rightwingers cant get over that ellison pwned them, appropriated jefferson and came out looking like the hero
that's good politics, son, stop crying over spilled milk
besides, if you're going to say that jefferson was anti-Quran and ellison was wrong to rely on jefferson's quran to make his statement, you also have to acknowledge that everyone who swears on the bible is anti-jeffersonian as well, because, my friend, jefferson hated the bible far more than he hated the quran. hell, he even rewrote a 'reasonable' version of the bible.
Yet the simple fact is that the Hitchens article itself, and this collection of Jefferson's anti-Christian writings establish, that Jefferson would have had ridiculous problems with all forms of Biblical Christianity in the political sphere (i.e. with the religious right including dolts like Virgil Goode who want to use the regular Bible in swearing ceremonies). Yet, does LGF bother to mention that part of the Hitchens article or Jefferson's history?
Jefferson had a copy of the Koran not because he was religiously tolerant but rather, as any good strategist would tell you, to know your enemy is to know their culture.
Poppycock. Jefferson purchased his copy of the Sale's Koran (the first genuine translation of the work into English) from a printshop in the 1760's. The idea that Jefferson viewed Muslims as enemies (or Islam is The Enemy) in 1765 has no evidence whatever. Prove your assertion or retract it.
Jefferson owned a copy of a translation of the Koran because his library was a working law library and the book was part of his collection on law, religion, and ethics. Although not particularly religious himself Jefferson was a true man of the Enlightenment and had a lively interest in all important human activities of which religion was one. Intellectuals of Jefferson's time had particular interest in non-Christian religions.
I find it very odd that people seem to think I said that Jefferson felt Islam was the enemy.
I find it odd because I never said it. And you people think I should go read something you suggest that will prove I'm wrong?
You can't even read properly what I wrote!
But Dave is correct about Jefferson purchasing a Koran in the 1760's.
That still doesn't detract from my main point. Jefferson didn't keep a Koran because he was religiously tolerant. He was well read on most religions. And that Jefferson would use the Koran in determining his strategies with the Barbary pirates makes perfect sense in light of his conversations with the Tripolitan Ambassador.
What even further attacks the fallacy of Jefferson's respect of Islam is where he kept the book itself within his library. The order of his religious books went from the pagan to moral. Starting with books about things like Greek and Roman gods, then the Koran and ended with his larger volume of Jewish and Christian material. The order of his books was significant. Jefferson held the Koran in a lower regard than Jewish and Christian works.
In the March 22, 2004 edition of the journal Early American Literature, Kevin J. Hayes wrote a piece titled “How Thomas Jefferson read the Qur’an”. He notes about the order of Jefferson's books:
The idea of progress underlies Jefferson’s organization of his religious books, and the list suggests a general progression from pagan to Christian.
…
The organization of the library catalogue implies that the Islamic belief system was an improvement over the pagan religions yet fell short of the belief system Christianity represented.
According to the laws of the time, Jefferson didn't hate Islam, but he did hate piracy and the states that supported it.
In those days, people weren't criticized for being Muslims, but they were shot on sight if they were identified as pirates.
Hundreds of years ago, we were able to separate religion from politics, we were able to tell the difference between the gangsters who hid behind holy books and the nonviolent, peaceful believers.
It's not clear why we have difficulty with the concept now?
I recently finished reading The Pirate Coast by Richard Zacks which gives a good history of the diplomatic actions and one specific military action taken by the United States. It paints the French, British, other Europeans and, to an extent, Jefferson as appeasers of the Barbary Pirates, essentially giving in to terrorist demands.
According to the book,the so-called "alliance" between Tripoli and Britain mentioned by Kevin above was actually more of a protection racket where the Basha collected tribute payments in exchange for free passage.
In response to a comment:
Hundreds of years ago, we were able to separate religion from politics, we were able to tell the difference between the gangsters who hid behind holy books and the nonviolent, peaceful believers.
I don't know how anyone can make this statement with a straight face. Hundreds of years ago, every country in the world had a state-sanctioned religion that, in many instance, was enforced by the government. Even in the United States, without a state-sanctioned religion, religion nonetheless was inseparably intertwined with politics. Can you imagine a Catholic, Mormon or Jew being elected President prior to 1950?
It's not clear why we have difficulty with the concept now?
But you're coming from the position that the Islamic faith is inherently peaceful. Jefferson reported to Congress that the ambassador to Britain from the Dey of Algiers stated to him personally that Islam "...was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners..."
If Jefferson said this why would you think he felt that Islam was a peaceful faith? At the very least Jefferson could assume that the pirates' interpretation of Islam encouraged their violent behavior. Why would he then ignore this?
If a people are reading violence into a peaceful text, and you're on the receiving end of that violence, wouldn't it behoove you to try to understand the text as they do? Even if you feel their reading is faulty?
Jefferson wasn't dealing with peaceful Muslims. He was dealing with Muslims that felt their piracy was advocated by the Koran.
According to the book,the so-called "alliance" between Tripoli and Britain mentioned by Kevin above was actually more of a protection racket where the Basha collected tribute payments in exchange for free passage.
You are correct. I should have used stronger terms. It wasn't an "alliance" England and France entered into willingly with open arms. A gun was very much at their head.
I don't know how anyone can make this statement with a straight face. Hundreds of years ago, every country in the world had a state-sanctioned religion that, in many instance, was enforced by the government.
If Jefferson said this why would you think he felt that Islam was a peaceful faith? At the very least Jefferson could assume that the pirates' interpretation of Islam encouraged their violent behavior. Why would he then ignore this?
I can only interpret Jefferson's beliefs by interpreting his actions. His actions, and the laws he enforced suggest that he realized that the Koran may have been used to motivate certain deeds and actions. He also understood that the deeds and actions were the problem, not the Koran.
Some (most) pirates were motivated by greed, some were motivated by Islam. When you're trying to figure out how to wage a war and win it, motivation is only one factor. Strategy and tactics are more important. Finding the enemy's strategic weak points, striking them down whenever it was possible to do so were more important to Jefferson than waging an 'ideological' war. That's why he won.
Is Islam a religion of peace that has been hijacked or a religion of war that needs to be reformed?
If we accept Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja's statement it would seem to be the latter.
Which means a lot of what Mohamed did re: hudna with the Quaresh and lots of other stuff must be condemned in some fashion. i.e. he was wrong from the start or that does not apply today or his later understanding of the will of the Maker was wrong or some other construct.
In any case it is going to be a hard sell to a lot of Muslims it seems to me.
Morale has always been the most important factors in war. Clauzwitz said that morale was 3 times as important as material factors.
He may have had the number wrong (it could be as high as 10 today, it is always much higher than even that in a guerilla war), but the idea is correct.
Morale has always been the most important factors in war.
Morale usually improves when the majority of the population isn't appalled by the stupidity and ineffectiveness of the strategy.
Jefferson and, eventually, the western world, successfully fought a war against an enemy which was basically fighting asymetrically. It wasn't the same as the war we're fighting now, but there were a lot of similarities.
How they won - that's what we should be learning from history.
Jefferson WAS a religious man, but he insisted on keeping it very private. He religiously attended religious services.
"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others."
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378
"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine."
—Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198
I have copies of Mein Kampf and Das Kapital in my library. No one should make any assumptions about why they are there, unless I say why they were there.
meh
jefferson detested all religion. witness the separation of church and state.
when did hitch turn moron?
And here's a tradition worth inaugurating: The Quran repeats and plagiarizes many passages of the New Testament, including some of the most fantastic and mythical ones.
lol.
i think the jews should sue the christians for copyright infringement. ;)
kevin, u still dont get it. ALL religions are supposed to do good-- all are easily exploitable to do bad. competition, dude, all religions are CSS's.
also, u all need to get over the whole the pirates analogy.
i explained before, the pirates were seperable from the host populations they preyed on. the terrorists aren't. we cant cut their supply lines and burn them out.
im going back to the World [of warcraft]. u all depress me with ur continuous and unchanging inability to read.
Good grief. Jefferson took a razor to the New Testament to excise out all the parts (essentially, all the religious doctrines) he thought were ridiculous or evil. Clearly, Jefferson was not a Biblical literalist and did not believe that just because you are of a religion that you dogmatically accept everything its holy book says in the most aggressive interpretation possible.
Jefferson would have had no problem understanding that Muslims could be just as diverse in their interpretation of their religion as he and many of his fellows were about Christianity.
kevin, u still dont get it. ALL religions are supposed to do good-- all are easily exploitable to do bad. competition, dude, all religions are CSS's.
Know of any Buddhists that drive airplanes into buildings? Ever met a Mormon suicide bomber? Heard about those Baha'i folks kidnapping people and sawing their heads off? Notice any Christians rioting over a bunch of line drawings?
Hmmm... It's almost like there's something ... different ...
Know of any Buddhists that drive airplanes into buildings
well, Christians did Lockerbie.
Ever met a Mormon suicide bomber?
no, but I've heard of Japanese ones. Plus I'm pretty sure the people who firebombed innocents at Dresden and nuked Hiroshima werent muslim.
Heard about those Baha'i folks kidnapping people and sawing their heads off?
Hmm. robespierre comes to mind. Ah and of course there was that whole little obsession with hanging folks from trees or dragging them behind a pickup with chains from a while back.
Notice any Christians rioting over a bunch of line drawings?
aiieee! nuance! If you want to play with ludicrously simple sterotypes, it's your choice. Dont complain when you get cut. Otherwise, we adults will be having a serious discussion, which you're welcome to join if you demonstrate a modicum of due diligence. ok pumkin' ?
After gratuitous slam after gratuitous slam after gratuitous slam at the man's faith, with stupid generalizations and historically inaccurate assertions thrown around like candy at a parade, the man gets sarcastic--and gets criticized for not being adult enough.
Adults do not discuss someone else's faith in the manner a lot of you people are doing it. It's really revolting to watch. And then you think "why is Dean being so rude?" Cripes.
This has become one of those "Christian terrorists commit just as much acts of violence as Muslim terrorists" posts? Sheesh.
Our founding father's had a variety of opinions on many issues. Regarding Islam, I'm sure Jefferson did not approve of Mohammad's claim to bring divine law, and he certainly distained the concept of a caliphate ruled by religious a order.
We don't know much about how the founding fathers thought about Muslim theology in general, save for John Q. Adam's scathing criticism of Islam, which was shared by his father, also a devout Christian. JQA once wrote of Mohammad (propellor beanie upon him):
He [Mohammad] poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adam's capital letters)
Nice way to change the subject. Now we're on Adams, who, as a Christian of his era, was unsurprisingly rabidly anti-Muslim. Unlike Thomas Jefferson, who was not. So this proves everything!
Watch how the pattern will go round and round again, too:
A) One person says something unbelievably obnoxious and rude and shallow about Islam.
B) Another person will get sarcastic in response, and be attacked for being sarcastic.
C) A third person says something shallow and obnoxious and deeply ignorant about Islam.
D) A fourth person says something equally shallow and obnoxious about Christianity or Judaism, just to make a point, not because they actually believe what they're saying. They are then immediately accused of having it in for Christianity and Judaism, and/or of drawing a "moral equivalency."
Notice who's actually being obnoxious and prejudiced and intellectually shallow here. It's not hard to figure out.
Let's see, the very first sentence of the very first comment on this thread says...
"rightwingers cant get over that ellison pwned them, appropriated jefferson and came out looking like the hero"
...and who said that again?
I don't have a dog in this particular fight. But if you're interested and want to read a very good history of the war against the Barbary pirates, check out "Six Frigates" by Ian Toll. It covers the diplomacy and policy debates that went on during the period of that war - which was mostly a naval action - and the war of 1812. The book centers around the creation of the US Navy and the building of it's first capital ships - the six original frigates. One of the six still exists today and is the oldest commissioned naval vessel afloat* - the USS Constitution.
(*The oldest commissioned naval vessel anywhere is HMS Victory. However, Victory is no longer "afloat".)
encore une fois aziz, pirates had resupply and ship fitting and repair in dens of iniquity like tortuga. they were not integrated with the populations they preyed on.
eg, harboring pirates was a hanging offense with the Kings Navy.
mary's analogy still sucks, and if even a cretin like spencer can see the flaw in it, she should be certainly be ashamed to keep dragging it out.
the christofacists and the atheofacists are exactly equivalent. Dawkins and his ilk are deluded to believe they can eradicate religion by bellowing about awful it is, and the christofacists are deluded to believe they can eradicate Islam by bellowing about how awful it is. Neither strategy can ever work.
All religions have parts that are good. we need to exploit the good in religions, be opportunistic and use the power lever.
I require an iPhone. You will acquire one for me by any means necessary. Preferably using a baseball bat. 'Cuz, simply buying one isn't nearly evil enough. Unless you stole someone's high interest credit card. And used aforementioned baseball bat to do so.
the christofacists and the atheofacists are exactly equivalent. Dawkins and his ilk are deluded to believe they can eradicate religion by bellowing about awful it is, and the christofacists are deluded to believe they can eradicate Islam by bellowing about how awful it is.
Maybe the "christofascists" and "atheofascists" could learn a thing or two from the "Islamofascists" and actually try blowing up shit, rather than bellowing, if they really wanted to eradicate other religions.
Good point Jimmy. Christofacists simply are not living up to their "facist" moniker. Matoko points that out well. We should really get old school and get our Inquisition on. Because, you know, as motoko points out, using our free speech to debate issues simply isn't getting it done. If Muslims can shut down free speech in response to cartoons of Muhammad then I have to believe we Christians can reach down deep and shut down free speech about our faith. Maybe we should start beheading those that insult us. I don't think everyone should though. Only a few percent. That way we can deny that our religion inspires hate while reaping in the benefits of not having our religion critically looked at.
So, thank you Matoko-chan. You've shown me the error of my ways. Talking about Islam doesn't get it done. Free speech and open debate doesn't get it done. I guess we'll have to take the next step, huh?
meh
jefferson detested all religion. witness the separation of church and state.
Funny that doesn't appear anywhere within the Constitution. What's even funnier is the weight it is given that Jefferson neither helped author nor signed the Constitution or the Articles of Confederation.
So, Jefferson's "seperation of church and state," and your gross misrepresentation of it, has the legal weight of a fart in the wind.
How about we take a look at the man that did come up with the wording that was agreed upon for the 1st Amendment - Fisher Aimes. Writing in Pladium magazine in January 1801,
"We have trouble in the classrooms, we are putting in new text books. Nothing wrong with new books but we are spending more time on them than the Bible; it is drifting to the back of the classroom. We cannot tolerate this in American education. The Bible's morals are pure, its examples are captivating and noble."
It would seem that the man that actually authored the wording of the 1st Amendment seems to feel it may mean something else Jefferson did. Tell me why we're taking Jefferson's word over Mr. Aimes?
I felt I needed to say that because what I wanted to talk about was history and Congressman Ellison’s twisting of it to present to the public a version of Jefferson that simply never existed.
kevin, u're really a murloc, arent u? fess up! ;)
or...perhaps just a pompous semi-literate. Jefferson was an elitist, and an intellectual snob. He pushed the electoral college, because he feared and distrusted the average citizen. He read the Qur'an like he read Aristotle, Machiavelli, Plato, and Heroditas, among others. How exactly is Congressman Ellison misrepresenting him?
One more time...ALL religions are CSS's, culturally stable strategies. They differ only in implementation detail and relative memetic evolutionary fitness.
ekshually, i prefer evangelical christians vs evangelical atheists. both groups are rabid proselytizers that attempt to exert control on the political system.
kevin, u're really a murloc, arent u? fess up! ;)
or...perhaps just a pompous semi-literate
And this is why I always win the debate with you. Instead of letting your point speak for itself you must engage in personal attacks. Really, you've become quite predictable.
And I do thank you for graciously stepping aside my proofs that you actually know nothing about the 1st Amendment and Jefferson's real intent when he wrote the wrods, "seperation of church and state." I'm glad to see you grow as a person like that. I hope you never misrepresent his words again.
Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.
Jefferson and, eventually, the western world, successfully fought a war against an enemy which was basically fighting asymetrically. It wasn't the same as the war we're fighting now, but there were a lot of similarities.
How they won - that's what we should be learning from history.
Right.
Send in the Navy and Marines. Capture the enemy fortresses. Don't give them back until the enemy agrees to our terms. If the enemy thinks it is a hudna squeeze their balls until they scream for mercy.
I can only interpret Jefferson's beliefs by interpreting his actions. His actions, and the laws he enforced suggest that he realized that the Koran may have been used to motivate certain deeds and actions. He also understood that the deeds and actions were the problem, not the Koran.
Let me rephrase that a bit:
I can only interpret FDR's beliefs by interpreting his actions. His actions, and the laws he enforced suggest that he realized that the Mein Kampf may have been used to motivate certain deeds and actions. He also understood that the deeds and actions were the problem, not the Mein Kampf.
Or as the anarchist liked to say: the word is father to the deed.
I'm Jewish and hear a lot of "interesting" things said about my faith.
don't mean nothin'
i.e. people saying and doing terrible things re: my religion are their worry (spiritually) not mine. I am proud of my religion, but don't wear it on my sleve. i.e. I don't take umbrage at every slight or offence no matter how vicious.
Only one point. If they come for me or mine I'm going down shooting.
1.13.2007 12:45pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
that's good politics, son, stop crying over spilled milk
besides, if you're going to say that jefferson was anti-Quran and ellison was wrong to rely on jefferson's quran to make his statement, you also have to acknowledge that everyone who swears on the bible is anti-jeffersonian as well, because, my friend, jefferson hated the bible far more than he hated the quran. hell, he even rewrote a 'reasonable' version of the bible.
i addressed all this yesterday.
Poppycock. Jefferson purchased his copy of the Sale's Koran (the first genuine translation of the work into English) from a printshop in the 1760's. The idea that Jefferson viewed Muslims as enemies (or Islam is The Enemy) in 1765 has no evidence whatever. Prove your assertion or retract it.
Jefferson owned a copy of a translation of the Koran because his library was a working law library and the book was part of his collection on law, religion, and ethics. Although not particularly religious himself Jefferson was a true man of the Enlightenment and had a lively interest in all important human activities of which religion was one. Intellectuals of Jefferson's time had particular interest in non-Christian religions.
I find it odd because I never said it. And you people think I should go read something you suggest that will prove I'm wrong?
You can't even read properly what I wrote!
But Dave is correct about Jefferson purchasing a Koran in the 1760's.
That still doesn't detract from my main point. Jefferson didn't keep a Koran because he was religiously tolerant. He was well read on most religions. And that Jefferson would use the Koran in determining his strategies with the Barbary pirates makes perfect sense in light of his conversations with the Tripolitan Ambassador.
What even further attacks the fallacy of Jefferson's respect of Islam is where he kept the book itself within his library. The order of his religious books went from the pagan to moral. Starting with books about things like Greek and Roman gods, then the Koran and ended with his larger volume of Jewish and Christian material. The order of his books was significant. Jefferson held the Koran in a lower regard than Jewish and Christian works.
In the March 22, 2004 edition of the journal Early American Literature, Kevin J. Hayes wrote a piece titled “How Thomas Jefferson read the Qur’an”. He notes about the order of Jefferson's books:
In those days, people weren't criticized for being Muslims, but they were shot on sight if they were identified as pirates.
Hundreds of years ago, we were able to separate religion from politics, we were able to tell the difference between the gangsters who hid behind holy books and the nonviolent, peaceful believers.
It's not clear why we have difficulty with the concept now?
According to the book,the so-called "alliance" between Tripoli and Britain mentioned by Kevin above was actually more of a protection racket where the Basha collected tribute payments in exchange for free passage.
In response to a comment:
Hundreds of years ago, we were able to separate religion from politics, we were able to tell the difference between the gangsters who hid behind holy books and the nonviolent, peaceful believers.
I don't know how anyone can make this statement with a straight face. Hundreds of years ago, every country in the world had a state-sanctioned religion that, in many instance, was enforced by the government. Even in the United States, without a state-sanctioned religion, religion nonetheless was inseparably intertwined with politics. Can you imagine a Catholic, Mormon or Jew being elected President prior to 1950?
But you're coming from the position that the Islamic faith is inherently peaceful. Jefferson reported to Congress that the ambassador to Britain from the Dey of Algiers stated to him personally that Islam "...was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners..."
If Jefferson said this why would you think he felt that Islam was a peaceful faith? At the very least Jefferson could assume that the pirates' interpretation of Islam encouraged their violent behavior. Why would he then ignore this?
If a people are reading violence into a peaceful text, and you're on the receiving end of that violence, wouldn't it behoove you to try to understand the text as they do? Even if you feel their reading is faulty?
Jefferson wasn't dealing with peaceful Muslims. He was dealing with Muslims that felt their piracy was advocated by the Koran.
You are correct. I should have used stronger terms. It wasn't an "alliance" England and France entered into willingly with open arms. A gun was very much at their head.
If Jefferson said this why would you think he felt that Islam was a peaceful faith? At the very least Jefferson could assume that the pirates' interpretation of Islam encouraged their violent behavior. Why would he then ignore this?
I can only interpret Jefferson's beliefs by interpreting his actions. His actions, and the laws he enforced suggest that he realized that the Koran may have been used to motivate certain deeds and actions. He also understood that the deeds and actions were the problem, not the Koran.
Some (most) pirates were motivated by greed, some were motivated by Islam. When you're trying to figure out how to wage a war and win it, motivation is only one factor. Strategy and tactics are more important. Finding the enemy's strategic weak points, striking them down whenever it was possible to do so were more important to Jefferson than waging an 'ideological' war. That's why he won.
Is Islam a religion of peace that has been hijacked or a religion of war that needs to be reformed?
If we accept Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja's statement it would seem to be the latter.
Which means a lot of what Mohamed did re: hudna with the Quaresh and lots of other stuff must be condemned in some fashion. i.e. he was wrong from the start or that does not apply today or his later understanding of the will of the Maker was wrong or some other construct.
In any case it is going to be a hard sell to a lot of Muslims it seems to me.
Morale has always been the most important factors in war. Clauzwitz said that morale was 3 times as important as material factors.
He may have had the number wrong (it could be as high as 10 today, it is always much higher than even that in a guerilla war), but the idea is correct.
Morale usually improves when the majority of the population isn't appalled by the stupidity and ineffectiveness of the strategy.
Jefferson and, eventually, the western world, successfully fought a war against an enemy which was basically fighting asymetrically. It wasn't the same as the war we're fighting now, but there were a lot of similarities.
How they won - that's what we should be learning from history.
I have copies of Mein Kampf and Das Kapital in my library. No one should make any assumptions about why they are there, unless I say why they were there.
jefferson detested all religion. witness the separation of church and state.
when did hitch turn moron?
And here's a tradition worth inaugurating: The Quran repeats and plagiarizes many passages of the New Testament, including some of the most fantastic and mythical ones.
lol.
i think the jews should sue the christians for copyright infringement. ;)
kevin, u still dont get it. ALL religions are supposed to do good-- all are easily exploitable to do bad. competition, dude, all religions are CSS's.
i explained before, the pirates were seperable from the host populations they preyed on. the terrorists aren't. we cant cut their supply lines and burn them out.
im going back to the World [of warcraft]. u all depress me with ur continuous and unchanging inability to read.
Once again, matoko agrees with Robert Spencer. Two of a kind
is that true? pirates preyed on commercial shipping, and they spent their booty amongst the population. Am I mistaken?
Jefferson would have had no problem understanding that Muslims could be just as diverse in their interpretation of their religion as he and many of his fellows were about Christianity.
Know of any Buddhists that drive airplanes into buildings? Ever met a Mormon suicide bomber? Heard about those Baha'i folks kidnapping people and sawing their heads off? Notice any Christians rioting over a bunch of line drawings?
Hmmm... It's almost like there's something ... different ...
well, Christians did Lockerbie.
Ever met a Mormon suicide bomber?
no, but I've heard of Japanese ones. Plus I'm pretty sure the people who firebombed innocents at Dresden and nuked Hiroshima werent muslim.
Heard about those Baha'i folks kidnapping people and sawing their heads off?
Hmm. robespierre comes to mind. Ah and of course there was that whole little obsession with hanging folks from trees or dragging them behind a pickup with chains from a while back.
Notice any Christians rioting over a bunch of line drawings?
actually worse: over movies! Rampaging Christians destroy theater at screening of Da Vinci Code
hey look: censorship of free speech, too! appeasement monkeys indeed.
aiieee! nuance! If you want to play with ludicrously simple sterotypes, it's your choice. Dont complain when you get cut. Otherwise, we adults will be having a serious discussion, which you're welcome to join if you demonstrate a modicum of due diligence. ok pumkin' ?
josephd got pwned
w00t
Adults do not discuss someone else's faith in the manner a lot of you people are doing it. It's really revolting to watch. And then you think "why is Dean being so rude?" Cripes.
Our founding father's had a variety of opinions on many issues. Regarding Islam, I'm sure Jefferson did not approve of Mohammad's claim to bring divine law, and he certainly distained the concept of a caliphate ruled by religious a order.
We don't know much about how the founding fathers thought about Muslim theology in general, save for John Q. Adam's scathing criticism of Islam, which was shared by his father, also a devout Christian. JQA once wrote of Mohammad (propellor beanie upon him):
Watch how the pattern will go round and round again, too:
A) One person says something unbelievably obnoxious and rude and shallow about Islam.
B) Another person will get sarcastic in response, and be attacked for being sarcastic.
C) A third person says something shallow and obnoxious and deeply ignorant about Islam.
D) A fourth person says something equally shallow and obnoxious about Christianity or Judaism, just to make a point, not because they actually believe what they're saying. They are then immediately accused of having it in for Christianity and Judaism, and/or of drawing a "moral equivalency."
Notice who's actually being obnoxious and prejudiced and intellectually shallow here. It's not hard to figure out.
"rightwingers cant get over that ellison pwned them, appropriated jefferson and came out looking like the hero"
...and who said that again?
I don't have a dog in this particular fight. But if you're interested and want to read a very good history of the war against the Barbary pirates, check out "Six Frigates" by Ian Toll. It covers the diplomacy and policy debates that went on during the period of that war - which was mostly a naval action - and the war of 1812. The book centers around the creation of the US Navy and the building of it's first capital ships - the six original frigates. One of the six still exists today and is the oldest commissioned naval vessel afloat* - the USS Constitution.
(*The oldest commissioned naval vessel anywhere is HMS Victory. However, Victory is no longer "afloat".)
My plan is coming along exactly as I have foreseen. >:-)
I typo.
aziz, pirates had resupply and ship fitting and repair in dens of iniquity like tortuga. they were not integrated with the populations they preyed on.
eg, harboring pirates was a hanging offense with the Kings Navy.
mary's analogy still sucks, and if even a cretin like spencer can see the flaw in it, she should be certainly be ashamed to keep dragging it out.
the christofacists and the atheofacists are exactly equivalent. Dawkins and his ilk are deluded to believe they can eradicate religion by bellowing about awful it is, and the christofacists are deluded to believe they can eradicate Islam by bellowing about how awful it is. Neither strategy can ever work.
All religions have parts that are good. we need to exploit the good in religions, be opportunistic and use the power lever.
these arguments here always devolve into mine-is-better-than-yours. It is not. Scott Atran and I believe they are all the same.
you can read Dr. Atran's Harris rebuttal at the Reality Club.
Now, i must get back to my nightelfdruiding.
May Ealune light your paths. =)
I require an iPhone. You will acquire one for me by any means necessary. Preferably using a baseball bat. 'Cuz, simply buying one isn't nearly evil enough. Unless you stole someone's high interest credit card. And used aforementioned baseball bat to do so.
Oh, and vote Republican in 2008.
My evil knows no bounds! Ahahahahahaha!
Maybe the "christofascists" and "atheofascists" could learn a thing or two from the "Islamofascists" and actually try blowing up shit, rather than bellowing, if they really wanted to eradicate other religions.
So, thank you Matoko-chan. You've shown me the error of my ways. Talking about Islam doesn't get it done. Free speech and open debate doesn't get it done. I guess we'll have to take the next step, huh?
Funny that doesn't appear anywhere within the Constitution. What's even funnier is the weight it is given that Jefferson neither helped author nor signed the Constitution or the Articles of Confederation.
So, Jefferson's "seperation of church and state," and your gross misrepresentation of it, has the legal weight of a fart in the wind.
How about we take a look at the man that did come up with the wording that was agreed upon for the 1st Amendment - Fisher Aimes. Writing in Pladium magazine in January 1801,
It would seem that the man that actually authored the wording of the 1st Amendment seems to feel it may mean something else Jefferson did. Tell me why we're taking Jefferson's word over Mr. Aimes?
kevin, u're really a murloc, arent u? fess up! ;)
or...perhaps just a pompous semi-literate. Jefferson was an elitist, and an intellectual snob. He pushed the electoral college, because he feared and distrusted the average citizen. He read the Qur'an like he read Aristotle, Machiavelli, Plato, and Heroditas, among others. How exactly is Congressman Ellison misrepresenting him?
One more time...ALL religions are CSS's, culturally stable strategies. They differ only in implementation detail and relative memetic evolutionary fitness.
And this is why I always win the debate with you. Instead of letting your point speak for itself you must engage in personal attacks. Really, you've become quite predictable.
And I do thank you for graciously stepping aside my proofs that you actually know nothing about the 1st Amendment and Jefferson's real intent when he wrote the wrods, "seperation of church and state." I'm glad to see you grow as a person like that. I hope you never misrepresent his words again.
Kevin u didnt win!
I totally rebuked ur point that Ellison "twisted" Jefferson's words!
sissssssssssssssssssssssssssss....
feel the burn!
Uh, try reading up on Jefferson's work on the VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
Which was the model in a sense for the First Amdmt.
BTW Jefferson was stuck in France during the writing of the Constitution. Probably for good reason. He was probaly the smartest President we ever had.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.
Robespierre was a Baha'i?
Who knew?
Jefferson and, eventually, the western world, successfully fought a war against an enemy which was basically fighting asymetrically. It wasn't the same as the war we're fighting now, but there were a lot of similarities.
How they won - that's what we should be learning from history.
Right.
Send in the Navy and Marines. Capture the enemy fortresses. Don't give them back until the enemy agrees to our terms. If the enemy thinks it is a hudna squeeze their balls until they scream for mercy.
In those days there was a common term for the Muslim pirates.
Jihadis.
However, the term may not mean now what it did then. It could be a different war.
I don't think so.
I can only interpret Jefferson's beliefs by interpreting his actions. His actions, and the laws he enforced suggest that he realized that the Koran may have been used to motivate certain deeds and actions. He also understood that the deeds and actions were the problem, not the Koran.
Let me rephrase that a bit:
I can only interpret FDR's beliefs by interpreting his actions. His actions, and the laws he enforced suggest that he realized that the Mein Kampf may have been used to motivate certain deeds and actions. He also understood that the deeds and actions were the problem, not the Mein Kampf.
Or as the anarchist liked to say: the word is father to the deed.
I'm Jewish and hear a lot of "interesting" things said about my faith.
don't mean nothin'
i.e. people saying and doing terrible things re: my religion are their worry (spiritually) not mine. I am proud of my religion, but don't wear it on my sleve. i.e. I don't take umbrage at every slight or offence no matter how vicious.
Only one point. If they come for me or mine I'm going down shooting.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.