I read two articles this morning that make an interesting contrast--or, rather, there's not that much contrast in the mindsets exhibited.
1. At NRO: An Ill Season: The Arab spring unleashes Islamists on Egyptian Christians by Andy McCarthy.
2. At The American Prospect: The Strange Alchemy of the Settlements by Gershom Gorenberg.
From one of the settlement's veteran residents, I'd acquired a copy of The Law of the King, written by two of the academy's rabbis, Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur. The book purports to elucidate Jewish religious law about when it is forbidden or permitted for a Jew to kill a gentile. The book's themes are that a Jew's life is worth more than a gentile's and that for a Jew to kill a gentile is a lesser sin than killing another Jew. In a war between Jews and non-Jews, Shapira and Elitzur assert, Jews may kill anyone from the opposing side who poses the most indirect threat -- even enemy civilians who show emotional support for their troops. There is no moral problem, the authors state, with causing the death of civilians who live near an army base or weapons plant, because they stand in the way of a legitimate target.
It would be easy enough to locate an account of some delusional Christians, even Catholics, but these two articles jumped out at me this morning. The difference, of course, is that these settlement people are wagging the US dog and all politically involved Americans should be aware of the facts of what's going on. And for those like McCarthy who are concerned about an Islamist threat, it's time they woke up to the reality that the mindset of Zionists is not fundamentally (!) different from that of Islamists/Salafists. The US is playing with fire in its foreign policy.
Yossi Gurvitz makes the comparison very explicit: Nobody mentions the Jewish Brotherhood.
While Israelis pay plenty of attention to the fear of the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, they steadfastly ignore the rise of the Jewish brotherhood in their own country.
Andy McCarthy is a chowderhead neocon stooge. Citing his “thoughts” is like laying out dung.
You forgot to mention the fact that the stooge also appears to be a raging bigot, which explains most of his positions.
chomsky speaking at 25th birthday of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)May 11, 2011. he begins by saying “the U.S. and allies will do anything that they can to prevent authentic democracy”
he talks about SA funding of islamic fundementalism and we don’t complain about them. supporting islamic fundementalism is a tried and true method of inserting our influence in the region, obviously. so what does chomsky mean when he says “will do anything that they can “? would US/IS fund the kind of violence McCarthy talks about? of course. why? to destabilize, to create a pretext for the kind of “stability” chomsky discusses starting around 7:40 in the video. to create context, exactly the kind of context the neocons like mcCarthy spread like a virus.
so of course i have no ‘proof’ of this wrt this latest violence in egypt. but who benefits? who benefited from AQ in iraq after our invasion? we did.
be the brotherhood moslem, christian, jewish or any other
they’re the chosen people
the end justifes the means
their way or the highway
infidels beware
and when the people rise up?
if with outside intervention, supposedly in their behalf?
best forget it
but when under popular control?
right of way
McCarthy is a moron: “Hooey. The Muslim Brothers are Salafists” and he cites his own book as the proof. Oh dear.
For starters, “Salafi” refers to one of several Sunni doctrines about the nature of the religious law, and Muslim Brotherhood does not adhere to that doctrine. Salafists include Wahhabi and Deobandi, but are pretty much in minority among the Sunni outside Saudi Arabia (and Pushtun?). Politically, some Salafists are extremists, but of course “some of our best allies are Salafist” and it simply makes no sense to make too much of that particular intra-Sunni distinction.
The nature of Egyptian anti-Coptic pogroms is murky, and any connection to Muslim Brotherhood is at best unclear. These pogroms happened both “before” and “after” the Arab Spring, so relating the two is dubious. So McCarthy piece is pretty shoddy on the descriptive level. On prescriptive level, I would need to study it more closely, I suspect that it is just moaning that there was this land of Egypt, allied and happy, and due to fatal myopic policies of the feckless Administration now it is lost to the Forces of Darkness. In general, virtue of the emperor leads to harmony that spreads to barbarians, conversely, when the emperor lacks virtue, disorder spreads both in the Land of the Center and in the outlying barbarian regions. It is imperative to elect the government representing virtue. More detailed explanations are provided by the Theology Department of AEI.
“The nature of Egyptian anti-Coptic pogroms is murky, and any connection to Muslim Brotherhood is at best unclear. ”
While there is no relationship between the arab spring and anti-Coptic pogroms, as you correctly note, piotr, the nature of Egyptian anti-Coptic pograms is as murky as the perfect sunset. Did you write that with a straight face? Were the Nazis motives murky or opaque? Was Baruch Goldstein’s motives uncertain? or Islamic Jihad?
If there is a new, improved, shiny Muslim Brotherhood with a new, modified program, I must have missed the memo. As for differentiating between sub-species of salafists, they would appear to have more in common with one another as do sub-species of Hassidim. Rabbis may differ based on old feuds, but nobody drives on Friday night.
The one unique invention of the Salafists is to make an allowance of murdering fellow Muslims if deemed apostate, while, at the same time, deceiving the non-believers by dressing in Jcrew jeans.
But to describe the origins of the motivations behind anti-Coptic pogroms as unclear and murky seems to be as bordering on insulting Salafists everywhere since they would object to the blurring of their obvious motivations.
nah.
By this logic, Hassidim are a terrorist movement because, like Baruch Goldberg, they do not drive on Friday night. More theologically astute know that many non-Hassidim do not drive on Shabbat either, and some Jewish terrorists were actually driving on Friday night.
Muslim Brotherhood was never Salafist (and neither is Islamic Jihad), and their women do not cover their faces. By the way, show me a Salafi girl in Jcrew jeans. This is perhaps not terribly important, except that the word “Salafist” was incorporated to pseudo-expert discourse on political Islam. Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is rather geriatric, definitely not “new, modified”, and not terrorists. Probably not progressive. Their writings and websites do not advocate any mayhem.
As a student, I happen to be a roommate with some Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood types (I hesitate “members”, but they were definitely sympathizers). I do not really like such guys, but I do not like anti-abortion “we are Judeo-Christian nation” brand of GOP either.
What you fail and neglect to understand — perhaps willfully — is that Christian-Muslim division in Egypt was stoked by the Mubarak regime. The regime also used policies of sexual harassment to persecute dissenters.
Meanwhile, Mubarak has stepped down and some key figures in his government/regime have, as well. But, much like the torture that was reported by several Egyptians in articles posted here on Mondoweiss a few weeks ago, remnants of the old regime have not disappeared. The process, much like the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc satellite states, took time. It did not happen over night.
It is a matter of public record that the Egyptian so-called security apparatus planted a bomb at a Coptic Church in Egypt a few months ago. So, when you conveniently attribute all the ills that agree with your hateful ideology to the Muslim Brotherhood — or any other groups, for that matter — you are not fooling anyone.
By the way, one can do a little research on “Motto of Muslim Brotherhood”. According to our fundamentalists, it is a chant ending with the wish to “die for Islam”. According to MB, it is “Islam is a solution”. Personally, I do not think that it is, but I actually heard it from Egyptian MB types 30 years ago, and it is not something recently put on MB web page to confuse the public.
And pogroms are not part of the ideology. To the contrary:
“Speaking at a student event, senior MB leader Dr. Helmy El-Gazar denounced the attack on the densely-populated neighborhood where residents of Cairo’s poverty-stricken Imbaba neighborhood witnessed unnecessary deadly clashes which left 13 dead and over 200 injured, as well as a church in ashes.
Earlier reports confirmed that thugs had ordered all the shops in the street closed and then divided themselves into two groups, intimidating residents by firing shots into the air and preventing them from defending the church. According to Gazar the sedition was provoked by remnants from the regime to create chaos, however, he believed it will not succeed in splitting the unity between the Muslims and Copts. He stressed that no religious Egyptian would stoop to levels of burning houses of worship, adding that Islam vehemently condemns such actions.
During the event Gazar called on the students present, Muslims and Copts alike, to unite and defend all houses of worship, describing it as both a religious and patriotic duty.”
Again, Islam does vehemently condemn such actions. Like Old Testament condemns destruction of fruit trees as a means to make a war, contrary to the doctrine of extremist settler rabbis. I think some massacres may get Muslim religious fatwas here and there, but this is in the case of apostates, and some folks are deemed apostates, like Ahmadiya in Pakistan. Clearly, some violent views are present among the Egyptian poorest, but I never found any written ideological underpinning.
I understand that there are some loopholes that allow to convert religions to tools of murder. In Islam, we have to classify victims as apostates and blasphemers, and in Judaism, as idolaters (so a massacre of Viccans could be OK, but Muslim, not so much, the jury is out on Armenians who are, according to some, a variety of Amelek).
Indeed.
Before reading your comment, I had posted similar information in response to one biorabbi above.
these loopholes by which religions are converted into murder weapons
like, as the catholic church misinforms us, wearing a condom causes aids? it “knows” this because back in the bronze age someone may or may not have said such and such, which much later got written down?
instilling in people the fear of not making it to the pie-in-the-sky
of being sentenced to an eternity in hell instead
denying the woman the right of choice
homophobia run amok
opposing family planning
occupying palestine
gaza
l
Catholicism is not as bloody as in good old days. Heretics and pagans were allowed to correct their errors or taste the sword.
The first President of independent Poland was a Mason, atheist and got elected with votes of socialists, Ukrainians and Jews, which did not go well with the Catholic patriots. He was killed within a week in a museum on the occasion of opening an exhibition of modern art. By one of the artists.
What’s with the anti-Catholicism here? I don’t understand it, and don’t think there’s any place for that.
There have been horrible things perpetrated by Catholics in the history of the church, undeniably. The thing is though, that these are recognized as deviations, as false, by the Church herself.
The Church promotes holiness of life and love of the poor and suffering; this is undeniably a gift to humanity. As far as opposing an ethos of sex without love, this might be difficult to accept, but it is certainly no “murder weapon in disguise.” If there was a deadly disease that could be cured by a pill that was 100% effective in all cases, or by a pill that failed between 0.4% to 2.3%, it would be wrong to willfully give the second pill to people. Condoms fail in some cases, while simple abstinence works 100% of the time. What’s so wrong with promoting self-control? It literally saves lives. And it’s no obscure medieval thing either; read Blessed John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, it’s a very sophisticated anthropology there, based on the idea that human persons are made to love others and to be loved. What we are is a self-gift, this is our call, to serve others in love. It’s what makes us happy and fulfilled. Sex without love really never made anyone happy and fulfilled, and saying that it does is one big fat lie.
I don’t think you have to be anti-Catholic to know that more evil has been carried out (and covered up) in the name of Catholicism than any other religion in the history of humankind.
Pretty it up any way you like, but your popes have run the gamut from murderers to members of Hitler Youth. Throw in decades of hushed up pedophiles and the deranged idea that God wants anyone to be celibate when the very first commandment of His book and the biological imperative of every living thing is the exact opposite and you have one messed up theology.
Catholicism took the beauty of God’s word and turned it into insane notions of original sin and absolute evil. As a religious man, I have nothing bad to say about self-restraint and the importance of sexual and personal modesty, but Catholic attitudes to contraception, abortion and divorce are fundamentally inhumane.
There’s no way to have any discussion about your “most evil religion” remark, since it is so broad.
I would love to discuss issues of life and sexuality, however. What makes you say that Catholic attitudes here are “inhumane”?
Uh, no offense, GuiltyFeat, and I am obviously biased (I am Catholic) but you might want to try and get a grip on reality. Here is a good place to start…
The Holocaust in Historical Context: Volume 1: The Holocaust and Mass Death before the Modern Age (by Steven T. Katz).
link to amazon.com
@Don. Not sure I quite understand what you’re getting at with the reference. I claimed that Catholicism has hurt and killed more people throughout history than any other religion. How does a book about the Nazis refute that?
What precisely do you mean with that statement? It’s such a sweeping and unqualified judgement on thousands of years of history that it’s impossible to respond to. Really it’s just an expression of pure animus. If the same statement was made about the Jews, it would rightly be denounced as anti-Semitic.
I know anti-Catholic prejudice is de rigeuer among American liberals today, but like most prejudices it dissolves when challenged, since it is diificult to defend such things with arguments in an open discussion.
Celibacy is unnatural. I mean that in its most literal way. It goes against nature for man to be celibate. God blessed all living organisms with a biological imperative to procreate and rather than letting us simply be guided by our nature, He compounded His gift with His very first commandment – to be fruitful and multiply.
Any religion which preaches that God requires His representatives on Earth to remain celibate violates the fundamental principal of God’s nature. In my opinion Catholicism is a defiantly unnatural religion.
I don’t think my wife would buy this argument from me, if I impregnated another woman! Hahaha. But seriously, we are rational beings who can control our impulses. It’s totally possible to live a celibate life, you admit this, but just don’t like it.
Theologically speaking, you won’t like heaven either, since there’s no procreation in heaven.
The priests in the Jewish Temple were required to be celibate during their period of service. Eastern Rite priests have to be celibate 24 hours before celebrating the Euchariast.
What bad consequences follow from celibacy? If it’s unnatural, there must be bad consequences. I suppose you’ll cite the sex abuse scandal. It’s a monstrous thing, I’ll be the first to admit. But considering that teachers, Boy Scout leaders, counselors, foster parents, and physicians all have higher rates of abuse, you’d be hard-pressed to draw a direct line between the two, again without recourse to unexamined stereotypes.
“I don’t think my wife would buy this argument from me, if I impregnated another woman!”
I think you’re confusing celibacy with monogamy.
“It’s totally possible to live a celibate life” Possible, but unnatural and therefore contrary to God’s will in my opinion. Faith is about controlling one’s nature, not denying it.
“The priests in the Jewish Temple were required to be celibate during their period of service. Eastern Rite priests have to be celibate 24 hours before celebrating the Euchariast.”
Both these examples support my case and further refute yours by being temporary.
“If it’s unnatural, there must be bad consequences.” That’s a Christian idea, not a Jewish one. I accept the commandments upon myself because I believe that their fulfillment will make me the best person I can be. The consequences of breaking a commandment whether stealing or eating shellfish may have a component in this world (standing trial for larceny) but they also have consequences for a person spiritually in ways that may only be realized in the world-to-come.
I think the consequences of celibacy in this world are a lack of personal, biological fulfillment, loneliness and the emptiness of never experiencing the unconditional love of a child or spouse. I cannot speculate on the consequences of celibacy on one’s soul.
I cannot love Catholicism for inventing the notion of celibacy for the very people – priests, nuns, monks – who deserve and who would benefit from the empathy and generosity required to be a spouse or parent.
OK, interesting. So according to you it is possible to restrain our biological urges for the sake of a higher good, namely monogamy, living a committed life of unconditional love with one other person. So there’s the precedent; we can and should restrain our biological urges for a higher good. That’s even “natural” according to you. Yet this is exactly what priestly celibacy is, a restraining of biological urges for a higher good, namely service of others in the church. Of course there are benefits to being married, that’s obvious. But people are called to different paths of life. Just because I’m married doesn’t mean I am going to say the single life is wrong.
I’d agree that if the Church said that everyone must be celibate that would be unnatural. But for those who accept it, the higher service of the celibate priesthood is a beautiful thing. Since Catholic priests say mass every day, it’s also in direct continuity with Jewish tradition. Celibacy allows priests to serve the church wholly and without the particular biases that come from having a family to provide for and children’s interests to look after. It removes this whole source of dissension and division.
If you condemn something as unnatural, but then say there are no bad consequences to speak of, we are talking about religious dogmatism without rational foundation. That is fine, I don’t want to dismiss such beliefs at all, but it’s not very convincing to anyone who doesn’t already share your particular interpretation of holy texts.
Anyway, we’ve come a good way from your initial comment:
The debate over priestly celibacy is an interesting one, but not that essential. It’s a prudential decision of the church, and one that has worked out very well, but nothing vital theologically. In other words, you’re attacking something that is not at all at the core of the faith.
On the other hand, the comment above remains to be defended by you. I hold that you cannot defend it and the ideal of self-restraint at the same time. Once we admit that human persons are made for unconditional love, and can and should restrain their desires to that end, it becomes clear that the Church’s position on these issues promotes love and respect for life and are the opposite of being inhumane.
Also, I have no clue what you’re talking about when you say “absolute evil.” That is not all at a Catholic idea, but rather the opposite, that evil is a privation of good.
GF, I’m not a Catholic, but I was raised as one, though I left the church at age 13, when I was an altar boy. Still, I remember Catholics are not raised to remain celibate forever, but only until they get married. While I’m not in accord with any Catholic dogma, I do think, as a culture, we have gone too much the other way, don’t you? (And it’s very costly too, for the taxpayers.)
>> … John Paul II’s Theology of the Body …
John Paul was just a man, nothing more, and theology is a human-devised waste of time.
>> Sex without love really never made anyone happy and fulfilled, and saying that it does is one big fat lie.
1. That’s a very presumptuous statement.
2. It depends very much on how one defines “happy and fulfilled”.
Whether or not you dismiss all of theology as a waste of time, the point was that there are good arguments for what the Church teaches, and we are free to engage them. But you have to read it first. Calling all theology of all world religions a waste of time is the definition of a “presumptuous statement.”
I define human happiness as a whole life, not short-term physical pleaasures. To chase very temporary physical pleasures, one after another, is to live like an animal. A life of mutual self-gift with another person on the other hand is inherently very fulfilling; it’s not a matter of definitions.
nakba day, usa
how long it took just to get the word out that there really was a somewhere called palestine
then came the u.s. backed ’82 israeli invasion of lebanon
oslo & its aftermath
and today unity
by popular demand
Wauck: “The book [by two rabbis] purports to elucidate Jewish religious law about when it is forbidden or permitted for a Jew to kill a gentile. The book’s themes are that a Jew’s life is worth more than a gentile’s and that for a Jew to kill a gentile is a lesser sin than killing another Jew.”
It would be interesting to know what fraction of the American Jewish population holds these views. And what about other crimes such as financial fraud or theft?
Wauk: “It would be easy enough to locate an account of some delusional Christians, even Catholics ….”
Mr. Wauck, can you produce a recent example of a Christian religious leader in the Western world, either Protestant or Catholic, saying that it is more permissible to kill a Jew than a non-Jew? If you can, that would be interesting, too. But somehow I doubt that you will. That kind of thinking is now severely condemned throughout the Christian world.
FLASH: The Israelis are not the only ones wanting to junk democracy. Some Americans are joining in the denunciation of our traditional political system.
For example, in today’s WaPo Ted Koppel has an opinion piece entitled, “Let’s Get Rid of Democracy.” He writes,
“‘Democracy.’ Let’s dump it; toss it on the scrap heap of history. The concept remains worthy, but the word is rapidly being exhausted of all residual value.”
I knew it was coming. America’s elite don’t like democracy – government of, by, and for the people – and they want to replace it with something else.
So we have corporatocracy, soon to be followed by American-style fascism.
Zionism has done an enormous amount to corrupt and subvert democratic institutions in America. Somehow, I don’t think the Zionists will much lament their passing. Fascist Israel, fascist America – joined till death at the hip and shoulder.
Sex without love really never made anyone happy and fulfilled, and saying that it does is one big fat lie.
Believing in ancient creation myths never
really helped anyone and anyone who says it has is a big fat deluded liar
My formulation was clumsy. In the last 80 years there were very few massacres and murders inspired by Catholicism. On a bad day, even Buddhists can make a pogrom.