You mean, I've been touched by an...angel?  If so, I must kill you know.  I hope you understand.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

key factor in whether or not either is a "religion of peace" has to do with how it is interpreted and by whom

Agreed! But this brings up the next link in the question chain; so if it's not Islam, is it Arabs? Or Persians? Or Indonesians?

Actually the rump Christian minorities in those countries tend to be a bit violent as well (tit for tat tribal retribution mostly) so maybe there is something to that. Not sure if I like ethanocism better than religiocism though (if those are even words).

Ceci n'est pas une sig.

Actually the rump Christian minorities in those countries tend to be a bit violent as well (tit for tat tribal retribution mostly) so maybe there is something to that.

At some point in time, there's we could have said the same about people in any number of other places: Northern Ireland, the American West, South America, Asia...

If history is any guide, violence is part and parcel of the human experience.

Now with caps!

If history is any guide, violence is part and parcel of the human experience.

Again I agree. Wonder how long we'll have to wait for the reformation/evolution/fallout to settle. And what can the West do to speed the process?

Ceci n'est pas une sig.

Well, at least you're not just picking on Islam ;)
But I do think that the idea of "moderate" vs. "conservative" works better than "literal" vs. "cafeteria." Reason being that if you're literal about works like the Bible or the Koran, you're going to be faced with enormous contradictions. The only way around this is to interpret the work -- to make decisions about what passages are really getting at, and which passages are more important than others. In that sense, just about all religious believers (in those major religions, at least) are cafeteria. The ones who feel all homosexuals are going to burn in hell, or who feel that it's OK to kill abortion doctors, or who feel that suicide is OK in the eyes of Allah, they're all cafeteria. They are all acting in direct opposition to some clearly stated principle in their holy book, even if they are acting in accordance with other passages.

Now with caps!

" Reason being that if you're literal about works like the Bible or the Koran, you're going to be faced with enormous contradictions. The only way around this is to interpret the work -- to make decisions about what passages are really getting at, and which passages are more important than others.

Yes and no. While your general point is quite accurate, there are a couple issues at play. First -- the Quran is not ordered liked the Bible -- i.e. surahs are not arranged chronologically but rather by length of the text. As a result it is up to muslim scholars to decide which came when and more importantly which issues are "abrogated" by others. The concept of abrogation is a thorny one for muslims -- some like creationist christians -- take a "there is no contradiction in the Quran" while the majority tend to follow the abrogation concept of later writings overriding earlier ones.

Here's the thing: As Islam grew from a minor religion and became successful, it shifted in tone from a "lets all get along" to "kill the infidels wherever you find them".  I recommend the writing of Syed Mirza to your attention and note how he breaks down the different muslim groups by their methods while comparing the commonality of goals.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

Syed Mizra says:

"Therefore, Qur'an and Sunnah (prophetic instructions) are the true foundations of Islamic terrorism. Palestinian problems, wars of Iraq and Afghanistan etc. are only a plea to wage Islamic Jihad."

Only? etcetera?

Wow, this syllogism wraps up the whole enchilada.

Why bother trying to understand complex confluences of intertwining causalities. One certainly need not waste any time reading guys like Allama Iqbal, who challenged generations to question the closing of the gates of Ijtihad. Mr. Mizra has let me see what is going on when the Doctor says:

Turning now to the groundwork of legal principles in the Qur'«n, it is perfectly clear that far from leaving no scope for human thought and legislative activity the intensive breadth of these principles virtually acts as an awakener of human thought. Our early doctors of law taking their clue mainly from this groundwork evolved a number of legal systems; and the student of Muhammadan history knows very well that nearly half the triumphs of Islam as a social and political power were due to the legal acuteness of these doctors. `Next to the Romans', says von Kremer, `there is no other nation besides the Arabs which could call its own a system of law so carefully worked out.' But with all their comprehensiveness these systems are after all individual interpretations, and as such cannot claim any finality. I know the `Ulem« of Islam claim finality for the popular schools of Muhammadan Law, though they never found it possible to deny the theoretical possibility of a complete Ijtih«d. I have tried to explain the causes which, in my opinion, determined this attitude of the `Ulem«; but since things have changed and the world of Islam is confronted and affected today by new forces set free by the extraordinary development of human thought in all its directions, I see no reason why this attitude should be maintained any longer. Did the founders of our schools ever claim finality for their reasonings and interpretations? Never. The claim of the present generation of Muslim liberals to reinterpret the foundational legal principles, in the light of their own experience and the altered conditions of modern life is, in my opinion, perfectly justified. The teaching of the Qur'«n that life is a process of progressive creation necessitates that each generation, guided but unhampered by the work of its predecessors, should be permitted to solve its own problems.

I now realize that Dr. Iqbal wants to drink my blood.

I now realize that Dr. Iqbal wants to drink my blood.

There are great thinkers in any successful religion -- its almost a requirement for a religion to scale (Scientology perhaps being an exception). That said, the issue is not whether they are people whose philosophical approach to Islam can be fairly categorized as pragmatic and rational, the issue is whether those views can be fairly considered as representative of the overall group.

Just because people speak persuasively on behalf of their ideology does not mean that one should ignore the actual effects of that ideology. Its all well and good to say "Islamic laws cannot claim any finality" but the reality is that in Sharia states, the historical jurisprudence for a variety of crimes is pretty darn final and the theological underpinning for religious war has quite the case history as well.

p.s. Thanks for the link, great reading.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

I didn't bring up Iqbal as an argument against the conclusions that Syed Mizra reached. The difference between them is not the syllogisms they produced but the scope that their criticism tried to embrace. They both reject tradition as proof of something in itself. Any comparison between them will have to be made reflecting upon some other quality.

Standing where Mizra pronounces judgment, there is no movement forward. If the cause of so many events, ways of thought, and living can be adequately explained by a defect that requires only the simplest of steps to comprehend, then what does one have? Does the simplicity make it a fact? Or does the truth of the logic reveal a cosmic joke?

Earlier in the thread, you said:  "The whole concept of the "moderate" muslim is a joke. The distinction should be the "literal" muslim vs. the "cafeteria" muslim. This draws a far more accurate picture of the effect Islamic philosophy has in supporting terrorism."

This first sentence goes far beyond your response to me about what views are "representative" of the Islamic nations in general. The sentence dismisses any one  who claims the right to interpret Islam on the terms of faith they themselves testify to hold and preserve. A perfect circle of reasoning is described in this thinking:

Attempts to interpret Islam differently than it has been already are merely dilutions of the essential idea. This is proved by the fact that no one has succeeded in interpreting Islam differently than it has been already. This is proved by the fact that attempts to interpret Islam differently than it has already been are dilutions of the...etcetera, as Mizra likes to say.

Bringing up Iqbal doesn't break the circle. Circles satisfy and complete themselves. But he doesn't fit inside it. A lot of things and ideas don't. This makes me think that your second sentence about terrorism requires more than the first pretends it can provide.

PS. Thanks for the thanks. If you liked that, check out his writing on Jung and Nietzsche sometime.

 

This first sentence goes far beyond your response to me about what views are "representative" of the Islamic nations in general. The sentence dismisses any one  who claims the right to interpret Islam on the terms of faith they themselves testify to hold and preserve. A perfect circle of reasoning is described in this thinking:

I naturally disagree. But allow me a chance to expand on the idea.

I claim the "right" to interpret Catholic doctrine on the basis that I was born into a Catholic family, went to Jesuit run school and pretty much have many years of experience with Catholic theology and practice. Now if were to write a paper explaining why say...priests being allowed to marry is perfectly consistent with Catholic dogma and should be encouraged, I might (if it were articulately written and sourced) have it read by a few Catholic intellectuals, see it published in a few magazines...but the majority of the Catholic world would completely ignore it.

A) Because it goes against what the current powers which runs the church believe (i.e. their pulpit is bigger and more authoritative than mine)

and B) it goes against what the majority of the people in the Church want.

Combined together, I can say whatever I want, but my views will not be "representative" of catholics.

The same issue is true for Islamic philosophy. Those who hold greatest sway with the umma are not the pragmatic intellectual types, but those mullahs who hold to a very conservative/traditional interpretation of islam. As an example -- many mullahs have come out against the Shia practice of body mutilation to commemorate the death of Ali...nevertheless even more mullahs and the mass of people necessary to shape the culture ensures that it happens every year.

This is what I mean when I say the concept of the moderate is a joke. The culture inherently tilts towards radical philosophy, and there is hundreds of years of tradition which provides that philosophy its support.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

The problem of cultural inertia is the central issue in the article you just read by Iqbal. While explaining the problem through a summary of the history of Islam, Iqbal makes a larger argument, claiming that the experience of revelation as transmitted through Muhammad will be the source of a new articulation of that experience.

The difference between the larger argument and the summary is why a scholar like Bernard Lewis could (and largely does) agree with Iqbal about what happened in the past while disagreeing so completely about what could happen in the future. Lewis doesn't cotton to the following notion: The umma will be able to move past certain traditions because the revelation that generated the faith is renewable in the present moment.

The return to the beginning to make a new start is how reformation happens. Maybe my use of the word "right" in the context of what enables interpretation puts the cart before the horse. The potential to see what is universal within certain beliefs precedes defending that vision through claiming a right.

Luther didn't start out with the plan to form a second church apart from the Catholic Church. The "right" to do so grew out of the refusal of the Church to accept what he saw as "truly" Christian. Making a claim of this sort runs into the kind of contradictions coquito talked about upthread. But the first step has to do with seeing the Truth as something that lives and is experienced outside of any claims of dogma.

This matter of being able to see the truth for oneself plays a major part in Iqbal's discussion of Sufism. He talks about how the school formed without coming to terms with the problems of governance and justice that needed to be addressed but he also sees in its "psychology of the real" how Islam is in concordance with a truth that can be encountered directly as a person of faith.

In this respect, Iqbal stands on the same ground that Pascal did who saw the contradictions of Christianity not as proof of its complete irrationality but as a mirror of human nature that otherwise would not be accurately represented.

Where you say: "the culture inherently tilts towards radical philosophy, and there are hundreds of years of tradition, which provides that philosophy its support", Iqbal argues that there have been centuries of arrested development. If you are to pursue your side of the argument, I think you have to deal with him on the ground he stands on as a believer looking at the closed gates of Ijtihad. If you are going to keep Iqbal confined to a cafeteria, fairness dictates that you share what he elected to put on his tray.

: As Islam grew from a minor religion and became successful, it shifted in tone from a "lets all get along" to "kill the infidels wherever you find them"

From a review of Martin Amis's new book "House of Meetings":

Fanatic, murderous ideologues cannot be ignored or dealt with in "good faith," whether they took root in Russia 60 years ago or thrive today in the Middle East. "Ideology, and I include religion in this, is inherently violent,"

"Nobody in the West gave a damn about Islam on Sept. 10, 2001.... The Islamist ideology is that we're trying to destroy them. But we have no view one way or another. We're not at all obsessed about them. We really don't care. And yet there's this wounded narcissism in the Islamic world, because they want everything to be about them."

Those feelings, he suggested, are rooted in the fact that Islam has been subordinate to the West since the 13th century, and "there is this bewilderment about why God is rewarding the infidels." That bewilderment has now led to unrepressed rage.

"We respect Islam, the donor of countless benefits to mankind, and possessor of a thrilling history," Amis wrote in "The Age of Horrorism." "But Islamism? No, we can hardly be asked to respect a creedal wave that calls for our own elimination.... We respect Muhammad and do not respect Muhammad Atta."

He ridicules and deplores the scourge of "Islamic fanaticism." But he's also excoriated President Bush as a "dry drunk from West Texas [who] became the most powerful man in human history" and says he is increasingly appalled by the deteriorating state of the U.S.-led conflict in Iraq.

This is because the belief system is in -violent- conflict with the modern age.

As are the belief systems of pretty much every religion. You can randomly pick any of the major "my way or the highway" religions and find that the hard-core faithful are aghast at modern society. Typically, the core traditionalists make up a minority of followers; sometimes they're influential in certain channels, and although they tend to be louder and more noticeable, they're most generally kept in check by the moderates. I see Islam mostly following the above formula - doesn't mean I trust its followers any more than I trust the believers of any other religion. I've got a severe mistrust of organized religion in general, but Islam's adherents in the main body seem to be as "civil" as any other large faith.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

1fastdog, do you see little difference between the hard-core faithful that is the Christian right and radical Muslim fundamentalists?

...and they both taste the same and have the same end results.

I've lived all of my life in a sleepy little conservative town surrounded by more than the usual number of people on the outer fringes of Christian extremism. I've seen unwed mothers, literally beaten for having a baby out of wedlock. Our local Planned Parenthood clinics have all seen, at one time or another, violence against its employees and their property - the receptionist/secretary at one had her house set on fire because she answered the phones and thus "scheduled murder."
All of these events - and many,many more - were directly spurred by evangelical Christian loons and their associates.
As I noted above, I distrust organized religion immensely, but I realize that not every follower of faith is a wingnut. Most of the church-going folks around here are pleasant, good-hearted people who generally tolerate different viewpoints on life and lifestyle, even if they don't always agree with said viewpoints.
As the cliche goes, it only takes a few bad apples.... and as far as the bad apples go, yes, I find the rotten Christian apples to be every bit as rotten as their Islamic counterparts. Just because the Christian extremists haven't pulled off an attack on as large a scale* as Islamic extremists, doesn't mean that they can't or that they won't.

*depends on how you categorize the McVeigh involvement as per the Oklahoma city bombing. YMMV on the source links :-)

Found some interesting articles related to your question:

Whenever I point out to people that there is no difference between Christianity and Islam, someone always brings up terrorism. Generally, it's coaxed in denial of the existence of such Christian terrorists as Timothy McVeigh; occasionally, the critic is sophisticated enough to recognize that Christian terrorism exists, but says it's not so bad as Islamic terrorism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is unfortunate that both extremists and detractors of Islam who distort the meaning of jihad propagate a false concept of jihad through expressions such as `jihadists,' `Islamic terrorism' or references by terrorists to jihad," the statement said. "Such stereotyping and the use of terms such as `Islamic terrorist' are as unfair as referring to Timothy McVeigh as a `Christian terrorist' or claiming that abortion clinic bombers committed acts of `Christian terrorism.'

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

"they both taste the same and have the same end results"

Compare any Christian nation with any Islamic one and It's obvious Islam and Chrisitanity don't have the same end results (among other things, Christianity gives rise to individual liberty).

"Just because the Christian extremists haven't pulled off an attack on as large a scale* as Islamic extremists, doesn't mean that they can't or that they won't."

Perhaps, but until they do it's logical to be more concerned with Islamic terrorists. In fact, given what Islamists have done it's perverse to constantly invoke some imaginary potential menace from Christians.

As for McVeigh stated this he was an agnostic, and his motivations were not religious but poltical, or as he put he was waging "war against the excesses of central government".

If you don't like McVeigh as a Christian terrorist, how do you feel about the nice folks in the IRA?  The Basques?  How about the folks bombing abortion clinics and advocating killing of doctors who provide abortions?  Maybe you'd prefer the Christian KKK members?  Or the Christian bombers in India.  Christian crazies can be just as dangerous as Muslim ones.

As to Christian nations being a better class of nation, check back about 800 years (remember that Islam is a relatively young religion) and you'll find plenty of religious wars based on Christianity.  

Which nations do you consider "Christian nations"?  America certainly isn't, nor is any country in Europe.  As far as I know, there are no nations currently run on the basis of the Bible, except possibly Vatican City, but despite its sovereignty that is not a nation.

Thalia

Christian crazies can be just as dangerous as Muslim ones.

No dispute that that any group of radicals "can" be as dangerous as another group of radicals. But the differences between the two groups shouldn't be overlooked.

Regardless of whether it's the fault of the U.S. or not, the numbers of young, angry Muslims is growing at a fast pace. Is this demographic more likely to espouse moderation, or is it more likely to latch on to the more extreme views regarding violence and human rights? Which is more likely to end up in control?

Interesting article in today's LAT that highlights just one example of the drift towards a more militant Islam.

As an aside and not directed at your post: It seems that just to broach the subject of radical Islam immediately gets one tarred as a racist or as being myopic by some. I blame Bush for that.

I do agree that there are a lot of young disaffected Muslims.  I believe if you look among unemployed young people say between the ages of 16 and 30 who cannot find employment, you will find a similar number of disaffected radicals among Christians, Muslims, Jews, and atheists.   The biggest reason for the growth of these radicals is the unemployment rate, and the hopelessness they see before them.  It's the same reason inner city blacks are likely to turn to crime.  It's just that in these Muslim communities, there is a loud voice, telling these kids that they can be relevant, they can make a difference, and they will be rewarded.  In most inner cities, the only ones making that suggestion are the drug dealers.

Thalia

The IRA isn't a threat to America. Neither are the  Basques, who aren't motivated by religion.

"Which nations do you consider "Christian nations"?  

Europe could be described as formerly Christian. But America and Europe wouldn't exist as they do without Chrsitianity.

"there are no nations currently run on the basis of the Bible"

Because Christianity doesn't share the defects that Islam does.

Which nations do you consider "Christian nations"?  America certainly isn't, nor is any country in Europe.

America is a Christian nation.. which is why it's so fucked up.

Tipping Sacred Cows

The Founders would disagree with you.  Most were Deists, and they quite explicitly wrote in that this nation was not going to establish a religion.  They were adamant about it, really.  So I don't see how we can claim it to be a Christian nation in any sense.  Yes, a lot of Christians moved here, but that doesn't make the nation a Christian one.

Thalia

Christianity does not give rise to individual liberty.

Yes, Christianity is part of the cultural background of the Enlightenment and the idea of human rights and equality, but just as large a part of that cultural background is the pagan philosophy of the Greeks. It is the ideas of the Enlightenment that have led to our current acceptance of individual liberty, often in the face of strong opposition from the established church.

I'm British, and we have suffered from Christian vs. Christian terrorism for much longer than the US has suffered from Islamic terrorism. You had 1 day of attacks in your homeland. Yes, the attacks were devastating, but nevertheless it was only one day. We had much longer, yet we didn't carry out the wide-ranging attacks on individual liberty that the Bush administration has.

Your portrayal of Islam as a uniquely violent religion are historically inaccurate - like most bigotry is. Your myopia is pretty sickening.

Thinkers ranging from Acton to Tocqueville have commented on the connection between Christianity and individual liberty. Or see Hobbes on how relgiion obstructs an absolute state. You, like most facile commentators on this subject, do not have an understanding of the problem of individual liberty in the classical world.

"we didn't carry out the wide-ranging attacks on individual liberty that the Bush administration has."

Americans have more freedoms than people in the UK.

"Your portrayal of Islam as a uniquely violent religion are historically inaccurate"

If there is some other religion which is an equivalent menace to us as Islam is, please name it.

If there is some other religion which is an equivalent menace to us as Islam is, please name it.

Neo-conservatism.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

Because of the Jewish makeup of neoconservatives and the neoconservative movement I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but to traditional conservatives neocons have enlightenment, or liberal rationalist views regarding human nature, universality, nationhood, etc.

Wait, did you actually read anything by Hobbes?  Because he was not a proponent of religion, and was actually quite a royalist.  Not to mention that he was almost accused of atheism and heresy.  Read Leviathan sometime, and see what he says about religion being subservient and a part of the sovereign.  

I recommend reading some history if you think the Christians are all wonderful, peace loving, individual rights appreciating folks.  Maybe read a bit about England, and Mary Queen of Scots.  Or maybe the Inquisition, or the Crusades.

Thalia

Hobbes, correctly, thought Christianity undermined the absolute obedience to rulers his theory of the state required.

"I recommend reading some history "

You seem to be the one who needs to do some reading.

Prior to the enlightenment, and even after it, all writers paid lip-service to God. Even then, many were suspected of being atheists. Of course these thinkers connect individual liberty and religion together - that was the only way in which they could argue without being persecuted.

The persecution of non-believers, be they atheist or simply from a different sect, was a huge problem for a long period in Christian history. Modern Islamic terrorists are not so different from those who supported the religious wars that rent Europe.

Finally, please say just how Americans have more freedoms than people in the UK.

"Of course these thinkers connect individual liberty and religion together - that was the only way in which they could argue without being persecuted."

The concept of individual liberty wasn't invented by closet atheist "thinkers", it was the product of the Western world becoming Christianized.

"Modern Islamic terrorists are not so different from those who supported the religious wars that rent Europe."

I disagree with your equivalence, but even if it were true, so what? It's like saying some serial killer is nothing to worry about because he's not so different from Jack the Ripper. Also, the influence of Chrisitianity reduced warfare in Europe.  

"please say just how Americans have more freedoms than people in the UK"

Americans have freedom of speech, whereas the UK is passing laws to make it easier to convict people for remarks made in private.

Most Americans also have the freedom to own firearms, and unlike in the UK we are free to defend our selves and our property from criminals.

The concept of individual liberty predates Christianity as a religion.  As I said, read some history.

I get the impression you haven't read your own link, and I've read considerably more than a wikipedia article on this subject.

As have I.  I like political philosophy and history, both are fascinating subjects.  But assuming that individual liberty is linked to Christianity is laughable, given that the Romans had well defined civil liberties (for their citizens), and Hammurabi's code defined individual liberties, as did the Old Testament.  Unless we have reconsidered, and redefined liberty, I have no idea where you're coming from.

Thalia

In the Roman view, what might be described as individual liberty was dependent upon the individual "type" to which the individual "naturally" belonged. This is a complex subject, and you though may find the ideas I'm expressing laughable, they are by no means original to me. See Sallust and Livy for period views on the problem of reconciling the state and the individual, or see the contrast between the Ciceronian conceptions of the commonwealth and Augustines . I mentioned Hobbes and Acton earlier on the influence of Christianity, see this essay by Acton.

 

Taken from the 'essay' (a speech, really)

Christianity, which in earlier times had addressed itself to the masses, and relied on the principle of liberty, now made its appeal to the rulers, and threw its mighty influence into the scale of authority.

So, as we can see, Acton clearly says that individual liberty is something inherent in Christianity, and it is through this religion, whose central value is the rights of the individual, that our modern individual rights have sprung.
/sarcasm.

The only influence capable of resisting the feudal hierarchy was the ecclesiastical hierarchy; and they came into collision when the progress of feudalism threatened the independence of the Church, by subjecting the prelates severally to that form of personal dependence on the Kings which was peculiar to the Teutonic state. To that conflict of four hundred years we owe the rise of civil liberty. If the Church had continued to buttress the thrones of the Kings whom it anointed, or if the struggle had terminated speedily in an undivided victory, all Europe would have sunk down under a Byzantine or Muscovite despotism.

This is the centre of the argument that you are looking for, but this is not an argument that you are going to like. Individual liberty is not a feature of Christianity, but instead an accidental by-product of the Church's struggle with the Teutonic state.

Two centuries later this political theory had gained both in definiteness and force among the Guelphs, who were the Church party, and among the Ghibellines, or Imperialists.......The ablest writer of the Ghibelline party was Marsilius of Padua. "Laws," he said, "derive their authority from the nation, and are invalid without its assent........But in obeying laws to which all men have agreed, all men, in reality, govern themselves. The Monarch, who is instituted by the legislature, to execute its will, ought to be armed with a force sufficient to coerce individuals, but not sufficient to control the majority of the people.......The rights of citizens are independent of the faith they profess; and no man may be punished for his religion." This writer, who saw in some respects farther than Locke or Montesquieu, who, in regard to the sovereignty of the nation, representative government, the superiority of the legislature over the executive, and the liberty of conscience, had so firm a grasp of the principles that were to sway the modern world, lived in the reign of Edward II, 550 years ago.

This thinker lauded by Acton does not support the church, but rather the state. Acton talks about Christian philosophers, such as St. Thomas, but not because of their Christianity, but instead because of their political ideas - ideas which are so similar to this enemy of the church.

....and he ascertains it not by the light of revealed religion, but by the voice of universal reason, through which God enlightens the consciences of men. Upon this foundation Grotius drew the lines of real political science. In gathering the materials of International law, he had to go beyond national treaties and denominational interests, for a principle embracing all mankind. The principles of law must stand, he said, even if we suppose that there is no God. By these inaccurate terms he meant that they must be found independently of Revelation.

Yet again, here Acton lauds philosophy that does not rely on (the Christian) God, but rather on universal principles. We can see that many Enlightenment philosophers claim that God is connected to the voice of universal reason - but this is to hide their undermining of the jealous Christian God - "I am the way". In Christianity, salvation is dependent upon God, not you.

Yes, Acton does talk about freedom in Christianity, referring to nonconformists. But this is not the general thrust of his essay.

Perhaps it would be good if you read your links as well?

What makes you think I hadn't read that before? I stated it was a complex subject, then linked to a far more nuanced discussion of it than I could provide.

What makes you think I hadn't read that before? I stated it was a complex subject, then linked to a far more nuanced discussion of it than I could provide.

From comment no. 25:

Compare any Christian nation with any Islamic one and It's obvious Islam and Chrisitanity don't have the same end results (among other things, Christianity gives rise to individual liberty).

This is the complex subject? Christianity beats Islam, because Christianity gives rise to individual freedom. The unspoken argument is that Islam does not give rise to individual freedom. Yes, a very complex and nuanced stance there.

Yes, some Christian philosophers consider Christianity the root of all that is good.  What a shock.  That doesn't negate my original statement that Romans also had, analyzed, and applied individual liberty.  

Individual liberty in Roman times depended on the "type" to which the individual belonged, but an individual could move between types.  Freed slaves became citizens, as did troops, and those that distinguished themselves in various ways.  It wasn't a "natural status" which is unchangeable.  Much like the U.S. belief that your rights begin when you become a citizen, and non-citizens can be locked away & tortured without access to the courts, the Romans believed that most rights were reserved for citizens.  They also had levels of citizenship.  The U.S. mostly doesn't, except for the differentiation between those that became citizens after birth, and those that were born in the U.S.

Thalia

From the article...

His claim that he had shot at them from halfway down the stairs was disproved by scientific evidence that showed he must have fired his illegally-held, pump-action shotgun from the doorway of a downstairs room.

From what the prosecution said (readying a possible grain of salt), Martin ambushed the intruders.  Defending?  Hard to say.  I'm glad I wasn't on that jury.  That being said, is this the best example you can find about terrified Britons cowering in their Panic Rooms while bold and coddled prisoners run amok with the protection, nay, the outright support of a  liberal British legal system designed aid and abet thugs?

*Offer varies from state to state (Florida and Texas).  Check your local laws before setting out the tripwire.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

"his illegally-held, pump-action shotgun "

What sort of free country is it where it's illegal to own a pump action shotgun? I owned a pump action shotgun when I was 12.

Like your own, perhaps?

From your link...He had earlier pleaded guilty to possessing the shotgun without a firearms certificate

In other words, it sounds like Britain has gun laws such that you must own a certificate for each (each type? I don't know) gun you own. (a discussion for another time, I think)

You comment is disengenuous as worst, classic Gordon at best.  It's almost like the guy got arrested getting a speeding ticket while driving without a license.  Then you pipe up, "What sort of free country is it where it's illegal to drive?  I've been driving since I was 12?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

A country where one has to get permission from the state to own an ordinary shotgun is not a country which loves liberty.

While we've been discussing the UK's draconian gun laws they've been readying plans to install x-ray cameras in lamposts to monitor everyone on the street.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007040610,00.html

How is the US less free again?

A country where one has to get permission from the state to own an ordinary shotgun is not a country which loves liberty.

While we've been discussing the UK's draconian gun laws

But that's it, isn't it, Gord...we're not.  I know this is your one trick pony, but please try to at least try to acknowledge when you're wrong.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

A country where one has to get permission from the state to own an ordinary shotgun is not a country which loves liberty.

Because British people really do need to have shotguns. It makes dealing with the marauding Indians, bears, wolves, lions, tigers, etc. so much easier. Got to defend the homestead, after all.

In Britain there are two types of people who own shotguns:
Country sportsmen and farmers - foxes, clay-pigeon shooting, and the such like.
Criminals.

Tell me again why free access to shotguns will make my country a safer place to live.

Americans have guns? Personally I don't consider it a freedom that is worthwhile. I know that we will disagree about this, and nothing either of us will say will convince the other, or anyone else here. So let us leave it at that.

Freedom of speech? The US constitution does lay down freedom of speech, but what is that freedom really worth? In Britain we did not hound people for being 'communist', driving them into hiding and ruining their careers. There is no really difference between the US constitution and the unwritten constitution of the UK as far as freedom of speech is concerned.

The influence of Christianity led to mass killings of hundreds of thousands of people, in the name of the 'correct' interpretation of the holy scriptures. This much is undeniable. Christianity has had positive effects, but it has also had negative effects.

The concept of individual liberty wasn't invented by closet atheist "thinkers", it was the product of the Western world becoming Christianized.

The Western world was pretty much fully Christianised about 1000 years ago, yet concepts of individual liberty did not emerge at that time. As philosophy developed, and grew out of the confines of Christianity, it took with it themes both from Christianity and from Greek and Roman philosophy, and developed ideas of individual liberty.
It was changes in economics and philosophy that led to the development of the concept of individual liberty, not the Christian faith.

As for specialists here - my MA is in political philosophy. So I have a bit more acquaintance with this area than just reading a couple of wikipedia articles.

You claim "There is no really difference between the US constitution and the unwritten constitution of the UK as far as freedom of speech is concerned", but I can assure governmental encroachments on free speech, such as the example in that link, are unconstitutional here.

I think it's possible that you don't consider "hate speech" laws to infringe on speech, in the same way you dismiss limitations on firearms ownership as not being a freedom worth worrying about. But if so, on what basis are you claiming the US has less liberty than the UK? And fter claiming "we didn't carry out the wide-ranging attacks on individual liberty that the Bush administration has", it's odd you cite events which happened in the 1950's.  

 

but I can assure governmental encroachments on free speech, such as the example in that link, are unconstitutional here.

And so the constitution is safeguarding US citizens' freedoms against government encroachments? Perhaps we should be more worried about what is really happening, rather than the statements on a piece of paper that it appears the US government is ignoring.

"Hate speech" laws are problematic. Incitement to violence is a very real problem, and I think that it is important to legislate against it. However the question of where to draw the line is not one that I think I could answer satisfactorily.

The ownership of guns is not an issue of liberty. Perhaps we should all be free to own dynamite and other explosives as well?

Since your dismissive of that fact Americans have freer speech than you do in the UK, and you don't even consider the right to bear arms to be part of liberty, yet you claim those of us in the US have had our liberties diminished, it perhaps you could provide some examples? Besides the spy cameras, you also have an official secrets act, excessive libel laws, and your govt.'s been not only been eavesdropping on your phone calls for decades, but gathers non-terrorism related information: "the information it gathered was also of economic and commercial significance". I wonder who in your corrupt government benefited from that commercial related information?

I'm not interested in debating guns, mostly because it's so boring. But it's a fact that the American city I live in, which has extremely lax gun control laws, has far less crime than comparable cities in the UK. This may not be because we have guns, but certainly the guns don't seem to be making us any worse off. And since guns are fun, it strikes me as a total win-win situation for the USA.

(1) The US does not have freer speech than the UK. Being enshrined in the consitution has not prevented that right from being denied in the past.

(2) Excessive libel laws? Let me ask you - in which country was it that journalists first showed that Bush stole the 2000 election? The US, with all its freedom of the press, or the UK with its repressive libel laws? Just wondering, because that sure is one hell of a libel.

(3) An official secrets act is not that much different from how things work in the US. Or are you privy to certain private conversations that Cheney had with Energy companies?

(4) Comments about corrupt governments is rich when the people getting rich in Iraq are companies that are closely connected to the US administration. Halliburton ring a bell?

(5) U.S. patriot act.

(6) Guantanamo.

No, the UK is not perfect, but the US is far from perfect. Your constitution has been a worthless piece of scrap paper while the Republicans controlled all 3 branches of government. Lets hope that the Democrats can get their act together and roll back Cheney's attacks on the limits on presedential power.

"The US does not have freer speech than the UK"

Except the US does, as noted by the arrest of the man I linked to above. I think you actually are in favor of the UK's speech infringements. Which puts you in a weak position to criticize those of us with actual free speech.

"in which country was it that journalists first showed that Bush stole the 2000 election? "

Not a single one of the lunatic Americans who have made that very same deranged claim suffered any retribution from the government at all, because we have free speech.

"An official secrets act is not that much different from how things work in the US."

It's vastly different. Your example is absurd, there is no legal restriction on anyone who met with Cheney from revealing this fact. The Official Secrets Act also allows "It allows, for example, the prosecution of newspapers or journalists who publish secret information leaked to them". Notice the New York Times wasn't prosecuted for divulding the secret NSA wiretapping program. Notice too that Bush not only hasn't, but can't, threaten newspapers the way Tony Blair has.

"U.S. patriot act"

Do you even know what the US patriot act says? I doubt it.

"Guantanamo"

Attica!

"Your constitution has been a worthless piece of scrap paper while the Republicans controlled all 3 branches of government"

And yet for that entire time people in the US have had more freedom than you in the UK.