The Death Penalty – What’s All the Fuzz About?

[IdleRich]

"Yes. Look back to what I said about the Old Testament. In the Old Testament there are examples of hatred and violence. Jesus comes along and says no hatred and no violence please."

So when you said this

"I mean that the Koran is generally violent and repressive and that the Bible is generally the opposite."

You meant this?

"I mean that the Koran is generally violent and repressive and that the New Testament is generally the opposite."

Or better still

"I mean that the Koran and The Old Testament are generally violent and repressive and that the New Testament is generally the opposite"

I've got two problems with that, the first being that, as I said, many Christians in power regularly quote the Old Testament (if it's not important why not get rid of it?) and, two, it's bollocks. There is a big list of quotes where Jesus promises lots of violence here if you don't believe me

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html

 

[boombox]

T

here is a big list of quotes where Jesus promises lots of violence here if you don't believe me

Those quotes are promises of violence from God at judgment (not violence from people sanctioned by God) or promises of sorrow if you pursue evil ways.

There is a blatant distinction

 

[IdleRich]

"Those quotes are promises of violence from God at judgment (not violence from people sanctioned by God) or promises of sorrow if you pursue evil ways.
There is a blatant distinction"

There is a slight distinction I agree

So, would you now modify your statement to something like this?

"I mean that the Koran and The Old Testament are generally violent and repressive and that the New Testament while containing lots of "promises of violence from God" is generally the opposite if you only consider violence from one person to another sanctioned by God"

That's assuming that you ignore bits like this obviously that seem to sanction violence from one person to person.

"He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."

 

[boombox]

That's assuming that you ignore bits like this obviously that seem to sanction violence from one person to person.

Quote:
"He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."

Obviously sanction violence from one person to person? No. You wouldn't make a very good lawyer.

The last two caveats of 'my' statement are pleonastic. Therefore let me boil that statement down for you:

'Christianity (the New Testament) encourages peaceful, loving and tolerant behaviour or you're in trouble from God, while the Koran encourages hatred and violence
or you're in trouble from God'.

I'd say the Christian God may have it the right way round.

 

[noel emits]

Yeah but who would win in a fight, Jesus or Mohammed?

Actually I reckon Moses would probably have them both.

 

[boombox]

Yeah but who would win in a fight, Jesus or Mohammed?

Actually I reckon Moses would probably have them both.

Jesus had more special powers. Moses was all talk. He basically did what God told him to. Tough call, though.

 

[noel emits]

I think you'd have to take special powers out of the equation to make it fair. Moses was a bit of hardnut though - military man.

Anyway don't mean to derail, it's a good discussion.

I'm not directly famliar with the koran but most of those qutoes about violence from the new testament could/should probably be interpreted metaphorically. So my question would be, is it common practice for muslims to interpret the koran in non-literal ways?

 

[IdleRich]

"Obviously sanction violence from one person to person? No. You wouldn't make a very good lawyer."

Read what I wrote again, slowly, it may help if you place your finger under the words you are reading as you go along and try saying the words out loud as you go. If you still don't see how what you think I said differs from what I said then maybe I can help you. I said that for that to be the case it's obvious that you need to ignore bits that "seem to sanction violence etc", not that those bits "obviously sanction violence".
However, had I said that, I don't think I would have been too far wrong. Jesus is castigating the Pharisees for not obeying the instruction to "let their children die", in another words Jesus in the New Testament is saying they have sinned in not committing person to person violence as sanctioned and in fact commanded and demanded by God.

But anyway, leaving that aside, (and ignoring the fact that the threats from God normally attach to a lack of belief rather from a lack of peaceful behaviour) let's suppose that this is broadly right:

'Christianity (the New Testament) encourages peaceful, loving and tolerant behaviour or you're in trouble from God'.

My original point was that, people who claim to be Christians often do not in any way follow these teachings of the New Testament in any recognisable form. Will this not also be true of Muslims?

"So my question would be, is it common practice for muslims to interpret the koran in non-literal ways?"

That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

Edit:

"while the Koran encourages hatred and violence or you're in trouble from God'"

I'll let somebody who knows more about it than me and has more energy to get annoyed about it deal with this bit.

 

[crackerjack]

I'm not directly famliar with the koran but most of those qutoes about violence from the new testament could/should probably be interpreted metaphorically. So my question would be, is it common practice for muslims to interpret the koran in non-literal ways?

I imagine most do all the time, certainly the ones I know. Problem is there are powerful forces pulling in the opposite direction and, particularly in the ME, secular authorities are badly discredited because they are mostly corrupt autocracies.

 

[boombox]

that "seem to sanction violence etc", not that those bits "obviously sanction violence".

Sorry. It was just not very well phrased on your part.

Anyway, the use of 'Let him' and 'the death' both imply abstraction. There is no act. Otherwise it would be 'let him be put to death' or 'strike him down'.

My original point was that, people who claim to be Christians often do not in any way follow these teachings of the New Testament in any recognisable form. Will this not also be true of Muslims?

Yes. Clearly. But my point is that you do not have to depart from the teachings of Islam to behave in a violent, oppressive manner.



I'm sorry I insulted you. I don't like other people doing it and it has encouraged you to be aggressive towards me.

I think you'd have to take special powers out of the equation to make it fair. Moses was a bit of hardnut though - military man.

True

 

[IdleRich]

"Sorry. It was just not very well phrased on your part."

I like that double-edged apology.

"Anyway, the use of 'Let him' and 'the death' both imply abstraction. There is no act. Otherwise it would be 'let him be put to death' or 'strike him down'."

I think that that is splitting hairs - Jesus is annoyed that they haven't "let them die", that doesn't seem that peaceful to me. Anyway, we're getting bogged down in this, back to the main point.

"my point is that you do not have to depart from the teachings of Islam to behave in a violent, oppressive manner."

Well, what I was getting at with the original thing I said was: I have read many different articles by "experts" or "scholars" of Islam, some saying Islam necessitates the veil, others saying it doesn't, some saying Islam desires holy war and some saying it doesn't and so on and so forth. I wouldn't profess to pronounce on which is correct but I can easily believe that if I were someone who hadn't been brought up in the Christian tradition and my experience of it was of hearing US evangelicists and Bishops demanding the death penalty and spouting fire and brimstone I would probably have a view of Christianity similar to your view of Islam - how do you know that your view of Islam is any more correct than that view of Christianity? I think that people in power take from it what they want in each case and while there may be good and bad practitioners of each, as a block and an organised religion I'm not a big fan of either.

"I'm sorry I insulted you. I don't like other people doing it and it has encouraged you to be aggressive towards me."

Don't worry.

 

[boombox]

I like that double-edged apology.

It wasn't meant as an insult. Sometimes I don't phrase things right.

how do you know that your view of Islam is any more correct than that view of Christianity?

Because I have read the texts. I honestly see the Koran as far more violent. In fact it seems to be addressed more to the unbeliever than the believer, promising destruction for what you shouldn't do at every turn and only rarely pausing to tell you what you should do, which is largely to wildly punish those who are doing what they shouldn't do.

 

[IdleRich]

"It wasn't meant as an insult. Sometimes I don't phrase things right."

Oh, I thought that it was quite witty.

"Because I have read the texts. I honestly see the Koran as far more violent. In fact it seems to be addressed more to the unbeliever than the believer, promising destruction for what you shouldn't do at every turn and only rarely pausing to tell you what you should do, which is largely to wildly punish those who are doing what they shouldn't do."

OK, fair point and I haven't read it so I can't comment on that - however I would say that this bit

"seems to be addressed more to the unbeliever than the believer, promising destruction for what you shouldn't do at every turn and only rarely pausing to tell you what you should do,"

Sounds like a fairly good description of both parts of The Bible to me - as you seemed to acknowledge above:

"Those quotes are promises of violence from God at judgment (not violence from people sanctioned by God) or promises of sorrow if you pursue evil ways"

Especially as those "evil ways" are, more often than not, simply not believing in God.

 

[crackerjack]

The ruling class is a contingent bloc, not a smoke-filled room. It's schizophrenic, contains groups working at cross-purposes, constantly shifting and refining alliances.

Now you're moving from the specific to the general to dodge the question. I agree with your quote above, but your contention that free english lessons are withdrawn to ghetto-ise non-English speakers and keep them cheap is absurdly conspiratorial and doesn't tally with the fact they'll still (according to Tea) be available to the unemployed.

 

[Mr. Tea]

The only employer I can imagine wanting his employees not to learn English would be someone running some dodgy business using illegal immigrant labour* and probably paying them far less than minimum wage. Big companies, of the sort that have political clout, avoid this because they can be subject to enormous fines if they're caught.


*or, of course, someone running a business that is *inherently* illegal, such as drugs, bootleg booze/fags, prostitution etc.

 

[Gavin]

Very interesting article on political Islam, Islamophobia, and the left: http://www.monthlyreview.org/1207amin.htm

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

Very interesting article on political Islam, Islamophobia, and the left: http://www.monthlyreview.org/1207amin.htm

Thanks for posting this, Gavin; it's been ages since I've read anything by Amin, and this latest piece further clarifies what has previously been argued hereabouts.

What I contend is that political Islam as a whole is quite simply not anti-imperialist but is altogether lined up behind the dominant powers on the world scale.

... This confusion is part of the reactionary toolbox and reinforces Islamphobia, which, in turn, makes it possible to legitimize both the offensive against the popular classes in the imperialist centers and the offensive against the peoples of the peripheries concerned. This confusion and Islamophobia, in turn, provide a valuable service to reactionary political Islam, giving credibility to its anti-Western discourse. I say, then, that the two reactionary ideological campaigns promoted, respectively, by the racist right in the West and by political Islam mutually support each other, just as they support communitarian practices.

 

[nomadologist]

The only employer I can imagine wanting his employees not to learn English would be someone running some dodgy business using illegal immigrant labour* and probably paying them far less than minimum wage. Big companies, of the sort that have political clout, avoid this because they can be subject to enormous fines if they're caught.


*or, of course, someone running a business that is *inherently* illegal, such as drugs, bootleg booze/fags, prostitution etc.

hilariously naive

 

[Mr. Tea]

hilariously naive

Would you care to elaborate on that already staggeringly articulate and informative post?

 

[nomadologist]

Would you care to elaborate on that already staggeringly articulate and informative post?

One very minor example of about a million I can think of: ever tried to send money over Western Union? I've had my transfers fucked up about a million times by native Spanish speakers who simply can't spell or speak English. Is there any reason for Western Union to use non-native English speakers in their call centers except that they're probably all at very least felons/illegal so they will work for NOTHING? They could easily hire English-speaking felons for the same job, right? But they don't, because illegals are much cheaper and save tons on overhead. I've had the call center managers complain to me about how often they have to fix these mistakes, but that in the end it's still cheaper for the company, so they continue with this practice.

When enough businesses rely on an underclass of cheap labor, you end up with (let's guess) ghettos full of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, El Salvadorians, latinos right next to the black ghettos.