Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's an article about the controversy over mandatory prayer during meals at the Naval Academy that features some shallow and twisted thinking from some midshipmen and their parents. Like this:
"I think the mids understand they have to live in a world of diversity, and have to learn to tolerate other religious beliefs," said Debbie Camiolo, parent of a midshipman and a member of the Pennsylvania academy parents support group.
Oh, of course. The fact that prayers are always Christian in nature and everyone who is not a Christian is expected to participate in religious exercises they do not believe in is a matter of diversity? Seems quite the opposite to me. Imagine the response of these Christian supremacists to actual diversity; imagine if they were expected to have to take part in or were forced to listen to Muslim or Hindu prayers.
Actually, we don't have to imagine this. We've seen it happen. Look what happened when a Hindu chaplain was invited to deliver an opening invocation to Congress last year; the Christian supremacists threw a hissy fit, including David Barton, Jan Markell, Gordon Klingenschmitt, Roy Moore and many others. Three nuts even tried to prevent him from speaking. But yeah, this is all about "diversity."
Politics
Comments
Remember Ed, my fellow Michigander; In American you're free to be any type of Christian you want....well...except for the weird ones. lulz.
Posted by: stevogvsu | July 8, 2008 9:28 AM
Ed,
You don't have to go as far as a Hindu or Muslim chaplain.
For all those good baptists, just have a Roman Catholic priest up there. He can insert a few "Blessed Virgin Mary"s in his prayer and make them very unhappy.
Somehow, the mandatory prayer proponents try to make out Christianity as one big happy unified religion. Tell that to the Irish. Roman Catholics and Protestants have been slaughtering each other for centuries.
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | July 8, 2008 9:37 AM
Diversity: Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Adventists, Pentecostal, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
Posted by: Umlud | July 8, 2008 9:39 AM
I find it exceedingly ironic that our fighting men would be encouraged to believe they must "tolerate" the religious belief that holds that some have the right to force others to pray. Isn't that EXACTLY how the Islamist world defines "tolerance"--in a clumsy effort to turn that word into a cover for religious oppression?
Posted by: Timothy Sandefur | July 8, 2008 10:05 AM
Emo's joke on religious tolerance resonates with all these establishment issues:
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. -- Emo Phillips
Posted by: Dan | July 8, 2008 10:44 AM
Is there a possibility that there will be a moment of prayer for the Pastafarian's who worship FSM? I know that the idea of a being of exceeding power and grace who is made out of semolina is rather far-fetched--unlike, say, a nice jewish boy who drops out of school, starts running with a bad crowd of radicals and, yet, saves mankind, before taking a 36 hour dirt nap--but, what the hell, it's worth a shot.
Posted by: democommie | July 8, 2008 11:45 AM
The only difference between fundamental Christians and fundamental Islamists is a dress code...
Posted by: Tsugradstudent | July 8, 2008 12:09 PM
>> The only difference between fundamental Christians and fundamental Islamists is a dress code... >>
Wow, now there is an ignorant statement. If you want to argue about what Christians believe, maybe you should spend a little time learning about it first instead of making clueless statements.
Posted by: mroberts | July 8, 2008 12:56 PM
For once, I agree with mroberts (though certainly for different reasons). If you really think there's no difference between fundamentalist Christians today and fundamentalist Islamists today, I suggest an experiment. Go to the biggest hotbed of fundamentalism in America you can think of (say, Colorado Springs right outside Dobson's complex), pull out a bullhorn and start criticizing Christianity. You'll get argued with, perhaps called a few names and that's about it. Then go to Riyadh or Kabul and do the same with Islam. I'll watch from a distance, thank you very much.
The fact is that modern Christianity has been neutered to some extent by mixing with Enlightenment values over the last few hundred years. Yes, there are Christians who bomb abortion clinics and commit violence, but they are a very small group who are generally condemned. Even the most extreme Christian nuts, the reconstructionists, reject the use of violence to achieve their political goals. That simply isn't the case in Islam, where there is a much larger group who believes in violence in the name of their religion. That faction, in fact, controls some entire nations. That simply isn't the case with Christianity. Fundamentalist Islam is far, far more dangerous today than fundamentalist Christianity. I'll gladly fight against both, of course, and because in this country it is only fundamentalist Christianity that holds any political power, that is where my focus will primarily be. But let's not pretend the two are equally violent or equally dangerous because they simply aren't.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 8, 2008 1:39 PM
Mrroberts gets an F in comprehension.
I think you missed the important word "Fundamentalist" in the sentence you quoted. Tsugradstudent said nothing about the beliefs of all Christians, or all Muslims, only about FUNDAMENTALISTS of those relgions. Plus, you missed the other obvious point, HE or SHE WAS NOT ENTIRELY SERIOUS. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 8, 2008 1:40 PM
Ed:
I have a friend who attended the USNA during the late 1950s, and told me once that while during his time at the school it was mandatory for plebes to attend meals together in a formal sense that today that policy has been liberalized, so students may attend meals (or not) as they wish, and bring food back their rooms instead of having a typical "sit-down" meal with his/her classmates.
So it would seem this "mandatory prayer" does not carry as much weight as it used to on-campus.
I do agree, though, that in the minds of America's military leadership that embracing "diversity" means allowing Baptists and Methodists to congregate more than it means Hindus and Christians, etc.
Posted by: CHV | July 8, 2008 2:08 PM
Ed - With all due respect (love your blog). A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist...regardless of Christian or Muslim. Yes, the Christians Fundies have been neutered in America and elsewhere by a civil society, but do not think for a moment that if this thin veil were ever lifted that the Christian Fundies would be any less violent than what we see the islamist doing now. I have to agree with Tsugradstudent. The only difference is the clothing - the clothing in the case of the Christians is a collar and leash that society has placed there - and we as a society have to keep a tight hold on that leash, or mark my words, we will be living in a "Christian" version of Riyadh or Kabul. IMHO. (Thanks for you terrific blog). Zack
Posted by: zack | July 8, 2008 2:25 PM
I guess I should explain myself. Ideologically, I see absolutely no difference between fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Islamists. Both groups believe they have a given right to condemn other groups who are either ideologically or biologically different. Both groups use a "might makes right" mentality to push through their religious ideas onto a society that may or may not want the same things. The only difference I see, is that fundamentalist Islamists have been more successful in their drive for a theocracy than the fundamentalist Christians.
It would have been hyperbolic to say all Christians and all Muslims are similar. I didn't say that though. I said fundamentalists are similar. I think when people reach a point where their limited definition of the world is unquestionable and that limited definition gives them real or a perceived power over others in that same world, we have a problem. I know just as many fundamentalist Christians who take the same limited view (us vs. them) of the world.
Posted by: Tsugradstudent | July 8, 2008 2:37 PM
@CHV
i just left a job in annapolis where i periodically dealt with usna and the new supe has clamped down on eating policies. all the mids are sposed to dine together 15 meals a week. the only leeway now is on weekends. so they are indeed being forced to sit thru prayer. and unfortunately, the people of the annapolis region are just fine with that.
Posted by: khefera | July 8, 2008 2:53 PM
Ed,
In this one statement you're conflating religion, culture, nationalism, and government. Tsugradstudent has a good point about fundamentalists (about the equivalence of Christian and Islamic kinds) which you've sidestepped. That the Christian fundamentalists may not be as ubiquitously violent as the Islamic ones is more likely due to their being subsumed into a different culture and system of government as having anything to do with the religion itself.
Posted by: Trinifar | July 8, 2008 4:28 PM
@CHV, I'm not sure that removing themselves from a group activity to avoid forced religious practices is an acceptable compromise either.
An example: at a company I worked with, much socializing of the 'big bosses' was done in the smoking room (this was quite a while back when such things existed). Non-smokers were understood to be less likely to get promotions because they missed the chance to impress/socialize with the people who held that power, as well as missing the chance to network with their smoking peers. I know someone who was very career focused who took up smoking so that those opportunities would not be missed.
Excluding yourself from a network of your peers, wether you made the reason known (anti-my-religion) or not (anti-social-snob) could easily be career limiting for years to come.
Posted by: kodiak | July 8, 2008 5:02 PM
Trinifar wrote:
Which is pretty much exactly what I said, that Christianity had been changed by mixing with the Enlightenment in the West; Islam has yet to do so. But yes, that actually changes the religion itself. It leads to reinterpreting basic ideas and, obviously, leads to enormous changes in actual behavior. And that is why it is silly to call them equal.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 8, 2008 5:13 PM
khefera: Thanks for the clarification on that policy.
kodiak: That "smoking room" story is stomach-turning, and sadly, not that surprising.
Posted by: CHV | July 8, 2008 5:39 PM
>> That the Christian fundamentalists may not be as ubiquitously violent as the Islamic ones is more likely due to their being subsumed into a different culture and system of government as having anything to do with the religion itself. >>
Trinifar, why do you bother arguing when you have no clue what you are talking about? That assertion is not only ignorant, but completely stupid. It reflects more on your bigotry toward Christianity than anything vaguely resembling the truth. Read:
Islam:
"Allah has sent you from your homes to fight for the Cause. Allah wished to confirm the truth by his words: wipe the Infidels out to the last. I shall fill the hearts of the Infidels with terror! So smite them on their necks and every joint, and incapacitate them, for they are opposed to Allah and His Apostle. Whoever opposes Us should know that Allah is severe in retribution. The Infidels will taste the torment of Hell. So when you meet them in battle do not retreat, for all who turn away from fighting will bring the wrath of Allah on themselves and their abode will be Hell. It was not you who killed them, but Allah who did so. You did not throw what you threw. Allah did to bring out the best in the faithful."
Christianity:
"But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again. And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."
Islam:
"So, fight them till all opposition ends and Islam is the only religion."
Christianity:
"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High;"
Islam:
"Those who barter their life in this world for the next should fight in the way of Allah; whether he is killed or victorious, a glorious reward awaits." "Urge the believers to fight...to keep back the might of the Infidels." "Seize them and kill them wherever they are." "Muslims who sit idle are not equal to those who fight in Allah's Cause with their wealth and lives. Allah has exalted those who fight for Islam."
Christianity:
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
Islam:
"Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace."
Christianity:
Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. 'Teacher,' he said, 'what must I do to inherit eternal life?' He said to him, 'What is written in the law? What do you read there?'
He answered, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.'
Hopefully the ignorance of your statement is a little more clear trinifar.
Posted by: mroberts | July 8, 2008 6:31 PM
Yes, mroberts, I'm sure your choosing the most violent of passages from the Koran and the most friendly passages from the Bible will be more than enough to persuade everyone here that Christianity is the superior religion. The complete lack of citation only makes it more convincing.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 8, 2008 6:37 PM
Gretchen you're about as ignorant and bigotted as trinifar apparently. Find me a passage where Jesus says to go kill all people who don't believe in Christianity. You won't find one. But there are TONS in the Qu'ran that say kill all unbelievers. All the Christian quotes are from the New Testament and all the Muslim quotes are from the Koran. Look 'em up. Your bigotry is astounding to me. You'll honestly believe anything - no matter how untrue it is - just to satisfy your bigotry toward Christianity.
Posted by: mroberts | July 8, 2008 6:43 PM
mroberts,
I think you know quite well that there are plenty of instance in the Bible in which God's children are directed to kill unbelievers. And last I checked, Christians follow the Bible. If we were to restrict it to the words of Jesus himself, you're right that we would not find such a command. However, we would find more mentions of hellfire than promises of heaven. If you'd bother to read the Gospels yourself, you'd notice that Jesus was hardly all flowers and "love your neighbor."
I am clearly not claiming that if you match the Bible against the Koran, the Bible will have more violent passages. However, it is obviously true that you cherry picked the nicest-sounding Biblical passages to match up against the nastiest-sounding ones in the Koran. Don't pretend otherwise-- the fact that you call me a bigot for pointing out such obvious duplicity is....well, like cutting the quills off a porcupine and calling it a cat.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 8, 2008 6:54 PM
For crying out loud, there are plenty of verses in the Bible that justify the slaughter of others. Numbers 31 is my personal favorite, where God orders the wholesale murder of an entire civilization (the Midianites) for the "crime" of two Midianite women "tempting" Israelite men to worship different gods. Actually, it wasn't the entire civilization that was murdered; they kept alive the virgin women and handed them out to the soldiers as the spoils of war (something even Adolf Hitler did not do). And all this at the direct order of God (allegedly; I don't believe that, of course). Yes I know, many Christians like to pretend that the New Testament changed everything but given that many of these commands are attributed directly to God himself, that really doesn't fly. Thomas Jefferson was absolutely right when he condemned the God of the bible as "cruel, capricious, vindictive and unjust." And saying that is not "bigotry" it is a perfectly reasonable view.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 8, 2008 7:13 PM
>> I think you know quite well that there are plenty of instance in the Bible in which God's children are directed to kill unbelievers. >.
No, God directs the Israelites to kill the enemies occupying or invading their land. Sorry, but that is different. Even Christians are justified in killing to defend themselves or their property. That is not the same as killing all people who disagree with you or don't believe what you believe. God even directed the Jews to treat the alien in their lands with the utmost respect.
>> However, we would find more mentions of hellfire than promises of heaven. If you'd bother to read the Gospels yourself, you'd notice that Jesus was hardly all flowers and "love your neighbor." >>
Penalty for sinful behavior, ie breaking God's laws, is not the same as ordering people to kill all who are unbelievers. Your ignorance is again showing through Gretchen.
>> However, it is obviously true that you cherry picked the nicest-sounding Biblical passages to match up against the nastiest-sounding ones in the Koran. Don't pretend otherwise-- the fact that you call me a bigot for pointing out such obvious duplicity is....well, like cutting the quills off a porcupine and calling it a cat. >>
Nobody is pretending anything, except maybe you pretending you know what you are talking about. My post pointed out the doctrinal differences between Christianity and Islam that refuted what trinifar posted. Christianity does NOT preach that Christians are to kill all unbelievers. Nowhere in the Bible will you find that command. Islam, however, DOES. Maybe then you can conclude that Christianity is not violent because it DOES NOT PREACH VIOLENCE.
And your statement that Christians follow every letter of the Bible is pure ignorance as well.
Posted by: mroberts | July 8, 2008 7:16 PM
>> For crying out loud, there are plenty of verses in the Bible that justify the slaughter of others. Numbers 31 is my personal favorite, where God orders the wholesale murder of an entire civilization (the Midianites) for the "crime" of two Midianite women "tempting" Israelite men to worship different gods. >>
Not true, that wasn't what triggered it. Both nations were already enemies at that point. Numbers 22 onward documents increasing hostility between the two nations, which were initially at peace. Moses was friendly with Midian because he had settled there for many years. There is more to the story than just a few verses.
Posted by: mroberts | July 8, 2008 7:29 PM
moroberts said:
Err.....did I ever say it was?
Not on the part of humans, no. Rather, Christianity leaves the violence up to God. I don't mind being threatened with hellfire nearly as much as I would mind being slaughtered in the name of someone's god, because I know that the former is an empty threat.
1) At no point did I say that Christians follow "every letter" of the Bible. I'm well aware that they do not, however loudly many of them claim to, and attempt to force others to do.
2)I love that you're attempting to use the fact that Christians are deficient in following the Bible as a defense. You might as well say "Yes, this book tells us to do terrible things....but we don't really follow it that well, so how dare you accuse us of having an immoral religion!"
Posted by: Gretchen | July 8, 2008 7:37 PM
>> 1) At no point did I say that Christians follow "every letter" of the Bible. I'm well aware that they do not, however loudly many of them claim to, and attempt to force others to do.
2)I love that you're attempting to use the fact that Christians are deficient in following the Bible as a defense. You might as well say "Yes, this book tells us to do terrible things....but we don't really follow it that well, so how dare you accuse us of having an immoral religion!" >>
Again, you missed the point. Christians are not SUPPOSED to follow every letter of the Bible. Much of the Bible is Jewish civil and ceremonial directed at the ancient nation of Israel. As a modern Christian in America, why would I be required to abide by ancient Jewish civil and ceremonial law?
>> Not on the part of humans, no. Rather, Christianity leaves the violence up to God. I don't mind being threatened with hellfire nearly as much as I would mind being slaughtered in the name of someone's god, because I know that the former is an empty threat. >>
Well, if there really is a God and he truly created us, then it can be expected that we would be required to obey his rules. I hope that is not shocking to you. Also, he who makes life has the right to take it away when that life disobeys his laws. That should not be shocking either.
>> Penalty for sinful behavior, ie breaking God's laws, is not the same as ordering people to kill all who are unbelievers.
Err.....did I ever say it was? >>
No you didn't directly say that but you seemed to imply in your previous post that Jesus proclaiming eternal penalty for sin was somehow equivalent to Islam telling believers to kill unbelievers. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
Posted by: mroberts | July 8, 2008 7:44 PM
Re mroberts
1. Let's see, I seem to recall that god got rather pissed at Saul when the latter neglected to kill all the Amalekites as ordered. According to the Hebrew bible, Saul visited the witch at Endor, ordering her to bring up the prophet Samuel at which time the latter informed Saul that Yahweh was going to make it his business to see that the Israelites would lose the battle on the morrow and Saul and his sons would leave the field feet first. What a nice guy!
2. We also have the case of Joshua, allegedly Joshua of Nazereths' ancestor, who, when the walls of Jericho came tumbling down, marched into the town and put the inhabitants therein to the sword, on Yehwehs' orders. Prince of a fellow that Yahweh.
3. If Mr. mroberts wants to argue that the Christian successors to the Hebrews were better behaved, we should note what happened at the Protestant City of Magdeburg during the 30 years war. There, the Catholic army, after a lengthy siege, occupied the town and put the inhabitants to the sword, just like old Joshua at Jericho.
The fact is that the Hebrew bible is just as bloodthirsty and vile as the Quran and the Book of Revelations in the Christian bible isn't much better.
Posted by: SLC | July 8, 2008 7:46 PM
Once again, Mr. mroberts hijacks a thread which started out as a comment on religious services at the Naval Academy and segues into a discussion of the relative merits of Christianity and Islam. IMHO, neither of them have any merit whatsoever as there is not a shred of scientific evidence for the existence of god or allah so the discussion is pointless.
Posted by: SLC | July 8, 2008 8:02 PM
mroberts wrote:
Truly you have a talent for skipping over everything relevant and focusing on the irrelevant minutiae. It doesn't matter what triggered it; what matters is the utterly barbaric command of God to kill everyone in Midian except the virgin females and to give them to the soldiers. Even Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot didn't do that, for god's sake.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 8, 2008 8:03 PM
mrroberts -
You remind me of Chuck Wepner, able to beat-up the club fighters (that'd be your typical southern baptist church elder who knows the earth is 6000 years old), but also perfectly happy to get bled to death by a thousand cuts when going up against fighters with a clue. A masochist streak perhaps?
The authors/editors of the Bible have God commanding that Israelites take over areas they had no previous claim over during their Exodus out of Egypt, land they claimed he promised them but had been occupied for generations by others, contrary to your claim they were merely defending their land - they were the invaders, and besides, how does that justify the slaughter or slavery of innocents?
It's stuff like your previous comments here that lends to Dawkins' argument that many conservative Christians are seriously deluded. I have not wanted to believe that instead leaning towards their being virulently ignorant - even regarding their own Bible as you prove here in this thread. But you are a great sample size of one that Dawkins is correct (not to mention the Ray Comfort websites, Albert Mohler, OneWorldNews, WorldNetDaily, etc., etc., etc. etc., so my overall sample size is much much bigger than one).
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 8, 2008 8:06 PM
moroberts:
Well gee, I would've thought because Jesus (an ancient Jew himself, if you will recall) told you to do so. But again, if you're not concerned about following the Bible then I suppose that would be of no consequence.
Shocking? Of course not; I've seen this idea presented countless times. Horrifyingly unjust? Without question-- a creator tyrant is hardly disqualified from being a tyrant.
However, this is not a thread about theology and I have no interest in being drawn into some endless discussion about it. The point is simply that if you're going to claim that Islam is a more violent and hateful religion than Christianity, you should do so honestly rather than by picking the texts that most kindly present your own religion and most harshly present the other.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 8, 2008 8:14 PM
>> Truly you have a talent for skipping over everything relevant and focusing on the irrelevant minutiae. It doesn't matter what triggered it; what matters is the utterly barbaric command of God to kill everyone in Midian except the virgin females and to give them to the soldiers. Even Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot didn't do that, for god's sake. >>
Yes, total war is a little unpalatable these days, especially to lefties, but that is what it looked like. Kill or be killed. Destroy so that your enemy can't come back and destroy you later. Our own nation practiced it in WWII with the bombing of German and Japanese cities. Actually the original command was to kill everybody, but the soldiers disobeyed, and the women who had not slept with anybody were allowed to live. And don't get the wrong impression about what that means - it doesn't mean what you probably think it does. There are Jewish ceremonial implications there about which I am not as familiar, but it does NOT mean what Ed implied.
>> The authors/editors of the Bible have God commanding that Israelites take over areas they had no previous claim over during their Exodus out of Egypt, land they claimed he promised them but had been occupied for generations by others, contrary to your claim they were merely defending their land - they were the invaders, and besides, how does that justify the slaughter or slavery of innocents? >>
Bullcrap. They moved out due to famine and somebody else moved in. Why is it surprising they would want to come back and take back what was theirs before? They had more of a claim to that land than the people who came after they left.
>> You remind me of Chuck Wepner, able to beat-up the club fighters (that'd be your typical southern baptist church elder who knows the earth is 6000 years old), but also perfectly happy to get bled to death by a thousand cuts when going up against fighters with a clue. A masochist streak perhaps? >>
Heath, you give yourself way to much credit. I have seen my share of ignorance on this blog, like the post that started this whole discussion. The assertion that Christianity is somehow as violent as Islam is just plain ignorant and stupid, regardless of the wrangling over the war passages in the OT.
Posted by: mroberts | July 8, 2008 8:25 PM
For those arguing that modern-day Christianity is a more "enlightened" religion than modern-day Islam, PZ has the scoop that may change your mind.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php#more
Posted by: Saint Onan | July 8, 2008 8:39 PM
Oh, mroberts, you're such a card. Your self-righteous indignation and half-demented ramblings are always good for a laugh.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 8, 2008 8:41 PM
If you throw out an old rocking chair, and somebody tosses it in the back of their pickup truck and takes it home, you generally can't enforce a claim to it.
In many U.S. jurisdictions, if you abandon a house and fail to keep up the property taxes, someone else can move in, catch up on the taxes, and you have only a limited amount of time to return and reclaim your property (which requires compensating them for the taxes they paid) before you have irrevocably lost it to them.
So, mroberts, once again you're just plain wrong. But still amusing, a bit like Thurston Howell II on Gilligan's Island. Self-righteous and foolish, but amusing.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 8, 2008 8:49 PM
mroberts wrote:
Kill or be killed, destroy or be destroyed....except for the hot virgin chicks, you mean. This is something that even Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the most brutal of modern dictators would not do. And your god explicitly commanded it.
Actually the original command was to kill everybody, but the soldiers disobeyed, and the women who had not slept with anybody were allowed to live. And don't get the wrong impression about what that means - it doesn't mean what you probably think it does. There are Jewish ceremonial implications there about which I am not as familiar, but it does NOT mean what Ed implied.Here is the actual text:
Telling the soldiers to keep the virgin women alive for themselves has "Jewish ceremonial implications"? Is rape a Jewish ceremony now? Oh, wait, I know, they didn't rape them, they married them; I've heard that one before too. As if being forced to marry a man who just killed your entire family was somehow distinguishable from rape. You can wave your hands and tap dance all you want, but this is barbarism beyond anything that even Hitler could think of. And it was ordered by God through Moses according to your "inerrant" Bible. There is no way to justify it and no way to excuse it. If I hadn't read such barbarism, I would still be a Christian today.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 8, 2008 10:07 PM
>> For those arguing that modern-day Christianity is a more "enlightened" religion than modern-day Islam, PZ has the scoop that may change your mind.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php#more >>
Love how "enlightened" this post is. Saint Onan characterizes this as modern day Christianity, yet it is only really true for Catholicism. Protestants do not believe that the cracker is actually the physical body of Christ as Catholics do. Do a little more homework before you attempt to characterize all of Christianity that way.
Posted by: mroberts | July 8, 2008 10:13 PM
Destroy so that your enemy can't come back and destroy you later. Our own nation practiced it in WWII with the bombing of German and Japanese cities.
Actually, no, the bombing of German and Japanese cities was not as thorough an extermination as what was commanded in the Bible. Neither was the German bombing of London. The bombing of cities in WWII was intended to destroy economic power and morale, not to exterminate entire populations -- which, in fact, they never even came close to doing.
In addition to showing your weak grasp of recent history, mroberts, you sink your credibility even further when Gretchen points out your lack of any citation for any of your Bible or Koran quotes, and you immediately respond by calling her "ignorant and bigotted" ("bigot" is spelled with only one "T", BTW). (And that was AFTER she took your side in an earlier thread!) Both Christians and atheists are well known for taking Bible verses WAY out of their context, and thus hiding their real meaning; so it was perfectly reasonable for Gretchen to call you out on that point; and not at all reasonable for you to respond with nothing but name-calling.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 8, 2008 11:00 PM
Ed, you are so full of yourself it is unbelievable. But I guess you have to be since you're the big shot on this blog.
>> Kill or be killed, destroy or be destroyed....except for the hot virgin chicks, you mean. This is something that even Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the most brutal of modern dictators would not do. And your god explicitly commanded it. >>
Ridiculous statement. God commanded the Israelites to destroy the Midianites because they were horrendously corrupt and were the enemies of Israel. In the middle east of those days - and even now - you utterly destroyed your enemies or they would destroy you. Moses was likely angry at the women being spared because earlier verses indicate that the Midianite were involved in a scheme to corrupt the men of Israel. Maybe that doesn't seem like a big deal to you, but to them it was. As for the utterly STUPID allegation of rape - not only are you displaying your pathetic ignorance of biblical history, but also your bigotry toward the Bible in general. The passage says nothing about rape or sex, first of all. Second of all, rape is absolutely illegal in Jewish society. Third, the "virgin" reference likely referred more to age, in other words designating only that young girls were to be kept. Or it could have referred to the women who were NOT involved in the aforementioned scheme, which involved sex. Fourth, they most likely were taken into a form of servitude, as was common with conquered people in those days. And if you aren't TOO incredibly ignorant, you would realize - O enlightened Ed - that such servitude was NOT slavery. Such servants were required to be treated very well and were usually able to work off their debt and obtain freedom. It is possible they were not taken into that state at all, but simply raised as normal citizens.
>> Telling the soldiers to keep the virgin women alive for themselves has "Jewish ceremonial implications"? Is rape a Jewish ceremony now? Oh, wait, I know, they didn't rape them, they married them; I've heard that one before too. As if being forced to marry a man who just killed your entire family was somehow distinguishable from rape. >>
Utterly stupid. Nowhere does it even say anything about marriage or rape, but YOU are reading that into it. Reading into the text is not the same as truly understanding what it means.
>> There is no way to justify it and no way to excuse it. If I hadn't read such barbarism, I would still be a Christian today. >>
I think you came to your conclusion about Christianity before you even read this stuff. What you are posting does not even remotely relate to the text, so I hardly think you made a decision on Christianity based on what the Bible says.
Posted by: mroberts | July 8, 2008 11:20 PM
OK, so then what does this mean?
Posted by: lharris | July 8, 2008 11:40 PM
Bee, you never got back to me on the other thread about what kind of things you read. Honestly, I am curious.
Posted by: mroberts | July 8, 2008 11:41 PM
OK, I see:
Posted by: lharris | July 8, 2008 11:42 PM
"Fourth, they most likely were taken into a form of servitude, as was common with conquered people in those days. ... Such servants were required to be treated very well and were usually able to work off their debt and obtain freedom."
What kind of debt does being part of a conquered people incur?
Posted by: jba | July 9, 2008 1:19 AM
Two quick comments:
Ed, you keep referring to the survivors of this genocide and rape as women, but the book itself referred to them as children. I know you don't mean anything bad by it, but calling them adults sanitizes the act in a way I don't think it deserves.
...
This is so stupid. Why is it that God's commandments always exactly match the culture of the time? He's fucking god for fuck's sake. Yet the best he can do is exactly what everyone would expect him to, given the time the pronouncement was made?
Oohh. Impressive. Miracles abound.
(Although, I have to say. God should have had this pronouncement come from the shrubbery instead. At least that would have been surprising.)
Posted by: Leni | July 9, 2008 1:35 AM
mroberts wrote:
What I find hilarious is that you claim that my arguments don't relate to the text, yet you say things like this that clearly show that you are projecting. The text explicitly says "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." It says nothing about age, it specifies those who have not slept with men, virgins. You keep blustering and calling me names, but you're utterly ignorant of your own Bible - even after I posted the text for you.
Again you show your ignorance of the very bible you claim to believe in. There are two types of slavery in the Bible, spelled out clearly in Leviticus 25. The kind of slaves who could work off their debt and obtain their freedom were their fellow Hebrews who got into slavery because of their debt. They were generally freed in a year of jubilee. But slaves that were taken from the "heathen" - you know, like the Midianites and those of other nations around them that they hated - were specifically not able to buy their own freedom, they were wholly owned and were inherited from generation to generation. Again I'll quote your own bible to you:
It is only their brethren from Israel that they are told to treat with kindness; the permanent slaves taken from other peoples could be treated any way they liked. You really should try reading your own bible.
I love how presumptuous you are. This is, in fact, exactly what led me to reject Christianity. At one time I was president of the local Youth for Christ. It was the utter barbarism of the Old Testament that changed my mind. You can dispute that all you want, but it remains true. Your rejection of my story only fits with your rejection of reality in general.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 9, 2008 1:36 AM
Let's face it: the first part of the Hebrew Scriptures tries to justify a violent land grab. Saying "God gave it to us" is an attempt to rationalize the Hebrew invasion. The rest of the Hebrew Scriptures tries to rationalize the reason why Israel and Judah were conquered by other nations. "You fucked up and god took it away from you."
Somewhere on the internets I read today a quote from a fundie that said that the First Amendment establishment clause just meant that we could worship Jesus in our own way. It didn't apply to non-christians.
Posted by: wrpd | July 9, 2008 3:14 AM
As opposed to Muslims, who apparently are supposed to follow every letter of the Qur'an.
And that was the best solution an all-knowing, all-powerful being could come up with? Small minds worship small gods, it seems.
Posted by: MartinM | July 9, 2008 8:39 AM
mroberts: I've read so much different stuff I couldn't even begin to list it all in a coherent blog-comment. As for periodicals, I read the Economist (as much as I have time, it's packed with info and I'm not a speed-reader), Salon, the Washington Post, Mother Jones, and occasional bits of New Scientist. Ask me again next year, and you'll probably get a somewhat different answer -- brand-loyalty only goes so far when it comes to my reading list.
So what do YOU read? Judging by the way this thread has gone for you, it ain't the Bible. Or recent history...
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 9, 2008 8:49 AM
In the middle east of those days - and even now - you utterly destroyed your enemies or they would destroy you.
Really? When was the last time any nation was actually ABLE to "utterly destroy" its enemies, let alone profit from it? Seems to me the regimes that did that sort of thing the most were the ones that either got crushed by a united front of their enemies (Hitler, Saddam, Milosevic, Pol Pot, Pahlavi), or just fell apart due to sheer insanity and incompetence (USSR & Co.).
Hell, WE certainly didn't guarantee our own security that way -- in WWII, we did just the opposite. The world is a safer, freer place because we helped our former enemies to become free, prosperous and stable. Even if we COULD have "utterly destroyed" both Germany and Japan, that would not have got us a better result than what we have today.
And if you actually knew anything about the rise of Islam -- as opposed to just repasting Koran snippets from the right-wing dittosphere -- you would know that Mohammed got similar results: in the tribal warfare of his time, the custom had been to exterminate conquered towns; but Mohammed was more magnanimous than that in his victories, which is one reason why Islam became so popular. As barbaric as Muslim conquerors may have been, they were an improvement over what went before them. Most competent imperialists (including the Romans) understand that real power comes from putting people to work, not destroying them.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 9, 2008 9:08 AM
"Protestants do not believe that the cracker is actually the physical body of Christ as Catholics do."
No, Catholics don't believe the consecrated cracker to be the physical body of Jesus. His body, yes, but not in a physical sense (it's obvious even for a pope that a piece of bread doesn't turn into a piece of meat). Now, don't ask me to explain this kind of metaphysical word-juggling. But the point is that the sentence quoted above is wrong.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 9, 2008 9:52 AM
mroberts said,
"Do a little more homework before you attempt to characterize all of Christianity that way."
Just a quick question for you, mroberts. Who died and made you Arbiter of the True Faith?
Posted by: ZacharySmith | July 9, 2008 10:37 AM
Ed said:
Or maybe insult a cracker?
Posted by: BaldApe | July 10, 2008 10:09 PM