The Islamic al-Shabaab militia is well known for its harsh application of Sharia law in Somalia. However, it turns out that they have the same concerns about the children growing up with the wrong priorities and values as do people in the West. In the case of the al-Shabaab, the problem is a failure of parents to teach children to use weapons and their insistence on educating them on such things as reading and writing. The militia group is now forcing children to watch executions and giving away prizes of automatic weapons and grenades at children events. It is the Somali version of Hooked on Phonics.
The militants have been rounding up children from schools to watch executions in places like Merca, Somalia.
In Kismayo, children competed for the right to own AK-47 assault rifles, hand grenades and anti-tank mines. At the prize ceremony, parents were reminded to teach their children well about the use of weapons and the need to kill.
For the full story, click here.
A debate has taken place down the halls of time about whether Christianity, Judaism, and/or Islam are fairly represented by those who violate the respective religion’s tenets or by those who adhere to the respective religion’s tenets.
Here is an apologetic for Islam:
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/01/sam-shamoun-vs-nadir-ahmed-is-islam.html
Dredd:
good link, I watched part of it and will watch the rest.
Well raise your children well, teach them all about such trivial issues as execution. Heck they hopefully will grow up and not have to rely on theft by forceful taking, armed robbery, piracy on the high seas.
I wonder why this is such an issue for them. Now a field day I can relate.
Dredd,
Thank you for the video. I watched some of it but finally had to quit. You couldn’t find a more loaded forum for this debate and the opening introduction by the MC, a devout Christian and the debate moderator a former Jew, really stacked the deck against Nadir who acquitted himself very well.
This brought to mind the “debates” set up in the Middle Ages by Christian Clergymen with Rabbi’s. The Rabbi would be handicapped by the fact that his arguments against Christianity could make him a target for heresy and that he was the member of a tiny minority that could suffer repercussions in general. Mr. Nadir, of course didn’t have the same threats hanging over his head, but was really at a disadvantage under the auspices and terms of the debate.
In the end the whole questions is ridiculous. No religion comes into any discussion such as this with clean hands. Even the followers of Buddhism has vicious doctrinal battles. One could certainly read the Holy books of ant religion and find bloodthirsty passages intermingled with longings for peace.
The issue really is that there are many religious sociopaths and psychopaths willing to find backing for their aspirations for power, in the religious texts of their choosing. The enemy is not religious texts per se, but the
“true believers” that misuse them for selfish purposes.
Mike,
I think we agree that religion is a human institution and since humans are never either completely good or completely bad (both of which are neither well defined or objective), neither is religion.
I occasionally have a discussion about Christianity that goes something like this:
“Those ______ have it completely wrong Christianity is about forgiveness and love not judgment and condemnation”
“All of that’s in the Bible, so actually Christianity is about all of that, people just seem to pick and choose which part they model their life after.”
“No, Jesus was about love and taking care of his fellow man.”
“Yes, yes he was, but for every ‘as you do onto the least of these’ there’s a ‘If anyone does not hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.’ I respect anyone that chooses the first over the second, but you can’t go around saying that those people who happen to emphasize a different part of the Bible from you aren’t good Christians and don’t get it. They get it, they just get a different part.”
I may or may not bring up the four blind guys describing what an elephant is (that’s the only good use for that analogy I’ve found). Usually there’s a moment of silence and the conversation turns to whatever is on the radio at the moment.
The only people that argue that Jesus WAS about judgment etc. are people who are “anti-religion” which in the U.S. almost always means “anti-fundamentalist-Christianity.” At which point I argue the reverse (For every “if anyone does not hate…” there’s a ‘as you do to the least…’).
It’s sort of like how depending on your political persuasion “1984″ is about Communists or Fascists, instead of being about both.
isnt this kinda of the extreme next step for 2nd amendment gun enthusiasts?
How long has it been since public executions became uncommon in the US? Couldn’t we argue that taking the kids to the hanging/lynching would be a “traditional family value” here in America?
It’s a tough life there, as in other war-torn regions.
Child soldiers are a big problem in other parts of Africa as well.
Gyges,
You’re right I am speaking from my perspective and that perforce can not be all inclusive or definitive. Yes the blindmen and elephant analogy is also apt. It does seem to me though that history has shown the constancy of religion being hijacked for personal ego and gain. In truth you could do it with any religion.
I’ve often pondered how awful it would be to have had God choose me as a messenger, for after God imparting the wisdom, then would come the revelation that after I go, all my teachings would be perverted by someone or other for their own benefit, or to satisfy their own delusions. Thankfully, I’ve received no messages from “on high.”
Mike,
I think I agree with your sentiment, but if I were in the prophet’s shoes, I think I would take some solace in knowing I’d not simply given sociopaths new rhetorical fuel, but meanwhile helped a handful of people become more perfect…
As a general rule, I assume the positive outcomes of any effort to be less visible, less televised, less memorialized, than the negative… to choose a secular example, Darwin’s truths may have been perverted by Hitler, but they also inspired more faithful followers to develop medicines that improve the lives of billions.
Jason,
You raise a good point, but I can’t help but think that the Buddha, Confuscious and Jesus would be quite upset at what some of their followers have wrought.
Mike,
Then again, since in all likelihood Jesus might very well have been planning an armed rebellion against Rome…
Or maybe I should say “…one of the people who did the stuff attributed to Jesus in the Bible…”
http://ancienthistory.about.com/b/2008/10/01/christ-the-magician.htm
Gyges,
Good catch. There is a whole historical sub-genre regarding the proposition and evidence that Jesus (or whoever was supposed to be Jesus)was actually a revolutionary against Rome and that was why they crucified him. Many writers on the subject, the best is Hyam Maccoby, whose books make for impressive arguments.
Mike Spindell,
I am gonna interject here. I read a book a few years ago and the Divine Christ that they were looking for was a mere man with extraordinary abilities. The problem started when the House of David felt that his power management was going to be attacked. The concept of job sharing had not been thought of as of yet.
AY,
The interesting fact is that if Jesus actually had declared he was the heir to the House of David, he would be committing treason towards Rome. Remember on the Cross it read “King of The Jews.” That indicates treason under Roman Law since only the Emperor had the power to designate Kingship in occupied lands.
Mike/AY:
I always thought that Jesus was a revolutionary. And never did like the feminine Jesus portrayed in the pictures and in sermons at church when I was young.
He took on the entire hierarchy of that time and basically beat them. No turn the other cheek Jesus for me, I like the bad ass avenging Jesus. Think the Terminator and Han Solo combo Jesus.
Byron,
Do you feel women are not and cannot be revolutionary forces in the world (because that’s what I get from your first sentence). Also, do you feel that the only way one can be a revolutionary person is to be violent (because that is what I get from your last statement).
“I always thought that Jesus was a revolutionary.”
Byron,
Their is historical evidence that most of the Disciples were members of the Zealots, who took the revolutionary lead against the Romans. This stuff has always fascinated me and I’ve done a lot of reading about it. What got clouded when Constantine took over the Church, was that the Jews were the most militant of the
Roman Provinces and were never really subdued, though badly beaten. Jesus was probably not only a “bad ass” but a revolutionary reformer also. The Romans had to clean this picture
up because how could they accept as Lord someone who was to them a traitor. Many historians for instance believe that the “render unto Caeser…” quote was a later insertion. We’ll never know for sure, but for me it is fun reading and historically instructive. In context of the ongoing discussion here the notion that we are today more intellectually/politically evolved than the ancients is a flawed one.
Mike,
Even Asimov does a little speculation along those lines. Not much, but he does explore the theory that Judas was probably a hard-line revolutionary whose role was later minimized. As an aside he points out that Judas Iscariot is a couple of fairly easy “typos” away from something meaning “Judas the Zealot.”
Or we could go with Vidal’s theory that Jesus was killed because he advocated a soft money policy instead of the hard money one that Rome advocated. One of the best touches in “Live from Golgotha”
I cannot remember the name of the short story, but one of Lansdale’s many “alternate Universe” shorts is a letter from one Indian Chief to another (after they and the Japanese had driven out the “savage” Europeans). He mentions that if things had gone slightly different people would be Worshiping that rabbi “Joshua or something” instead of his cousin, John the Baptist.
Bryon/Mike Spindell,
I will agree that they were Zealots if history is accurate the St’s for the day are Simon and Jude.
I agree with Bryon that Jesus was not as passive as he is made to be. There is a book/bible called “The Lost Books of the Bible” and “The Forgotten Books of Eden.” It will give you a new feeling for this area in all aspect.
Now as far as being portrayed as feminine I think this was a sales job for the church to make his personality appear less forceful. I am remiss in the name that Jesus was called in India but it is my understanding that during the time period that is unaccounted for in any modern day bible he studied different manic arts of eastern mysticism.
I know a whole lot more but space is limited here as well as recall at this very instance.
Jill,
I do not feel that Bryon was being inflammatory in his statements. I think he was trying to express that express that what we are led to believe is not necessarily what we now believe.
This is pretty much like the belief of some that thought torture was good at the beginning and now have changed the focus to torture not being good and what else is our government not telling us.
As far as Women, I did not think that he was saying what you are inferring.
Mike and Byron,
There’s a often played bass Concerto by a famous virtuoso and pedagogue, Dragonetti. The problem is it wasn’t really by Dragonetti. It doesn’t sound anything like anything else he’s written. Somewhere along the line, someone wrote this piece and decided it would be better received if it was by Dragonetti, and so it got attributed to him, and even though it’s fairly obviously NOT by Dragonetti, it’s “The Dragonetti.”
I wonder how many sermons get attributed to Jesus.
By the way, there’s a reason Dragonetti wasn’t known as a composer.
Jill:
“Byron,
Do you feel women are not and cannot be revolutionary forces in the world (because that’s what I get from your first sentence). Also, do you feel that the only way one can be a revolutionary person is to be violent (because that is what I get from your last statement).”
Obviously no on both counts. Gandhi comes to mind as does Joan of Arc. However if the revolutionary is violent, I would say she tends to loose her femininity.
I also think that women make poor warriors for the most part because it is not in their nature. And no, I have no problem with women who want to serve. But I dont think they ought to be in direct contact with the enemy. Ships, planes, subs, tanks even sure.
Mike:
“In context of the ongoing discussion here the notion that we are today more intellectually/politically evolved than the ancients is a flawed one.”
I agree and believe any educated Roman could make mince meat of any of us on this blog in terms of rhetoric, well maybe not BobEsq., he has that guy Kant pretty well figured out. And would slap the guy silly with the categorical imperative.
Hi Byron,
Did you know our service women, right now, are in combat? It’s not supposed to happen but it does, all the time. If something is not in nature it cannot occur. It would just logically not be possible for it to happen. I think we have to conclude that the idea that certain traits naturally occur only in females or males cannot be true because we constantly see women and men acting exactly counter to these supposedly immutable, “natural” characteristics.
My other question is: why does a violent revolutionary appeal to you more than a non-violent one?
Here’s an article on women in combat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/16women.html
Jill:
I don’t doubt for a minuet that some women are capable of doing well in combat, history shows us that. I am only saying that it is not the general rule. Fortunately or unfortunately women and men are different, we handle stress differently, we have different strength and endurance levels, we handle heat and cold differently. Some men aren’t qualified for combat either, but generally they are.
To me the article you linked to sounds like it is cultural necessity to have women on the front lines. How did the women do in the earlier fighting?
“My other question is: why does a violent revolutionary appeal to you more than a non-violent one?”
Who said it did? I like Gandhi as much as I like George Washington. I dislike Che Guevara and Fidel Castro, both of whom were violent men. It’s not the violence or lack of, it is the cause that appeals to me.
So what you are saying then is that the American Revolution was not a worthy cause because it was violent, but voting a dictator into power in Venezuela or Iran is ok because it was non-violent?
As long as freedom is taken away in the ballot box it is ok? But if freedom is reestablished at gun point that is not ok?
I am just curious.
Many reasons for not have women in combat specific MOS’s have nothing to do with their ability to perform in combat.
*having
Byron,
This is what you wrote earlier: “I always thought that Jesus was a revolutionary. And never did like the feminine Jesus portrayed in the pictures and in sermons at church when I was young.
He took on the entire hierarchy of that time and basically beat them. No turn the other cheek Jesus for me, I like the bad ass avenging Jesus. Think the Terminator and Han Solo combo Jesus.”
—————————————————————-
This sounds to me like you prefer a violent, rather than non-violent revolutionary figure. If I read that incorrectly it was an honest mistake. I think the question of violence is extremely complex. The ideas you attribute to me are not mine. I have never justified the taking away of anyone’s freedom. I hope you have read enough of my posts on this blog to know that I try to stand up for people’s rights. So to directly answer you question, there is no time that the taking away of anyone’s freedom is acceptable to me. I choose to work in a non-violent way to rectify this situation to the best of my ability.
As to your understanding of who women and men are I can only say there is a great deal of information which contradicts these ideas. Our culture deals in the myth that women and men are far more different than we are alike. We also believe there are only two sexes, when in fact there are actually five. I think we need to challenge these myths and really see who we all are.
Jill:
men and women are different and have different abilities. Men and men are different and have different abilities. Women and women are different and have different abilities.
Why don’t women compete with men in the Olympics?
Being non-violent is obviously the best way to go. Thankfully we don’t have to worry about that in this country.
And my liking a tough Jesus has more to do with my thoughts on religion, specifically the Christian religion, than anything else.
Are you worried about a bunch of violence loving, gun toting conservatives? No need to be, we would only be violent if our rights were usurped totally by government. I do love the second amendment. As Ben Franklin said “Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner, liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote”.
The ballot box is the appropriate venue for political disagreements.
Jill,
First, I think we all need to look at our ideas about gender. In some sports, women have recently started competing with men and they’re doing just fine. In about 20 years you may be surprised at who competes at what sport and does well. Sports are hampered much less by biological limits than social strictures. The differences between individuals is greater than between what you would call the two sexes.
I was asking a genuine question about a tough or in your description of a terminator/hans solo hybrid, I would have to say, a violent Jesus. If you do want to explain this I am interested and although I may disagree with you, that’s all it would be–a disagreement. I like you.
I personally fear left wing complacency far more than right wing militancy.
At this point, I think a general strike in the streets is another way besides the ballot box to help the poor, working and middle class and restore the Constitution!
I meant Byron, not myself!
Jill:
I cant really say why I like a Terminator/Han Solo Jesus. I guess I like the picture of basically one man taking on the totalitarian power structure of his time. Maybe I have a “High Noon” complex. I doubt Gandhi would have been successful with the Romans and I don’t think a turn the other cheek Jesus would have been either. Although a good many Christians did die at the Circus prior to Romes eventual collapse.
Their deaths can probably be attributed to passivity and Jesus’s admonition to turn the other cheek.
In my opinion passivity in civil disobedience only works if the power structure is willing to entertain change. Otherwise civil dissent will be put down harshly and quickly. Think Hitler, Saddam, Iranian Mullahs, etc.
A revolution in a country like that has to be a total spontaneous uprising of such shear mass that it is impossible for the dictator to control it. Or if he tries, he loses whatever support he may have had.
I find it strange that a population has the means of over throwing a dictator at any time they wish but fear keeps them in a herd mentality. If you can stampede the “herd” the dictator is done and in short order.
I doubt I explained anything, as I said above I dont know why. You have any thoughts on that?
Byron,
Civil disobedience is just another form of stampeding. And it can work regardless of government cooperation or proclivity simply because of math. If the head of the fish is rotten, to borrow the Russian truism, the body can kill it by simply ceasing to cooperate in some instances. I say some for a reason because there are a certain amount of bad actors that will never respond to social coercion and must be removed by force as it is all they understand. Just like economics works best as a combination of free and controlled markets (and I know you disagree) the only viable solution is a mixture of both tactics in any given situation. Gandhi was indeed a pacifist and prime mover for removing the Raj, but if you think that it was totally bloodless? Eh, you’d be mistaken. In fact, as independence approached their was a large uptick in sectarian violence. People died and killed to free India. That the bulk of the change was induced passively will not change that. As with most things, an example of a polar (i.e. black/white) solution is a true rarity. Most solutions are gray.
“there was”
Mike S writes: There is a whole historical sub-genre regarding the proposition and evidence that Jesus (or whoever was supposed to be Jesus)was actually a revolutionary against Rome and that was why they crucified him.
there wasn’t anything special about crucifixion –it was the death sentence of choice, along with flogging on the way to the site. thousands of people were crucified for scores of reasons, chiefly disloyalty to Rome.
the christian bible is the only reference we have about jesus and differing gospels portray him as a different guy in each. the search for new meaning in the gospels isn’t new and neither is the desire to paint him as an ordinary guy, a rabbi, a teacher, a criminal. different times evoke different groups who tackle this little-known person and try to humanize him to seem more like their idea of what a savior ought to be.
I believe that there was no such figure and the christian gospels built this character out of whole cloth embellishing as time went on… since none of the authors of the gospels actually knew him and the time span for writing was long and there are no other surviving chronicles of this man.
the urge to find salvation is a strong one and the need for jesus to be part man/part god is unsettling for me.
“Maybe I have a “High Noon” complex.”
Martin: You risk your skin catching killers and the juries turn them loose so they can come back and shoot at you again. If you’re honest you’re poor your whole life and in the end you wind up dying all alone on some dirty street. For what? For nothing. For a tin star.
Byron,
To me, I don’t think of non-violent resistance as passive (although there is a form of it that uses intentional passivity to as a tactic). Passive people may be armed or unarmed. During the reign of Bush for example, many on the right, including the militias, remained passive, or worse, supportive of Bush as he dismantled the Constitution, ordered torture and falsely led us into a war of his choice. It is now the left that is remaining passive in the face of these same crimes committed by a Democrat.
Active resistance takes many forms, one of which is non-violence. Non violence doesn’t mean no one will get hurt or take risks, it means only that one will not use violence to achieve one’s goals.
I think the idea of an ass-kicking hero is a strong archetype in our minds and hearts, one that doesn’t serve us well. The Hero Archetype is actually the mirror image of the dictator. It is one person that is supposed to make things right just as the dictator proclaims he will make everything right if we only follow him. In this I am not doubting the courage of any person who tries to right a wrong. To reach out and help other people is heroic. It is one of the best things we can accomplish in our lives. But that isn’t the same as the archetype of a single hero who takes everything on by himself and puts it right. We put things right by working together. The more people able to think for themselves, lead, follow, take over for each other, the better. To face down tyranny we need the many, not just the one.
I agree with you that dictators can only prevail because people are afraid, both because they should be of a cruel person who can do real harm to anyone who fails to obey but also when people are afraid to see the emperor has no clothes.
Jill,
Self respect is critical; however, talking to oneself is going a bit too far.
Good one FFLEO!
Here’s someone who practices non-violent action on behalf of national healthcare for all.
“Why I Am Risking Arrest for Medicare for All
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2009-10-29 16:15.
* Healthcare
* Nonviolent Resistance
By Margaret Flowers, M.D., Congressional Fellow, Physicians for a National Health Program
Let me begin by saying that I don’t have any desire to be arrested. I am a pediatrician with 3 teenagers and a husband who would prefer that I do not spend time in jail. I have never actually spent the night in jail and I imagine it’s not very pleasant. To be honest, I am a bit frightened. But, I expect that these are normal feelings and I am dedicated to act despite my reservations because there comes a time when our conscience dictates that we act. That time is now (or “way past now” as doctors and patients whom I’ve met in my travels have told me).
In short, I am going to be arrested because I believe that it is my professional responsibility to advocate on behalf of those patients who are suffering and because it is clear that traditional advocacy tools are not working. The phrase that runs continuously through my mind is “To be silent is to be complicit.” I cannot be complicit in the face of an industry that profits at the cost of human lives and in the face of an administration and Congress that are too dysfunctional to stop this practice.”
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/47390