Saturday, April 23, 2005
Come, All Ye Faithful
If you're looking for a big riot these days you have to turn to Italian Serie A soccer league (where the Juventus fans are now fighting eachother). The notorious Drughi group is battling for power over the south bend of the arena with the other supporter group - the Fighters. One fighter-member, Rafaele De Vaire, was almost stabbed to death in a recent attack by three Drughi members.
But you can also spend some time with religious groups and see how some people seem ready to do anything just to pick a fight - by extensive name-calling or hate-speech. (It's like that downright stupid Yo Mama-aggressive stance, a war of words that you often see in the rap culture movies, which is the usual run up to a good old fight or a shootout. The reply that follows such an allegation is most commonly "Oh yeah? Well, yo mama is so fat that..." It makes me wonder - why even bother trying to portray a skewed argument if all you want to do is fight? I don't get it, really. If someone said "Yo mama is so fat that..." to me, I guess my reply would be "No, not really. She's actually not very fat at all. Here, let me show you a photo." For some reason you never hear that in the gangsta movies. ) Then again... maybe I am just too "white" to get it.
The US lack one specific feature in their media environment, which on the other side of the Atlantic brings heated discussions to the Europeans home. Everyday. Around tea-time. Tabloid papers have impressive circulations still. And they provide all the good stuff - scandals, gossip, news in a more personal format, and lots of angry columnists. Publish and be damned at its finest. It's a grand business indeed. I should know, because I have been one of those angry columnists in the tabloid papers for over five years.
Swedish Aftonbladet (the biggest tabloid in Sweden - a socialist newspaper with lots of young radical feminist columnists and just as many Bush-bashing stories on any given day) has been targeting the Norwegian evangelical preacher Runar Sögaard. On his CV you'll find that he's the "spritual coach" for Matt LeBlanc and other Hollywood people. In one of Mr Sögaard's preachings, from earlier this spring, Aftonbladet has found that he throws out some harsh words against Islam (article in Swedish) - explicitely about the fact that Muhammed was engaged to his wife when she was 6 (and he was in his 50) and that he later married her when she was 9.
This is ethnocentrist at best, and Mr Sögaard's preaching has little to do with any reasonable discussion about the ethics of Muslims around the world. Anyone can see this. Muslims in Sweden did the stereotypical move and released death treats against Sögaard on a homepage, which both Aftonbladet and its main competitor Expressen reported: "If I see him, I will shoot him" (in Swedish) . Sögaard ran to the police and asked for protection and the whole thing turned nasty. Sometimes you gotta ask yourself why some Muslims seem to love to indulge in all the crude stereotypical behavior. Like this Swedish immigrant puts it (article in Swedish) - it's time for Swedish Muslims to wake up and realize which country they have moved to, and that the only proper answer to allegations like these will have to be with words.
Still, the debate and the furor seems out of place. I can't count all the times I've had to fend off insults from atheists who proclaim that I am a homophobe just because I am a Christian (and the Old Testament proclaims that homosexual men ought to be stoned to death). This is just bad inference and total lack of logic, of course. While you may argue that homosexuality is a sin, and indeed many Christians do, I find lots of Bible teachings which point in the exact opposite direction and I therefore have no trouble combining my Christian beliefs with the understanding that homosexuals are no more sinners than the rest of us. But it would be insane to go about and put death threats on everybody who challenged Christianity. At it is sad to see how many religious groups that seem to thrive on hate rather than understanding based on higher intellectual proportions.
This post deals with the allegations: For starters, we need to make a distinction between Mosaic or Old Testament Law and New Testament teachings. Whilst the Apostles specifically threw out parts of Mosaic Law, such as circumcision and dietary restrictions, the vast majority of laws were not commented on. This is unfortunate as the Old Testament contains some very interesting laws that no modern Christian would ever dream of adhering to. For example:
You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food for a profit. (Lev 25:36-37)
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death ... (Deut. 21:18-21)
People ought to be more concerned with liberating themselves than with flaming speeches against other faith-based groups.
The bottom line: "Does Christ ask us to be libertarians? I answer, emphatically, no; He commands it."
But you can also spend some time with religious groups and see how some people seem ready to do anything just to pick a fight - by extensive name-calling or hate-speech. (It's like that downright stupid Yo Mama-aggressive stance, a war of words that you often see in the rap culture movies, which is the usual run up to a good old fight or a shootout. The reply that follows such an allegation is most commonly "Oh yeah? Well, yo mama is so fat that..." It makes me wonder - why even bother trying to portray a skewed argument if all you want to do is fight? I don't get it, really. If someone said "Yo mama is so fat that..." to me, I guess my reply would be "No, not really. She's actually not very fat at all. Here, let me show you a photo." For some reason you never hear that in the gangsta movies. ) Then again... maybe I am just too "white" to get it.
The US lack one specific feature in their media environment, which on the other side of the Atlantic brings heated discussions to the Europeans home. Everyday. Around tea-time. Tabloid papers have impressive circulations still. And they provide all the good stuff - scandals, gossip, news in a more personal format, and lots of angry columnists. Publish and be damned at its finest. It's a grand business indeed. I should know, because I have been one of those angry columnists in the tabloid papers for over five years.
Swedish Aftonbladet (the biggest tabloid in Sweden - a socialist newspaper with lots of young radical feminist columnists and just as many Bush-bashing stories on any given day) has been targeting the Norwegian evangelical preacher Runar Sögaard. On his CV you'll find that he's the "spritual coach" for Matt LeBlanc and other Hollywood people. In one of Mr Sögaard's preachings, from earlier this spring, Aftonbladet has found that he throws out some harsh words against Islam (article in Swedish) - explicitely about the fact that Muhammed was engaged to his wife when she was 6 (and he was in his 50) and that he later married her when she was 9.
This is ethnocentrist at best, and Mr Sögaard's preaching has little to do with any reasonable discussion about the ethics of Muslims around the world. Anyone can see this. Muslims in Sweden did the stereotypical move and released death treats against Sögaard on a homepage, which both Aftonbladet and its main competitor Expressen reported: "If I see him, I will shoot him" (in Swedish) . Sögaard ran to the police and asked for protection and the whole thing turned nasty. Sometimes you gotta ask yourself why some Muslims seem to love to indulge in all the crude stereotypical behavior. Like this Swedish immigrant puts it (article in Swedish) - it's time for Swedish Muslims to wake up and realize which country they have moved to, and that the only proper answer to allegations like these will have to be with words.
Still, the debate and the furor seems out of place. I can't count all the times I've had to fend off insults from atheists who proclaim that I am a homophobe just because I am a Christian (and the Old Testament proclaims that homosexual men ought to be stoned to death). This is just bad inference and total lack of logic, of course. While you may argue that homosexuality is a sin, and indeed many Christians do, I find lots of Bible teachings which point in the exact opposite direction and I therefore have no trouble combining my Christian beliefs with the understanding that homosexuals are no more sinners than the rest of us. But it would be insane to go about and put death threats on everybody who challenged Christianity. At it is sad to see how many religious groups that seem to thrive on hate rather than understanding based on higher intellectual proportions.
This post deals with the allegations: For starters, we need to make a distinction between Mosaic or Old Testament Law and New Testament teachings. Whilst the Apostles specifically threw out parts of Mosaic Law, such as circumcision and dietary restrictions, the vast majority of laws were not commented on. This is unfortunate as the Old Testament contains some very interesting laws that no modern Christian would ever dream of adhering to. For example:
You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food for a profit. (Lev 25:36-37)
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death ... (Deut. 21:18-21)
People ought to be more concerned with liberating themselves than with flaming speeches against other faith-based groups.
The bottom line: "Does Christ ask us to be libertarians? I answer, emphatically, no; He commands it."
