucified, died, and came back to life on the third day from his death (which he explained beforehand would happen). It is through this act that salvation is offered.
Now if I believe Jesus’ words and accept these tenets, then my beliefs are inconsistent with Islam. So to reconcile the two faiths, I have to reject the most basic foundations of my faith. Should I do that to keep from taking sides? Should I call the very one I worship a liar or a madman in order to be in full agreement with Muslims?
On the contrary, should Haitham have to accept my beliefs in order to not have conflicting beliefs? If he does, he is rejecting Islam. If he accepts that Jesus is/did all that I said above, he is then calling Mohammed a liar.
So what do you recommend I do? Cease to believe? Cease to worship Jesus as God? Or should Haitham begin to worship him?
Faith can have fundamental differences. Islam, Christianity and Judaism have strong ties and equally strong differences. This does not mean we cannot be brothers on this earth.
The problem comes when faith is forced upon a population. Some good examples are the Taliban and the Spanish Inquisition.
But who is Bush forcing to convert to Christianity?
Who is King Abdullah forcing to convert to Islam?
Who is Joe Lieberman forcing to convert to Judaism?
By the way, Bush’s “for or against” statement was very specifically aimed at nations who either supported an end to terrorism and those who passively allowed it. It was obvious that, say, the Taliban openly supported terrorists and that Jordan openly opposed them. He was pointing his finger at others who simply have no stance, thus allowing free growth of the menace on their soil.
Philip,
You are twisting words again.
You didn’t mention Bush’s comments about “God told me” comments. But you were adament about Bush’s comments about “either you are with me or against me”. Bush is a radical! Bush is for Christianity and against every other religion. His comments about his invasions was radically motivated. Deny all you want. He is a Christian radical and he will do everything he can to progress Christianity.
You mention Jesus, but you never mentioned Mohhamed’s comments that are very close to Jesus’s comments.
To me, religion is a form of control of society.
Keep them scared and keep them religious and we can control them.
Big corporations are now using this to keep their profits up and the people subserviant. Just like Haliburtan!
Sorry I didn’t mention Bush’s “God told me” comments.
Apparently it was only witnessed by 2 Palestinian officials. There is no other record, other than news sources quoting them. However, if their testimony is to be believed, he also said that God told him:
“Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.”
So God told him to be an advocate for Palestinian sovereignty, too. Why did you not mention that part of the quote?
But again, the statement is not terribly reliable, and then-White House spokesman Scott McCellan stated that President Bush never made those statements. Former Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas attended that meeting and said that the actual statement was, “I have a moral and religious obligation. I must get you a Palestinian state. And I will.”
Can you provide me one piece of valid evidence, not rhetoric, that shows that Bush is against people of other faiths? His faith-based charities initiative included Christian, Jewish and Muslim charities. He holds alliances with numerous Muslim governmental heads and has any number of Jewish people involved in his administration. If you really believe that Bush is trying to force Christianity on people, you are living in a dream world. Frankly, it’s silly. Dislike his policies all you like. Argue against his perceived failures in foreign and domestic policy. But claiming he is some sort of religious conqueror are way out of the realms of reality.
Did Jesus and Mohammed make similar statements? Sure. But they did not believe the same. Mohammed considered him a prophet. jesus considered himself the son of God (God in human form). These are irreconcilable, but again, that doesn’t mean we can’t believe fully the words of our prophets and our god(s) and still live peacefully together.
Is religion a controlling force in society? Somewhat. But if it functions in that way as a matter of personal choice, then that is all the better. Faith is a civilizing force when it is not abused. But Christianity is not about religion, not in its truest form. It is about a relationship.
Since when are corporations using religion to control people? Halliburton has no religious context at all. Entertainment corporations are largely anti-religious. Many corporations’ charitable foundations fund groups that are anathema to most Christians and Muslims in particular. Tell me what corporations are pushing Christianity. Viacom? Disney? Anheiser-Busch? Pfizer?
Haitham,
Am I correct to assume that you believe that Christians, Muslims and Jews can get along well based on our similarities without feeling the nee to let go of the crucial things that distinguish us? That is, while the words of Mohammed and Jesus are often similar, some of the most crucial details are very different (e.g. Jesus’ divinity). Yet that doesn’t necessitate violent rivalry. Can’t we all offer our faith in its fullest form and let individuals decide what to believe without seeking the destruction of the other?
Here’s a freakin novel idea: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!
Keep you dad gum church in the church and in your own private life!! And that’s coming from a Catholic, so neener neener
How can ANYBODY say that the predominately Muslim countries should separate their religion from the government when this administration continuously injects religion into EVERYTHING.
Kimmy, can I join you in your philosophy and still believe in God? I absolutely PROMISE you I will not try to convert you and will let you believe whatever you like as long as it’s not hurting anyone. This subject makes my head hurt!
On another note: As I did some searching of the Saudi blogs yesterday I see that SaudiEve is putting up a great fight, ducking and jumping and being helped by her friends. It’s really amazing to me to see how things have changed. GREAT!!! And if any of you Saudi bloggers read this, just keep jumping when that internet Mutawa stick swings and they will ultimately fall on their beards!! I do hope that all of you are safe in your struggle for freedom of expression. Keep it up and GOOD LUCK!
Kimmy, I won’t “let” you believe, I will just accept you for just who you are. Before I put my foot in my mouth, I really hope you know what I am trying to say.
“The Religion of Right” if you believe you are right, then you are, and the universe will give you your proof. (Sorry Philip, but this is a universal statement sent out to ALL)
Keep the internet open for all!!!!
Robin,
You say it better than mindless wordgames with philip.
You can believe anything you want. You can tell me what your beliefs are and I will listen. The only thing I won’t do is believe.
All I am saying is that violence is a primitive method of settling an argument.
Anyone who gives any reason for their side to be violent is regressing into primitive tendencies.
Philip,
you can bring up arguments about “what if” but they still point to using violence.
I think Haitham, I hope, is trying to point this out to us.
If I supported Bush, I would say Haitham is a terrorist and he is trying to sway my beliefs about Bush.
I don’t get that feeling here. I get a feeling that we are all related somehow and we have to stop this family fight all over the world!
That is my ramble after a really bad day!
“Here are Bush’s exact words, quoted by Haaretz: “God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me, I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.” (http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd06302003.html) The words WERE said and they were reported in one of Israel’s largest papers, Haaretz. So much for that part of the discussion.
Now, back to SaudiEve, or at least I hope I am paying her homage in what I am about to say. Since I come to you all with a past, one spent as an American married to a Saudi and having lived there, this is what I have to say. NEVER, I repeat NEVER did I ever experience any prostelyzing or prejudice against me because I was a Christian while I was there. I did not hang out with religious extremists, I hung out with everyday Saudis albeit of a higher socio-economic status. They were ALL Muslims, of varying degree of actual practice. My beliefs were not “tolerated”, they just were never discussed much. When I wanted a Bible, my sister-in-law got me one. The ONLY encounter I ever had on a personal basis with religious extremism was in the souk meeting up with the mutawa. Now SaudiEve and others are meeting up with the internet mutawa (EXTREMISTS) who have zapped her PROBABLY because she included Christian and Jewish prayers on her blog. This is a sad state of affairs and is NOT a part of Islam, at least not the Islam I want to associate with nor did my Muslim friends and family there associate with.
Above in post #23, Philip you go on to say (paraphrase) that one must negate their own beliefs in order to accept another’s as acceptable. Then you digress (thankfully) and ask if it is possible for us all to be brothers. Well, my answer is this: as long as you don’t argue about religion you can and that is what Kimmy (forgive me for including you here) and I are trying to say. Religion should be kept PRIVATE and in the churches, used as a moral compass for oneself, and NOT forced upon another. These wack job internet police are going after SaudiEve and that is NOT a good use of religion. Forgive me if I use one Bible quote, Jesus said, “They will know us by our deeds” No where in that did he say “they will know us by what you tell other people to do and believe” It’s called RESPECT for eachother’s own personal belief autonomy. When the “Religion of Right” is used in ANY manner to curtail another’s thoughts or actions, it is not acceptable to me. I am a HUMAN who will abide by laws and keep religion to myself (except for prayers which I send to all for their saftey) Remember that famous quote, “religion is the basis of all evil”? As a student of history, I would be a fool not to agree. Both Islam and Christianity at their cores do NOT teach coersion, nor should it’s practitioners, that goes for the mutawa and the Bush Administration in their own mixing of church and state.
Still wishing all you Saudi bloggers lots of luck!!!!
Woops, by link above didn’t come up as a link, let me try againwww.counterpunch.org/stclair09032004.html - 54k -
Kimmy, sorry you had a bad day. But at least you’re here. Sometimes I worry the NSA got you when I don’t see you for a few days!!!! home.flash.net/~bob001/echelon.htm - 27k -
This is what I fear for the Saudi bloggers, the technology is there, put in the wrong hands and it is a threat to all
Woops, by link above didn’t come up as a link, let me try againwww.counterpunch.org/stclair09032004.html - 54k -
Kimmy, sorry you had a bad day. But at least you’re here. Sometimes I worry the NSA got you when I don’t see you for a few days!!!! home.flash.net/~bob001/echelon.htm - 27k -
This is what I fear for the Saudi bloggers, the technology is there, put in the wrong hands and it is a threat to all
Robin, I had to drive 100 km. to do a job that I couldn’t do.
This is after a week of a very close friend whose daughter was murdered.
This is after a week of my youngest daughters husband who is anti-social decided to keep our grand sons from us.
Bad week.
We will live.
Kimmy,
That is absolutely horrible. My thoughts of comfort to you from south of the border. We’re never too old to “hitch hike” if only in our minds (thoughts of another conversation)
Those Saudi bloggers are still at it, protecting each other!!!
Go team Saudi Bloggers!! They’re still outjumping the internet mutawa. YEAH!!!!
Support Saudi bloggers.
I am in full support
Robin,
Yes, Haaretz did report the story, but again, only quoting the witness of those particular Palestinian officials. Abbas heard it a little differently. Oh well. Either way, you left out the part about Zionist anti-Palestinian Bush having a moral and religious obligation to promote a Palestinian state. Why exactly did you leave that out?
“Religion should be kept PRIVATE and in the churches, used as a moral compass for oneself, and NOT forced upon another.” Let me break down the comma-broken segments:
1) No, not according to Jesus. But why should we listen to him? Reference Great Commission, literally his last (recorded) words to his followers while on earth…
2) Sort of, but it applies to all followers and provides a framework for civilized societies within reasonable non-sectarian bounds.
3) Correct.
“religion is the basis of all evil”
You’re thinking of Karl Marx, maybe? Yes, religion, when misused, can be a great evil. But all evil? Both Nazism and Communism were/are atheist by nature. Tyranny is the real problem in all of these cases. But even tyranny is not the basis of all evil. Rather evil is quite varied and adaptable, hence its permanence.
You are giving me a headache again
I did NOT leave anything purposely out. I cut off the quote at the “God told me” because that was the statement in question. I offered the rest of the article for reference.
1) “Not according to Jesus” The United States is NOT a Christian theocracy!! And God forbid it ever becomes one. A “theocracy” of any sort favors one religion over another which in my book is BAD!!
2) “It applies to all followers” YOU said it: “followers” Not everyone is a follower. Keep it in your church and in your own personal life.
3 You say “correct” but at the same time are trying to interject Christianity into secular law. MAJOR contradiction.
Religion has been at the root of most wars since written history.
I am making the same mistake you are in getting off the subject of this thread. Forgive me Haitham.
When Saudi Eve put her prayers side by side, it was not only a comparison, but also a unity. This is what Islam teaches, the faiths of the “book”. In my studies of Islam I have found alot of articles about how tolerant Islam is and I have also witnessed it on a personal level. Well, since she was targeted first, and the only reason people can possibly come up with are these prayers, I find this very anti-Islamic. Shame on the Mutawa and shame on Green Tea and his ilk. From what I have perused there is certainly a whole lot worse (not my standards) than these prayers. This is a very spirited group and all they want to do is talk to eachother, in print. This cat is out of the bag and anything short of banning all computers will never work. What are they going to do? Round them all up? I see the mutawa ALL falling on their beards and never getting back up, some day.
I’ll go a little nuts here and keep it short and simple. By stating that Jesus said that faith is not private, that meant that is not to be confined in the walls of a building with a cross on top. That does not mean we have a theocracy. I want no such thing. I do not want Christianity to be bastardized that way Islam is in places like Iran. BUUUUUUUUUUUUT, that does not mean I have to crouch in some corner mumbling secret prayers to a limp-wristed god that I believe in only inasmuch as he suits me. In America, we have the freedom not only to worship, but to shout it from the mountain tops. So can Muslims, so can Jews. Even heretics like Paul Crouch and the rest of the TBN crowd have that right (although bilking their “sheep” [baaaaaaaaaaaaaaah] is not so much a right). And our presidents have the right to seek God’s counsel. I shudder to think of a president who considers that to be a bad thing.
But back on topic … Eve was exercising her right. The ISP acted irresponsibly and, if you ask me, in a very cowardly fashion. Is Islam too weak to withstand the existence of 2 prayers that could just as easily come from itself? Obviously not. The people at her ISP need to grow some balls and quit freaking out because of some non-threatening travel blessings.
Well, the males should, not the females. That would just be gross.
Philip,
Hold your horses there for a second.
Both Nazism and Communism - as well as Capitalism (in the Neocon form) - are all intolerant ideologies based on ambitions for pure societies and territorial domination. Religions are ideologies that often promote intolerance and are based on ambitions for as-pure-as-possible societies and territorial domination.
Atheism is non-religious opinion, but not an ideology and it is not intolerant!
As all ideologies need a ‘them and us’ mentality to perpetuate, all ideologies are inherently intolerant!
Intolerance is the root of all evil. Unfortunately, most people do not see religion as personal spiritual guidance, but as an ideology justifying intolerance. Therefore, religions are not evil on their own, but they carry a serious risk of intolerance, which is the root of all evil!
What does this all have to do with SaudiEve?
Somebody does not tolerate that she shows respect for other religions and that she promotes equality among religions for spiritual guidance. I think there was evil intent behind forcing her ISP to block her blog!
Thomas,
Atheism is not an ideology. That is correct. Neither is any religious viewpoint. Atheism is a statement of belief, as are religions. Ideologies spring up from beliefs. Some ideologies have faith involved, some bear no theistic preferences; some are atheist in nature. Communism has written into its basis the nonexistence of God. Communism is atheist-based. Not all atheists are Communists. But all Communists (or nearly all) are atheists. Islamo-fascism has at its root the religion of Islam. All Islamo-fascists are Muslim. Not all Muslims are Islamo-fascists. Nazism was a little more ambiguous, but at its root, it denied the existence of God, or any power above that of the “master race.” They were heavily rooted in Nietzche’s philosophies, which denied the existence of God (or at least touted his death). The neo-Nazis of today are almost always virulently atheist. Yet, of course, not all atheists are Nazis. My point is that religion is not the root of all evil, nor is atheism, nor is any other faith system. The root comes in pride, the desire to subject others for the will of the self. Second only to that is utopianism, lying at its heart the naïve belief in the inherent goodness of all humans and the possibility of a perfect world (though in a way, pride is at the root of that, too). Pride breeds tyranny, oppression and evil after evil after evil.
Oh, and by “pride,” I don’t mean satisfaction in a job well done or feeling proud of your son when he hits a home run. It is the elevation of self and refusal to acknowledge one’s own combination of good and evil and propensity to the latter.
My 52-year old American housewife eyes are burning
but they’re STILL AT IT!! Go! Go! Team Saudi Bloggers. You guys are REALLY SMART AND FUNNY!!!!
Philip,
Hitler was not an atheist! There is plenty of reference indicating that he believed in Christianity, though he was also in favor of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Actually, he ‘borrowed’ a bit here and there even if it was some times contradictory.
His persecution of Jews was both explained with that he was doing the work of God and that Jews were on a lower level of evolution and therefore mixed marriages was a threat to continued path towards a “glorious evolutionary future” of Aryans, the higher race. Hitler often referenced Darwin’s concept of ’survival of the fittest’, though he extended Darwin’s concept with his own racial idea that Ayrians were ‘naturally selected’ as a higher race.
The Catholic Church was arguing against Hitler until the day he came into power only. There is plenty of factual evidence about the cooperation between the Nazis and the Vatican which the Catholic Church did not manage to destroy after the war! The Nazis and the Vatican had anti-Communism, anti-atheism, and anti-secularism in common.
It is true that a lot of neo-Nazi sects (especially in the US where they are heavily influenced by White Supremacism) are atheists, but the original Nazis were not.
Communism is not doctrinal atheistic either. It is more technically correct to call it anti-theistic. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist, but does not require that one has to be against religions, that is the domain of anti-theism (intolerance). Some atheists are anti-theists as well, but all anti-theists are atheists. So, yes, all Communists are doctrinal anti-theists and therefore consequently atheists.
An ideology is an organized collection of concepts, assertions, and world view by a group of people, so religion is just as much an ideology as any political doctrinal system. Atheism is the concept that God does not exist, so it is an opinion (or belief), but not an ideology.
I did not say that religion is the root of all evil, rather that religion is often furtilizer for the root of all evil. Actually, I think we are saying pretty much the same thing but with different words.
Pride is a cardinal sin (if one believes in Christian mythology), but I think Dante’s definition is right on target: “love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one’s neighbor”. Though I am an atheist, that does not mean that I do not recognize the validity of the “Father of All Sins”, becuase I think intolerance (which is most often the effect of pride, but also of wrath, envy, and greed) is the root of all evil! Whether intolerance is the result or the source is a chicken and egg discussion, so it is not that important.
I think religion is healthy if used as spiritual guidance, but too often it turns into a perverted loyalty to the religious ideology itself, which results in intolerance (contempt or even hatred) of everybody who do not or do not want to follow that particular ideology. And, then we are well on our way to the Clerical Fascism like that of the Born Again Christians or Islamic Fundamentalist. From the passive form of Clerical Fascism there is a very short way to the active form like ’spreading freedom and democracy’/'the Great Satan’ or being a ‘terrorist’/'defender of Islam’
In principle, religious ideology is similar to potatoes: If you eat 1-200 grams a few times a week then it is healthy, but if you eat 10 kilos a day then it is poison for your body
To avoid misunderstandings, let me emphazise that my potato example is not about how often somebody practice religious rituals but whether religion is practiced with modesty or with extremism!
Thomas,
Very good explanation of things, as usual. Just a note: Catholics do believe in evolution. To be a Catholic is not to be against science. (at least not since Galileo was excommunicated and a few others along the way): This is the Church’s official stance in this matter:
“The Catholic Church has always taught that “no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).
As the Catechism puts it, “Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are” (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.”
An official statement by Pope Pius concerning evolution was contained in “Humani Generis” in 1950 but stemmed from earlier discussion at the First Vatican Council beginning in 1912 at which evolution was discussed and NOT thrown out as heretical. So if Hitler was reading Darwin on his days off and playing footsy with the Vatican (of which there is ample proof), then at least he wasn’t “making up things” in this case because the Church in THIS case was up on the times. (As of now they’ve got some MAJOR catching up to do in other areas)
Here we go again, SaudiEve, you are an inspiration to us all to be able to just talk as we please.
Hi Robin,
Thanks for the explanation.
I guess God and Darwin reached a compromise:
On the first day God created the world with a Big Bang, and on the 19,104,973,174,542,800,179,168,295,752,497th day he indirectly created Adam and Eve who had evolved into human beings from the monkeys he created, according to his Intelligent Design Project Plan, on the 2,609,282,295,198,248,118,251,075,196,648th day!
Well Thomas, at least it’s not the explanation of Adam and Eve in the garden some 5000 years ago with fig leaves covering their privates. Catholics are NOT literal translators of the Bible recognizing that most of it is allegory. (or at least this is the niche of Catholocism which I belong to having just recently converted and gone through the classes) My daughter attends a Catholic high school and covered evolution in her biology class this year. It was covered in a completely scientific manner she tells me, COMPLETE evolutionary theory. You’ve got your extreme views within any faith and quite frankly, I think it was a very good “inteligent” compromise on the part of the Vatican.
) and for me it’s an easy fit. But I would NEVER suggest this “inteligent design” idea be taught in public schools. It is within the realm of faith which is where it should be. I wouldn’t even offer it up as a possibility of fact to anyone. I was just letting you know the Catholic Church in THIS case does not deny science. (On the other hand, a Catholic female high school teacher was just fired for conceiving invitro twins. OUTRAGEOUS!! No birth control? OUTRAGEOUS. And there are some other policies that we all know are OUTRAGEOUS). But at least my daughter is not being denied science at her Catholic high school in the case of evolution.
For me personally, I could NEVER EVER even step foot inside a church (except for a wedding or funeral) which denied science. I hope you can tell by now, I am NOT an irrational person (well maybe sometimes
Thanks again SaudiEve for inspiring us all to rattle on.
Just a note: The above teacher I mentioned was not at my daughter’s school. If she was, I’d be outa there in a heartbeat!
1) Can either of you tell me a flaw in this phrase? “The Theory of Evolution”
2) Origins should not be taught in government schools at all. Regardless of what belief you have, it is philosophy. The fact that there is science involved (in both I.D. and evolution) does not make it pure science.
Here is the definition of “scientific theory”: “An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A lot of hypotheses are based on theories. In turn, theories may be redefined as new hypotheses are tested. Examples of theories: Newton’s Theory of Gravitation, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Mendel’s theory of Inheritance, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.”
So maybe these are “theories” which also should not be taught. Or is it only evolution that picques your disdain?
“Origins should not be taught”? Well, I guess we can leave it to other countries to study the science of the “theory of evolution” because we shouldn’t even be discussing it in public schools!! Talk about shutting down natural curiosity. You have two options it seems, public schools which teach a “scientific theory” and Evangelical schools which teach “creationism”, FULLY a philosophy without a trace of science. So there are your options, (I left out the Catholic option since I realize it doesn’t apply to you)
Just remember, the Establishment Clause is also the basis of NOT teaching creationism in public schools.
They are all theories, and should be taught as such. Evolution is taught as fact. I have seen text books firsthand (I’ve been TAUGHT from them) that do this. Yet the theory has hole after hole, inconsistency after inconsistency. So if it is taught in science classrooms, it must be taught only as a guess, an option, someone’s ideas that are unproven and largely debatable.
Intelligent Design is highly scientific. Have you ever read the texts by these scientists? They are real scientists — biologists, physicists, geologists, zoologists, etc. — who offer up another theory. The establishment clause is not an atheist clause. It means that the state may not prohibit the free exercise of religion nor establishment one as supreme. ID simply presupposes an intelligent entity behind the universe’s coming into existence. No particular religion is favored. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists may all feel ok with it. Only atheists would be left out, but hey…it’s ONLY a theory! Why should evolution be taught to the exclusion of all other theories? Why not chaos theory?
But again, pure science is the act of testing and evaluating existing data and determining its relationship to the world, to other objects/life forms/chemicals, etc. My father is an agnostic (and a scientist), yet he believes the theory of evolution is silly. He would be the first to tell you that even the development of the ant along some sort of perfect line of trillions of mutations is scientifically impossible. So, then what is evolution? It is a philosophy, the groundwork of naturalism. It would fit nicely into philosophy classes. So would I.D. But science classes? It really doesn’t belong, and if it is there, then it would be wrong (and a violation of the establishment clause by declaring atheism the official belief of the US) to teach it to the exclusion of all others.
I.D. should not be taught as fact. By the same nature, neither should evolution.
Here is a great link: The Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture. One FAQ asked if they are a religious organization, to which they replied:
“Discovery Institute is a secular think tank, and its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic. Until recently the Chairman of Discovery’s Board of Directors was former Congressman John Miller, who is Jewish. Although it is not a religious organization, the Institute has a long record of supporting religious liberty and the legitimate role of faith-based institutions in a pluralistic society. In fact, it sponsored a program for several years for college students to teach them the importance of religious liberty and the separation of church and state.”
Three years ago when I did the “inquiry” portion of the classes to become Catholic where you ask questions to make sure you want to go on to the next step, the question of evolution came up. My 78 year old hip female instructor said to us, “There was no Adam and there was no Eve, no snake in the garden, it’s a story written in a time to give an explanation about God’s creation of the universe”. I almost fell over dead, I thought, I get to believe in science AND that God has a hand in everything that occurs. WHOA, this one’s for me. Evolution as taught at my daughter’s high school is COMPLETELY scientific, no pause for Adam and Eve, just straight forward. The only addition is that God has a hand in everything, not like a big manipulator, just the power behind it, whatever it turns out to be (If we EVER find out 100%, for now I fully agree with the preponderance of evidence) I can really hang with this idea. But you’re right, atheists would object, but every atheist I personally know is perfectly ok with someone’s belief in God as long as you don’t push them, in other words, VERY tolerant but would not want this taught which is COMPLETELY understandable. Atheism is NOT a religion, somewhere over there Thomas explained it best. So teaching evolution as a scientific theory is NOT espousing any faith. So while I do NOT propose this theory for all, I myself am very comfortable with it. But the fact remains, if my daughter went to a public school she would learn the same info and be able to add the God factor IF she desires. Here’s a good link to explain it
http://www.seattlearch.org/FormationAndEducation/Progress/072005/The+Catholic+Belief+About+Evolution+7-28-05.htm. You are correct, evolution IS a theory, but science IS always uncovering more evidence to support it and there is ALOT of evidence. I certainly would not want any of my children to miss out on learning this important information. Now I absolutely PROMISE not to stay off the subject of Saudi Eve for another second.
At last check Saudi Eve is still blocked in Saudi but she’s back in business by using a different outside network and through friends. This whole internet thing is absolutely amazing how EVERYTHING interlinks, that sort of six degrees of separation, or maybe only max of six “clicks” of separation. It is a chance for the whole world, if connected, to communicate. These Saudi bloggers are VERY spunky and it’s just great to see the sexes mix in conversation where it might not be as easy to do in real life in KSA. I really have a large amount of respect for her perserverence.
Eve is “da bomb.” Seriously, it is great to see. The internet is overall unable to be totally squashed; there is always a way around, even in KSA. It’s these little pockets of liberty than can quietly dissolve the old cultural tyranny. Now, are the six clicks kind of like the game “Six Degrees from Kevin Bacon?”
I’ll leave the other stuff be for now as well out of overwhelming respect for Eve. Either God or nature one did a good job with her!
Philip,
In the Bible it say that this is the truth and you shall believe no other.
I can write a book and say the same!
Does this make it the truth?
You believe your book.
Islam can believe their book.
Everyone else can believe their books!
I believe in evolution and when I die, that is the end of me!
If you keep quoting the bible you are being a person who is not listening to others.
Your book is not right and it is not wrong.
We won’t know until we die.
Keep your faith, just like Islam and wait for the truth!
I am not eager to die, but I am not afraid because I have fulfilled a full life with my Wife and we are happy!
God or no god!
If there is an afterlife I will know I will find it because I have lived honestly and faithfully with my Wife and Customers.
“Without the Bible.”
Can Bush say the same?
I think not. Unless you are a religious zealot like him!
Kimmy,
Note that I only referenced the Christian Scriptures in response to Robin’s replies. I did so because we are both coming from a Christian perspective, though not without conflict. I am careful to only use Scripture when my faith in particular is the issue or when making a comparative analysis. For example, you will never hear me tell Thomas, “You are wrong, because the Bible says…”
I never debate the issue of abortion, for example using the Bible, but using science combined with political philosophy (primarily the distinction between coercive and defensive force and how they apply to pregnant women and unborn babies).
On the other hand, calling someone a zealot for believing the words of the one they worship is not exactly fair. I believe every word Jesus spoke was true. If I didn’t, I would be a fool to worship him! The same goes for millions of Muslims, Jews, etc. Zealotry is not belief in absolute truth. It is the insistence that those who do not accept the truth be coerced into belief. It completely negates the reason God gave us freewill. Again, though you are an atheist, I referenced God’s existence based on the nature of our discussion.
Hope that clears it up a bit!
Out of the mouths of babes, today my nine year old said, “Where’s your very favorite place you want to go?”
I replied “I don’t know, lots of places. Where do you really want to go?”
She said, “My second favorite place I want to go is Disney World”
I responded, “What’s your first?”
She said “Heaven”
Laughingly I said, “Well we all want to go to heaven, but I really want to stick around for a while”
She said “So do I, but I want to go up there when I die, not DOWN there”
Again I laughed, “Maddie, there is no down there (Catholics don’t believe in hell in the traditional sense, and I don’t believe in it at all. Burn me at the stake for heresy!!)
She replied, “Well, what if there is no UP there?”
It’s all faith, NO one KNOWS about these things, and we MUST make the absolute best of what we have right here, right now. It is not the particulars of any religion OR non-religion that are important, it is the life we lead and how we treat our fellow man. OK, that’s the way I see it at least, simple, but often times the most difficult to do. In other words, believe whatever you want, just treat people with kindness and do NOT insist they are mistaken in their beliefs UhOh, that’s the “L” word coming out in me.
I was checking out other blocked Saudi blogs and it seems they blocked all of them last October. From what I personally know of KSA they are REALLY going through some cultural changes, in QUICK time. My daughter said it’s the best vent possible for all the young Saudis to be able to blow off frustration of whatever sort. Well, that makes PERFECT sense, because we all need an outlet for expression and frustration. I can’t find out if any other blogs are blocked, but Saudi Eve has become quite a celebrity around the blog planet. All goes to show that when you try to supress something it becomes even more popular.
(PS my oldest turned 28 today and I’m feeling just like I did when I was 29, well, sort of
)
Philip,
No. You are still reffering to you religion.
I have read books of many religions and many zealots have used their religions in their favour.
Just like Osama and Bush.
That is their right.
But is it right?
No!
Osama and Bush are extreemists in their own religions.
We have to separate religion from the state.
Keep your religion but keep the state free from religion.
How about freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion.
Try that one in your books.
Philip,
Quote 54
A zealot uses his religion to further his means.
That means Bush. If you like it or not.
He is using his religion to attack Iraq. As quoted in many links.
He is a radical that has to be stopped for humanities sake!
If your religion makes you strong, good for you.
It makes the Islamists strong. Accept it.
It still makes Bush a radical.
Religion is the major problem of this world.
I am right and you are wrong.
That is the major problem!
The Jews are wrong punishing the Palestinians for wanting to be free.
Bush is supporting the IOF for torturing the Palestinians for their fight to be free.
Even the United Nations is against the Zionist control of the Palestinians.
But Bush is supporting them. Because the biggest lobbiest in the US is the Zionists.
Bush is using his religion to keep his control of his religious right to stay in control.
His servants keep kissing his boots and he keep them in control.
Philip,
You ask: “1) Can either of you tell me a flaw in this phrase? “The Theory of Evolution”
2) Origins should not be taught in government schools at all. Regardless of what belief you have, it is philosophy. The fact that there is science involved (in both I.D. and evolution) does not make it pure science.”
1) There really is no flaw - unless the word ‘the’ should not be capitalized and should stand outside the quotation marks
The “Theory of Evolution” or more exact, the “Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection” is a scientific theory. While evolution (as in populations of organisms that change over time/generations due to genetic mutations) is a proven scientific FACT, the concepts of “Natural Selection” is scientific THEORY. All scientifically oriented ideas, concepts, and hypothesis that survive scientific scrutiny and testing is considered a (scientific) theory. It is not recognized in the scientific community as FACT, but as well-substantiated THEORY.
2) It is NOT a fact that science is involved in both the “Theory of Intelligent Design” and the “Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection”!!!!!!
In order for anything to be qualified as SCIENCE it has to meet the requirements of the “Scientific Method”, which is explained by Wikipedia as:
“SCIENTIFIC METHOD refers to a body of techniques for the investigation of phenomena and the acquisition of new knowledge of the natural world, as well as the correction and integration of previous knowledge, based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning.”
Over time, there are plenty of examples of scientific theory that was ‘discovered’ years before it could be physically proven as scientific fact. While there are also many examples of scientific theories that have been proven to be in need of adjustments, it is very rare that a scientific theory, as a whole, is completely disproven and written off with the acquisition of new scientific facts.
Intelligent Design is NOT based on the Scientific Method, cannot be proven with reference to scientific facts or theories, and have not ’survived’ scientific scrutiny and peer review. Though a lot of its proponents claim to be scientists, Intelligent Design is considered to be pseudoscience (portrayed as science but does not meet the required standards) or junk science (claims driven by political, financial, or other questionable motives).
Philosophy is based on rational, systematic, and logical argumentation, but philosophies, no matter how logical they are, are unsubstantiated claims in the sense that they cannot be empirically proven or backed up by scientific facts or theory and cannot be proven by observation or experiment. By the way, the academia does not recognize religion as philosophy, since philosophy is based on intellectual reasoning in order to qualify concepts, theories, and presuppositions.
If something is qualified as scientific theory is can be considered likely enough that it can be considered as knowledge. This is a principle that has been honored through hundreds of years and which has allowed progress and invention of many of the things we take for granted today, but that our forefathers would not have dreamed of as possible.
I agree that religion (and therefore also Intelligent Design) should not be taught in public schools (and never as science), but I do not agree that scientific knowledge of any kind (including about our origins) should be kept out of schools. A society that selectively accepts scientific knowledge to avoid progress that does not fit into a particular religion sounds a bit too Amish for me
By the way, isn’t the Bush living proof of that there is not such thing as Intelligent Design?!?
Thomas,
Hope I’m not interupting a debate, but I just wanted to thank you for giving the definition of the “scientific method”. The Bible was NOT written as a textbook and to reduce it to such is demeaning in MY opinion. Not to muddy the waters with even one more point of contention between ferreting out science from religion, there is also the story of Noah and the “great flood”.
Evangelicals take this story literally, they present it as “fact”, there WAS a Noah and there WAS an ark, and he put the animals on two by two, yada yada. The first private school my daughter attended was Lutheran, grades 6-8. At that point in time I was not attending church at all and had not brought any religious discourse into my children’s life other than a loose belief in God. My daughter came home one day and said, “MOM, what is this Noah and the ark story, it is SO rediculous!” I laughed and said it’s just a Bible story. This last year, her sophomore year, she studied in depth the story of Gilgamesh and how it relates to the story of Noah, that Noah was OBVIOUSLY taken from prior myth. The secret is the use of the word “myth”.
Definition of myth, “A myth is a traditional story whose author is unknown. It has its roots in the primitive folk-beliefs of cultures and uses the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain a culture’s view of the universe and the nature of humanity”. I am NOT attempting to defend Catholocism because I don’t feel defensive about it myself. But on an “academic level” I can tell you this, Catholics see the Bible as an allegory which is divinely given in order to teach us how to live. (I KNOW, the divine part is the bone of contention, but it is either you believe it or you don’t. Even if it wasn’t given “divinely” it makes for an interesting read and could just be some smart people writing a book about how to live your life, a “philosophy” in other words) The Noah story is NOT about an ark, it is about overwhelming faith. OK, now that I’ve explained that one, let me add that I believe there are NUMEROUS philosophies whose goals are to give us guidance in our every day lives. As I’ve said on numerous occasions, one does not have to believe in God in order to be a more than decent human being. Again, sort of a Catholic belief in the sense that deeds are the proof of the pudding rather than what one believes. Believe WHATEVER you want, as long as the end result is a person who gives productively to society and fulfills the social contract (Whoa! I just threw Hobbes in there I think). I read a quote recently which said something like this, “if man spent as much time on improving the world around him as he did on talking about religion, the world would be a better place”. How true can you get?!
Maybe the Catholic take on things could be better explained as such (using the Noah example): the myth of Noah and the ark is given to us as a “metaphor” in order to teach us something much deeper than what appears on the surface. In other words, you can take it on it’s surface value as fact (simplistic belief in myths) OR you can look to a deeper meaning, analyze it (sort of like analyzing a book in a lit class) and get the true message that is being sent. Once again, please don’t think I’m defending, I’m just trying to explain the differences.
Kimmy,
Freedom from religion instead of freedom of? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” This is literally the first sentence in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. Not being American, you may not grasp the meaning of this. First, Congress may not establish a state religion. In other words, everyone can choose their own religion and practice it. In addition, the free exercise may not be infringed upon. So “freedom from religion” is not an option. A political leader cannot say, “You must worship this way.” The government may not force you to follow any particular faith. But religious influence is allowed, provided it does not go beyond the limitations imposed by the Constitution.
Thomas,
) There is no religious motivation. Obviously, religious people like it, same as atheists like evolution. But the people involved in the research range from Christians, to Jews and those oh-so-zealous agnostics. They are not promoting the Genesis account. They are simply arguing against some of the scientifically absurd claims of evolution.
Microevolution has been proven to occur, that is correct. That is, adaptation within a species. But not macroevolution, which is one species developing into another. This is all conjecture, and it’s where the actual science ends. There have been numerous hoaxes attempting to prove macroevolution. Why hoaxes? That’s not very scientific. It sounds like some people will defend the theory with “religious fervor.” Hmm. I am not saying that evolution should not be discussed as a theory. Rather it should not be discussed to the exclusion of all others. I.D. has a great deal of science involved. Don’t just assume; look into it. The presupposition of some sort of intelligent force (not necessarily “God” as a particular faith may know this “force.” Could even be “The Force” from “Star Wars.”
Ironically, Darwin himself was not quite as zealous about his theory as his contemporary followers: “…The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” (Darwin, The Origin of Species)
And the few non-hoax cases that have been touted are inconclusive. The basis is simply the existence of some non-class structures (like the archaeopteryx’s hair-like feathers). Obviously this proves nothing, because diversity of species is more than wide enough to envelop such things.
The thing is, though, science cannot and will not PROVE origins. It will by necessity be theory only. And if theory is the only basis for origins, then the topic should be left for the philosophy classroom or opened up to a variety of theories.
Some states require a disclaimer sticker on textbooks, since many texts erroneously state evolutionary theory and natural selection as fact (what would be the agenda behind deceiving mush-minded school children into think the theory is proven fact?). The discaimer says something to the effect of: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” This sticker has been met with a striking amount of opposition. Why? Perhaps the naturalist religion s attempting to become the state religion prohibited in the Establishment Clause.
Robin,
Are you speaking for all Catholics? Of the ones I know, I’ve yet to meet one that has those views.
Nope, I’m not speaking for all Catholics. I am speaking for myself when it comes to my openess to other beliefs. When I speak about evolution and Noah and the ark, this is what all Catholics believe. There was a recent letter written by a Schoenborn (I believe is his name), a Catholic, who is attempting to sneak creationism back into official Catholic dogma. He has been dismissed by the Vatican. I had for YEARS sought out a church that I could feel comfortable in. When I first divorced I tried the Episcopalian church for about six months. They even asked me to give talks about living in a Moslem country. One day the priest told me, “Only Christians get into heaven” I was outa there. Why? Because I do NOT agree with this policy whatsoever. While doing my RCIA classes I asked my priest, ONE priest, the question about other faiths and heaven. (the heaven subject IS the ultimate judgement,”You’re going up and YOU are going DOWN) His response to me was, “You cannot convince me that good people of other faiths, Moslem, Jew, Hindu or Buddhist will not be allowed into heaven” BINGO! The Catholic church is HUGE and has a whole lot of room for different beliefs. Maybe another priest would say different, but since MY priest said this to me I felt very comfortable. I could NEVER EVER in one million years commit myself to any faith whose dogma was so structured that there is no room for thought. I have found there is a whole lot of room for thought in MY case. If you think I should be excommunicated I can get you the number to call
What I believe I offer as “I believe” statements, but ultimately, it is my deeds by which I will be judged, a VERY specifically Catholic belief. I might be called a “Cafeteria Catholic” but that’s ok with me, because I really enjoy the food!
Should you be excommunicated? No, and no one should at all. There should be no such thing. Only God can make that decision. Besides, if you kick someone out of a church/faith for errant beliefs, will they ever be open to correction? Not likely. Become Southern Baptist. We’ll straighten you out!
Or join the Church of Deathway … we will soon take over … there is no escape … you WILL BE ASSIMILATED…
Now, to be judged on works and not faith? I hope not, or I’m toast (literally). I like Paul’s ideas a whole lot better.
One more thing, I participated in a Catholic Bible study of Genesis, where the creation and Noah stories reside. Without going into details (and because I would have to drag out my books and notes) Catholic scholars say that the Jews of the time wrote in several different modes, some factual and some metaphorical. This comes from a very careful study of Bible text and known fact. So yes, no Catholic believes literally in Adam and Eve and no Catholic believes literally in Noah unless they are not well-versed in Catholic belief. Again, my openess is personal but you will find MANY Catholics who believe the same. Just like there are pro-choice Catholics, there are others adamantly opposed to abortion. As in all cases, I am “liberal” in thought and certainly not the Opus Dei kind of Catholic. (ouch, that chalice would REALLY hurt!!)
Of course, there is a fair argument to be made that if anyone too easily conforms to each and every detail of his/her denomination, that individual may need to do a little exploring.
This thread made me curious, so I read the Southern Baptist statements of belief. They are pretty basic concepts, no side doctrines or anything. Here is something that will shock anyone holding a certain prominent stereotype:
“Religious Liberty
Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. …A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal.”
Philip,
IN BIG BOLD LETTERS, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Ever heard of Jerry Fallwell, Southern Baptist preacher?
Hate to blow your statements about the Southern Baptists RIGHT OUT OF THE WATER!!!!Here is an article about Falwell’s speach at the Southern Baptist Convention (note it is a Christian site)
http://www.christianethicstoday.com/issue/051/A%20Fight%20For%20Souls,%20Votes%20By%20Eileen%20E.%20Flynn_051_14_.htm
Here’s a good article about the SBC and their relationship with the Republican party and how they’ve gotten things done to their liking using the reps http://www.livingston.net/wilkyjr/link9.htm
And here is a statement right off the SBC site:
” This much is clear. The interaction between religion and politics is inevitable and it is in order for God’s people. Brooks Hays, himself a former President of the Southern Baptist Convention and a Congressman from Arkansas, once said words still applicable: “The dedicated sons and daughters of the Church have a magnificent opportunity in this crisis period to apply CHRISTIAN IDEALS AND STANDARDS TO THE POLITICAL STRUCTURE.”
So, go ahead and try to tell me that the SBC does not seek to inject their religion into politics and legislation and I will tell you otherwise. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it’s a DUCK! If Christians SBC or otherwise are using their political strenghth to influence laws which affect this country (remember, we are a nation of laws) and they are straight out of their Bibles then THAT VIOLATES THE SEPRATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!
And here’s another idea for you to think about: the idea of church’s having tax-exempt status. Here’s another statement right off the SBC site: ” Churches, as tax exempt entities, carry out their activity within two restrictions set forth by Section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code. First, the church cannot devote any “substantial part” of its activities to attempt to influence legislation. Second, a church cannot endorse or oppose candidates for elective public office or otherwise be involved in a political campaign to elect or defeat a candidate.”
Well go ahead and try to argue that the SBC is not BIG TIME into trying to influence politics.
And chew on this one off the SBC site: “Christians, putting their faith to work in politics, makes for good government.”
Oh really? Why not Buddhist faith or Hindu or Jewish or Moslem or Hottentot faith for that matter!! Keep RELIGION OUT OF MY GOVERNMENT! Hows about changing your last quote to, “a gpvernment free of church is the ideal government”!! (I reference the Establishment Clause)!
Jerry Falwell is not Southern Baptist. He is Independent Baptist, which is something else entirely. You know those people that like to stand by the side of the road holding signs written in King James style? Those are typically Independent Baptists or other offshoots. This is not to say the SBC is liberal (they’re not), but they are not Falwellian either!
Now, here is an interesting contrast: “Second, a church cannot endorse or oppose candidates for elective public office or otherwise be involved in a political campaign to elect or defeat a candidate.” You reworded that immediately afterward to say “influence.” Religious institutions have the right to espouse certain moral values and relate them to the political climate. However, they cannot say (keeping their tax-exempt status): “Now go out there and vote for George W. Bush.” Ironically enough, many churches have done this for liberal candidates, and no one ever blinks an eye. Separation of church and state is typically applied very selectively by most of the critics. While I lived in New York, I actually saw on the news a pastor at a prominent church in Harlem literally command his congregation to (quite specifically) vote for Hilary Clinton for Senate and to vote for Al Gore for President. The news report was actually just covering a local figure’s visit to the church. No one protested the pastor’s violation. Had this occurred in, say, a Southern Baptist church, within half an hour a whole cavalry of protesters would show up with pre-made t-shirts, a variety of picket signs, ready-to-use slogans, and a guest speaker to motivate the crowd, as well as every news outlet within a 200 mile radius.
But again, herein lies the key (this is included in Jefferson’s intentions”: Separation of Church and State is predominantly removal from government meddling in religion. That was the number 1 goal, including in the drafting of the first amendment. As for the influence of religious people in government, it was never discouraged by the founders. It was, in fact, encouraged. There are a zillion issues that are matters of legislation and cultural definition that can never be determined by the Constitution alone. Slavery was a big example, where the true abolitionists were typically motivated by religious ideals. And this was even something that was previously written INTO the Constitution! Perhaps the pro-slavery forces should have waved the banner of separation of church and state… ?
Oh, and I think evangelical Christians would work quite happily on legislation efforts with Orthodox Jews as well as Muslims (Haitham actually made this point in another post).
Philip,
Get off your high horse.
Get rid of your picture looking down on everyone.
You keep using religion as your basic argument.
IT IS FROM A BOOK. IT IS NOT PROVEN.
How many religions have spawned from that book?
Is yours the right one?
Same with Islam.
Who is right?
If you are wrong you will go to hell!
Accept other religions to cover all bases.
I have done it without religion by living a life that helps others.
I am covering all bases by being truthful and helping people in need.
I am still not religious!
Stick with your religion but don’t tell everyone else that they are wrong because they don’t believe in what you believe!
Religion is a matter of choice.
Accept anothers choice without injecting your beliefs when you think they are wrong!
I did NOT reword a single thing, I cut and pasted the entire statement between the parenthesis directly from the SBC site and if you would prefer I look up the exact law on a non-religious site Iwill “July 7, 1998 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) - Pastor Jerry Falwell and a group of members of Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia, attended the Southern Baptist annual convention this year and voted as messengers. They gained voting status by donating to the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia (SBCV).” http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/jerry.htm
I refer you to the SBC Ethics and Religious Freedom Commissions site: http://erlc.com/ Topics of discussion: Defense of Marriage ammendment to the Constitution, efforts to ban abortion (just to make it clear, I abhor abortion, absolutley abhor it but would NEVER seek to make that decision for another woman), Supreme Court nominations, border patrol (how it affects Southern Baptists!), a congressional watch site complete with letters to mass mail, but best yet, let me just offer you their mission statement right off the site:
“The Research Institute of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission represents an evangelical think tank that includes university and seminary presidents, academic deans, professors, lawyers, doctors, theologians, and other evangelical scholars. The Research Institute serves three primary functions: (1) to provide a professional organization where conservative, evangelical scholars can discuss current trends in American culture; (2) to apply biblical truth to moral, public policy, and religious liberty issues in order to transform American culture; and (3) to develop a comprehensive biblical worldview model to equip Christians to evaluate and interact with the moral and religious liberty issues confronting families in the modern culture”
Thems fighin words to me! I particularly like the part about transforming American culture. Just how is the council going to do this? By going door to door and asking people to convert?
Heck no, they are attempting to change American culture to fit into their philosophy by proposing and backing legislation which is Southern Baptist to it’s core. When they finally succeed will we have a Southern Baptist States of America?
I also don’t know how good you think Southern Baptists get along with Orthodox Jews because they have been sending your council letters for years and picketing your conventions over evangelizing to them.
Look Philip, I am not arguing religion with you here. You are absolutely free to believe in whatever you wish and worship whoever you wish. But you are NOT free to try to change the laws to fit your religious beliefs. As for slavery, yes, many of the abolitionists were Quaker but in that case a humanist or atheist could have seen the wrongs of slavery and many did.
My prayer to my Lord: I am an American Lord, and our country REALLY needs your help. As the God of all mankind, I wish you would strongly consider allowing an atheist to become our next president. We are the most powerful nation on earth at the moment and we are using your name to reek havoc. I KNOW you would not like this because you love ALL your children and know they worship you in different ways. Some don’t worship you at all but it is more important to you that your children treat each other with love and kindness than to talk about you all the time.
So since some of the ones that talk about you all the time just CANNOT get along, would you please give my country a leader who is wise and and can be a completely neutral referree and also put you back in their houses of worship so they don’t keep trying to control each other? Please, we really need your help and I know you are unselfish and want most for your children to get along.
Amen.
Some more:
” Dr. RICHARD LAND (President and CEO, Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission): They’ve crossed a line when they start asking campaign operatives to encourage church members to send in church directories to the Bush-Cheney headquarters. It’s not illegal, but I believe it’s totally inappropriate.”
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week752/cover.html
And if you don’t think backing a change to the Constitution is trying to inject religion into government I give up in my attempt to help you to see the light. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040616-110450-8126r.htm
I rephrase my last statement: If you do not believe that attempting to change the Constitution using Biblical law is establishing a religion by using RELIGION as the law (remember, we are a nation of laws) THEN you’ve got a problem. Besides that, I thought that you were all for states’ rights? But you cannot go there either because the Constitution trumps state laws. I think the fundamentalists have REALLY crossed the line with this attempt. It certainly is NOT subtle. I am referring to the proposed Marriage Ammendment: 2004 version (H.J. Res. 106 (108th Congress 2004) and S.J. Res. 40 (108th Congress 2004)):
“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”
Thus this law forbids those united in civil unions, even if acceptable by the individual states, to benefit from the same laws that benefit married couples. Why is this law being proposed? Because homosexuality and lesbianism is AGAINST RELIGION according to most followers. Oh I forgot, religion is right and EVERYBODY else is wrong! Therefore, religion is the way to go, let the laws of religion become the laws of the land. (sound familiar? It’s call “theocracy”. Care to live in one whose religion you don’t follow?)
I’ll be short here to try to sum up. I am Southern Baptist by denomination. I am not 100% on every level with them in terms of their side projects; doctrinally, I do agree 100%. I like the organizational structure, in that a church has full autonomy and is required only to agree with the basic faith statements. A Southern Baptist Church can have a name without Baptist in the title, can meet only on Fridays, can play punk rock instead of hymns, can serve mocha lattes in the foyer (I do a website for one church that has a mini coffee shop atmosphere for the lobby), etc. As for the ERLC, Richard Land and I have a love-hate relationship. A lot of what he says gets misconstrued or cut short (take the women’s submission controversy. The same statement included male submission and total sacrifice, but the press missed that detail). But then he goes beyond his role. But even he is not seeking a state religion. He is aiming to fill the gaps in US legal precedent with moral standards consistent with our faith. It is a fair argument that such standards may not suit others. True, but we are not talking about style of clothing nor church architecture. Although I do not agree with his stance on the Federal Marriage Amendment, the intent is to define the US marriage standards. Obviously, since marriage is a legal institution as well as a personal one, there will be some definition in some form, else people could marry the dead flies on their window sills. Personally, I say let each state decide. I am for states’ rights! However, a gay couple marrying in Massachusetts should be aware that the state of Alabama may not recognize their marriage, same as Massachusetts won’t recognize an Alabaman’s concealed carry permit.
Regarding Orthodox Jews, I was referring to common cultural goals. Yes, many in the Jewish community were offended at being “targeted” for evangelism. Actually, though, the intent was one that honored them in a HUGE way, but that gets way too deep into theology for now.
I do not want a theocracy! But as I said before (clarifying here), you pasted a comment regarding a non-profit’s restriction against endorsing a candidate or piece of legislation. But right afterwards, in your own comments, you said, “Well go ahead and try to argue that the SBC is not BIG TIME into trying to influence [italics mine] politics.” Endorse, no (although liberals openly do so). Influence? Yes, it is an American tradition. Slavery was abolished as a religious effort, and though some agnostics and atheists felt the same as religionists, the same can be said