Finding a place for our faith and tolerating others…

The Church does not accept homosexuality. Whether or not this will change remains to be seen. Personally, it does not bother me in the slightest (homosexuality), and it never has. I would like to see the Church position change, I think it should change. Nevertheless, something caught my eye as I was watching “Little Mosque” on Father’s Day. My day, my TV, and I like my Canadian shows. I was also watching the British show Spy.

But the episode was about whether or not to have a women’s only swim session. In the current women’s only session, there was a male lifeguard, who was flamboyantly gay. He referred to himself as a “Friend of Dorothy”, which I had heard before. It was also featured in Arrested Development, so I decided to look the term up.

Apparently, there was a massive investigation of the subject by the NCIS, who thought that there was a real Dorothy, who they thought was at the center of a gay service member ring. So Dorothy must be found!!!!

A week or so ago, the US military announced that they were providing benefits to Same-sex couples in the military. DADT was killed a while back too. I spoke to my friends who are/were in the military, and based on general information, the repeal of DADT was met with a resounding shrug. No one really cared, and people simply went on with their lives.

I do not agree with the Church’s position on homosexuality. But, the Church is capable of doing what it will. I do not see a need to impose those beliefs on the rest of the world, however, the military included. I think there is room to have faith, even if that faith includes opposing someone else’s lifestyle (which I personally do not), while allowing that lifestyle to persist. Otherwise what kind of faith do you have? So I think that gays should have benefits, should be allowed to serve in the military, and should be able to visit the local base exchange from time to time.

Our faith is in the home, not in public…

I taught Sunday School last week and discussed the Temple, its historical role, the etymological root of the term, and all aspects of Temple worship in all of its forms. It is a topic I love discussing, and we had a great class.

As part of the discussion, we discussed how the center of our faith is actually in the Home, and how the Temple is actually not an end unto itself, but more a representation of how the home should be. This mirrors Judaism (I have always thought we were far more Jewish in orientation than more mainstream Christian sects) in that Judaism is a primarily home based faith. The Sabbath is welcomed in the home. Yom Kippur is celebrated mostly in the home. The home is where most of the important aspects of both of our faiths occur.

And this makes me question concepts that we should be pushing our faith into the public sphere.

In a discussion here, entitled Turning the Other Cheek Ain’t Working So Well Right Now, the problems with faith is perceived as a problem of public recognition. In order of horror, the article lists…

The communal chapel at the University of Chicago is making accommodations to host Muslim worship as well, and this is terrible. (Love that school, BTW, I REALLY wanted to go to grad school there, but I have not been able to co-locate or get out of work long enough)

Places are not set aside to pray in airports, though people have designated places to smoke…terrifying.

People cannot pray in public…terrible

Women dress provocatively…awful

Stores are open on Sunday…soul crushing

All of this weakens Christianity.

Except that it does not. This weakens Christianity, only if Christianity is absurdly weak to begin with. Consider the weakness of faith inherent in these situations. When does a Christian, a real Christian, really need a specific place to pray? Muslims prostrate themselves, and this does require specific places otherwise it is sort of odd, but I know more than a few who do this in public, spectacle or not. They feel no reason to have specific locations, but apparently these weak Christians NEED to have a special place…or else they are not Christian.

People really CAN pray in public and read scripture in public, but this is not enough. Someone could quietly sit in almost any public place and pray or read Scripture, but this is not enough. What the author here really wants is overt, and expressive recognition of prayer and scripture reading. She wants the spectacle, and since she cannot get this recognition, she feels slighted.

Women dress provocatively? I know a guy who was about to enter the Catholic Priesthood who I greatly respected. I did not like him as a person, I thought he was a jerk, but I respected his dedication. We were in Turkey, in an area that caters to European tourists, and people were clad in less than was typical. And when I say clad I mean almost naked. This guy would remove his glasses so as to avoid temptation. I did not worry about it, because I never noticed. First I went to the Mosque, not the topless beaches, and I was far more interested in the Islamic architecture. The Hawaiian Tropic bikini team could have walked past me completely naked, and I would never have even noticed.

But this should have no impact on an individual’s faith. A person’s faith should not be shaken by what someone else wears, or does not, ever. If it does, then that faith is as weak and puny as to be non-existent. The same applies to stores and the Sabbath. If a person’s faith is dependent on whether or not external society recognizes their faith, then it is no faith at all.

What the author of this piece is saying is that their faith is very weak, and that they need external support, and because society is not supporting that faith, this woman is upset.

And this is somewhat understandable, in that some support is needed, which is why we have religious communities. This is why we meet every Sunday, it is why have congregations, because it supports us and our faith. But when we try to expand that support to forcing others to recognize that faith, forcing our values on society because we are too weak to follow them, then we have crossed a line.

And it is all pointless, anyway. Our faith is not the faith of the public, it is not the faith of the government, it is the faith of the home, of the individual. When the government says “Happy Holidays” it is not an attack on Christianity, unless your faith is so weak as to require government support. If Google does not do something special for Easter, this is not an attack on Easter, unless your faith is so weak that you need Google to recognize it. The problem is not that Christianity is under attack, it is that Christianity is so weak as to need special protection.

What the article is really saying is not that turning the other cheek is too hard, it is that living her faith is too hard, which is a personal problem, not a societal one. This is why I really like cloistered worship, for those who really need to get away. I believe the author is Catholic, she should likely consider becoming a nun.

Honestly I do have a certain amount of religious envy for the opportunities to be a nun or monk, but that is not our faith. Our faith expects us to be in the world, to endure trials of the world, and to be stronger for it. We are supposed to be a nation of priests and priestesses, and this requires us to be out there, in the society, instead of sheltered from it. This is how Christianity was envisioned, how it was originally practiced, and one of the things I think the Church gets right.

Why Americans fail, 2.0…

I mentioned in my post “A funny thing happened on the way to the blog” that a blogger had attempted to malign Islam on the Conservative Club blog. When I pointed out the mistakes, he did a profile of sorts on me, which was rife with plagiarism, misstatements, and general bad argumentation. He has responded here.

The personal criticisms aside, this is really interesting for one simple reason, and that is a lack of responsibility. Just like the post yesterday where a member of the same group Blog that TP2 writes for bragged that he purposefully did not learn High School trigonometry, TP2′s comments are all about trying to blame anyone for his mistakes but him. TP2 responded to my blog post with the following…

As usual, you are engaging what seems to be your favorite pastime – name calling and denigrating me. To quote you, I am “clearly poorly read, clearly intolerant, clearly bigoted, clearly ignorant, clearly uninformed, etc.” Don’t you ever get tired of calling names? Apparently not. Almost every comment and reply from you includes this as the foundation of your comment.

The problem is that TP2 is poorly read, clearly intolerant, clearly bigoted, clearly ignorant, clearly uninformed, etc… He will blame me for pointing this out, but will take no responsibility for his own education or commentary, to include the numerous errors. Saying he is poorly read is the natural conclusion from multiple mistakes. Bigotry is the natural conclusion based on unparalleled intolerance without knowledge or understanding. Insulting a religion without understanding is intolerance. And so on…

I am not calling names, I am pointing out the natural conclusions inherent in the mistakes presented. When someone completely flubs everything they say about Christianity, Islam, politics, technology, etc… the natural conclusions follow. TP2 butchered Islamic theology and practice, failed to recognize common theological terms, and failed to demonstrate any real familiarity with the subject matter. When he attempted to criticize me, he failed to understand Christian practice, misspelled simple terms, and even failed to cite the website he was plagiarizing.

The problem is not that I said TP2 was poorly read, clearly intolerant, clearly bigoted, clearly ignorant, clearly uninformed, etc… but that he is, and he has no one to blame for it but himself, and that is simply not an alternative.

For example, he blames his online translator for translating اجتهاد‎ to Persian, when it is Arabic. The problem with this, is that the term is something that I learned before I spoke Arabic, in a Freshman level Islamic Studies class (using A Concise History of the Middle East, among others, but this is a good Freshman level to start with). As I said before, it would be like claiming to be well studied in Judaism, but not recognizing כַּשְׁרוּת when presented with it. If someone is well studied in a subject that includes a foreign language, you would expect simple terms to be understood as well, without language fluency.

But TP2 cannot be expected to be responsible for his own arguments, or for his own failures. It HAS to be someone else’s fault.

He discusses his education which includes…

“As for reading and studying, I actually do both. I have read and studied many books by Dr. Norman Geisler, Dr. John MacArthur, Dr. Walter Martin, Dr. Hank Hanegraaff, Josh McDowell, Paul Little, and many others.”

What is interesting is that most are not PhDs, to include Dr. John MacArthur, Dr. Walter Martin, and Dr. Hank Hanegraaff. These people do not have Doctorates (one that I know of has an honorary doctorate, and Walter Martin has a diploma mill doctorate which is unaccredited). Naturally, this level of poor research and understanding is not TP2′s fault, he will blame someone else. Additionally, they are all absurdly bad authors. To prove this, look at all of the mistakes TP2 made. Even WRT Christianity, TP2 had to plagiarize the definition of exegesis from a Jewish website, and did so having no familiarity with the concept. This is the education these individuals have given him, nothing at all.

He mocked analogical exegesis, which has a long Christian history, though he did not know this. His poor understanding of just about everything can be traced to a lack of responsibility for anything and everything associated with the subjects he discusses, but this will never be his fault.

There is a simple way out of this dilemma, however. Read. Study. Research. Actually work. People will not call you stupid, when you are educated. Or, if they do, it will not matter. I cannot tell you how many times I have gotten into a political discussion concerning economics and been the only person who has read Freidman, Hayek, Keynes, or Marx, let alone Ricardo, Malthus, Smith, or many others. Many do not even know who these people are. Once pointed out the inevitable response is “you think you’re so smart…” but the answer is YES!!!!! and no. Yes, in order to discuss a subject, you have to study it first, but what I have studied is nothing near the level of discourse required to REALLY understand a subject. I am an amateur, a rank amateur at that. That is what is so disturbing is that most, TP2 being a prime example, cannot even aspire to rank amateur status they are so uneducated. But even that level of study is considered “Ivory tower…”.

TP2 concludes…

“Now, if you would like to compare islam and Christianity, then by all means let’s do so. But let’s compare these two religions and not just specific adherents of them.”

How can he hope to do this when he knows nothing about either subject? When he has to plagiarize the definition of exegesis from a Jewish website, how can he hope to discuss anything? He cannot recognize simple Islamic theological terms, or methods of Islamic Legal analysis. He is hopelessly uneducated on Islam, Christianity, and a great many other things, but the first thing he suggests is to compare two subjects he knows nothing about?

And this is why Conservatism is failing, why Christianity is failing, and America is failing. TP2 will take no responsibility for his errors or lack of education, so the failure is complete. And there are a LOT of TP2s out there.

Why America is failing…

I mentioned before that I was posting on the Constitution Club blog, which is a blog about supposed Conservative values, by people who do not know what Conservatism is. The posters by and large have no familiarity with almost anything they discuss, and make absurd mistakes on most topics. The blog is a further testament to the failure of Conservative politics, but it will not change and the movement is dying as we speak, though it may take the country with it. That is neither here nor there, however.

One particularly poor poster, Rat, made an interesting comment. A Democratic Senator made a comment that “It’s really not math. It’s just arithmetic. It’s very simple arithmetic. It’s not as complicated as math”. The intent was clear, given the full umbrella of what constitutes mathematics, arithmetic is fairly simple, hardly worth mentioning. Nevertheless, the Senator was mocked and ridiculed by people who obviously did not understand the full scope of mathematics, and Rat summed it up with this wonderful comment…

And, guess what else? I don’t know much about calculus and trigonometry ON PURPOSE. Don’t need to – as long as those in positions that require said knowledge know it.

The problems with this are legion, but still, it is just such a stupid thing to say. First, simple trigonometry is required in every High School I am aware of, bragging that you are ignorant of High School subjects is really, really dumb. Secondly, this is why the US is failing so disastrously, people are so poorly educated.

The problem is not with the public educational system, but the perception of education amongst the general population. I mentioned this before, but the President once asked Steve Jobs about bringing jobs back to the US, and he was told that those jobs are gone, they were not coming back, and he was correct. This is a reality of the global marketplace, the job market is fluid. In order to be employed, continual education, and reeducation, is a necessary, a fact that was honestly not in evidence for the previous generation.

For Generation X and onward, you can no longer go through life ignorant of the basics (at least what I consider the basics), because the economy is moving more and more towards the technologically savvy and the “Conservative” ideology expressed above is a recipe for disaster.

And I say this as a Humanities major. (they also recently mocked humanities majors on the website, without understand the power of that line of thought either).

A funny thing happened on the way to the blog…

I have criticized the “Conservative” movement before, along with some sects of of Christianity, not because I see much wrong with either movement, but because most “adherents” are not actually involved in either movement, something they do not really know or understand. In the book “Almost Christian” author Dr. Kendra Dean, Professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, discusses the problems inherent in the lack of Christianity amongst Christians, particularly amongst youth. This is not to say that the adherents are not Christian, this is actually impossible, since understanding perception of Christianity is so underdeveloped as to be an actual impediment to definition. Christianity is a movement with a history that goes back thousands of years, but for many, this has no importance or meaning. The same can be said of Conservatism amongst a large portion of the claimed “Conservatives.” Most are as unfamiliar with what constitutes Conservative thought as they are unfamiliar with Christian thought.

So, this being the case, I was commenting on some of the comments from the “Constitution Club” a blog that prides itself on their Conservatism, and being a plague to liberals. They are neither. Most of the members have little to no conception of what Conservatism actually is, and the blog consists of just really terrible articles on just about anything. Even subjects were I might agree with the philosophy, are presented so poorly as to be embarrassing.

Into this cesspool, I joined a discussion on Islam. One poster went off on a tirade about how President Obama was surrendering to Islam. It was, as most is on the website, completely uninformed, ignorant of not only Islam, but also Christianity and Judaism, general history, culinary habits, and so on… It was a very poorly informed article.

One poster, ThomasPaine2nd tried to defend the article. In it he claimed to be well versed in Islamic studies, in fact he said “For every “history” book, monograph or paper you can produce to support your argument, I can produce an equal amount of sourced, documented and proven historical books, monographs and papers to refute your argument.”

He proceeded to butcher any understanding of Islam, which one should expect. He had never studied Islam, never studied anything that he discussed (at least that I could see).

In short he stated that Christianity was the source of everything good, Islam the source of everything evil. When Christians did things bad, they were not real Christians. When Muslims did things good, they were not real Muslims. It was absurdly stupid, but he did it without the slightest understanding of the absurdity of the statement.

I simply asked for something simple…

you say “when we read in surah 9:5 allah’s command for muslims to kill non-muslims wherever they find them, it’s actually pretty easy to understand” it is clear you have no idea.

Just to prove it, I will call your bluff. Using supporting documentation in Ja’fari jurisprudence and appropriate sourcing, explain how that verse was understood in, say, the thirteenth century. Again, please source accordingly. This is naturally going to necessitate some study of the underlying structures from the other schools of jurisprudence, as well as a historical understanding of the verse, and some readings from various Koranic commentaries. Please list all materials used.

Now, in reality this is how Muslims would understand their own faith. This is how Muslim Jurists would interpret the Law. I was asking him to understand Islam from Islam’s point of view. It is also, incidentally, roughly how Judaism interprets the Law (different Law in each case, but the process is surprisingly similar). Any study of Islam or Judaism would find this familiar.

His response was…

I find it interesting that in “calling my bluff,” you lay down the parameters within which I must defend my statements. In other words, you will allow me to defend my statements, but only if I do so within your established parameters. Your requirement is that I only use Ja’fari jurisprudence. Not the Hanafi, not the Maliki (both of which are accepted by more muslims than accept Ja’fari), and not Shafi’I, Hanbali, Zaydi or Isma’ili.

The reason I asked was that the Shia have a unique school of jurisprudence. Also Zaydi and Ismaili are not schools in themselves, they are sects with some differing characteristics, but that is neither here nor there. Whatever webpage he copied this from likely did not explain this.

So the parameters that an Islamic Jurist would roughly use (much different terms, but the general élan would be the same), was lost on this presumed education. In short, TP2 had no idea, and was essentially admitting as much, but did not realize it.

TP2 went on to explain how other people did not like Islam either, and posted quotes, including this one…

“Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science – the science against which it had vainly struggled – the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.” (1st edition, volume two, pp 248, 250)

Whenever people try to do this, there is a simple trick you can use. Ask for the next page. In this case the next page is interesting. TP2 has no idea. He has not read the book. He did not know what the book said. You can find this quote on dozens of websites, but never a sentence more. And naturally, TP2 did not know a sentence more. This is what he calls education, because it supports his prejudice. Prejudice is education enough for the prejudiced.

I asked for TP2 to use اجتهاد‎ in his answer and he responded…

A suggestion, instead of making feeble attempts to prove your intelligence by writing in Farsi, why not simply write the word in English for the benefit of others who do not understand Farsi? Unless of course your only purpose is braggadocio. I can deduce by your insistence that I use only Ja’fari jurisprudence, which is neither used nor accepted by all muslims (nor even the majority of muslims), but is used by Shi’a muslims, which are the majority in Iran.

اجتهاد‎ is an Arabic term, not Farsi. It is also one that I learned before I knew Arabic, when I was an undergrad. This is like someone claiming to be well versed in Judaism, but not recognizing Hebrew, or someone who has studied Judaism but cannot recognize simple Hebrew terms. I do not speak Hebrew (well I do speak Hebrew, a little at least, I just have no idea what the words mean, I just know what the letters sound like), but I know the word for Torah, and a few other religious terms. What TP2 takes for braggadocio is actually basic, Intro to Islam level undergraduate education. This is like claiming someone is bragging because they know something that is taught in Western Civilization 101? If this rather insignificant level of knowledge is bragging, how would a detailed examination of Al Ghazali look?

This is not bragging. This is very, very, very basic knowledge, and it is something that TP2 thinks is exceptional.

Now after this, TP2 started a thread about me personally, that is interesting in what little he seems to understand, again.

TP2 states “He claims he is a Christian, and a mormon, and a buddhist, and a sufi muslim”

This is interesting for several reasons. First the Sufi label comes from a post here, where, after discussing Kipling and Richard F. Burton I state “I am a Sufi, in a manner of speaking, and I do enjoy praying at the mosque, despite not being a believer, or a very unorthodox believer, can’t decide which.” Now, this statement should be understood in context, considering Kipling (and Mahbub Ali) and Burton, which TP2 clearly has no familiarity with. Leaving this for a second…

He continues…

In reading his blog, I discovered several comments from him that are actually quite revealing, and help to understand just what kind of a person he is. In a post titled, “Depth of Faith,” “Joseph” reveals that the he subscribes to the PARDES method of reading religious texts. Whereas most theologians, whether professional or amateur, will rely on exigesis (in which the reader will interpret the text based on the literary and grammatical context of the text), and will refrain from over allegorizing the text. The PARDES method, on the other hand, is far more subjective.

Now, I liked the blog post, and I referenced it, but TP takes this as emphatic subscription to the whole methodology, which is simplistic thinking. I can like the post without subscribing to every aspect of the paradigm. Nevertheless, this does not seem to occur to TP2. But again, there is more…

What is so amusing about this is that it is so badly uninformed. First, TP2 does not know what exegesis is. St Augustine was famous for exegesis, and was very allegorical. Early Christianity was incredibly allegorical in their exegesis. TP2 is using a term he clearly does not understand at all, and there is a reason for that.

The sentence TP2 uses is interesting…

“the reader will interpret the text based on the literary and grammatical context of the text”

because it is almost the exact same as

“The modern manner of interpreting Biblical text is commonly called exegesis. This method concerns itself mostly with the literary and grammatical context of Scripture verses”

TP2 proceeds to plagiarize several paragraphs from this website. (paraphrasing is still plagiarism, when TP claims he was not plagiarizing) First, there is no reason to plagiarize. It is completely acceptable to not be familiar with Jewish exegetical processes. But second, TP2 has no clue what he is talking about…ever. He does not understand Islam. He does not understand Judaism. He does not understand Islam. He draws absurd connections that a reasonable intellect would not automatically make. I honestly doubt he has ever read Thomas Paine. He plagiarizes to cover this fact.

Then he is upset that this is pointed out. He is clearly poorly read, clearly intolerant, clearly bigoted, clearly ignorant, clearly uninformed, etc… but this is not anyone’s fault but his own. He really did call Arabic Farsi, because he is unfamiliar with this. He did not recognize jurisprudence. He did not understand Christian principles. He had to plagiarize Jewish thought and flubbed concepts of exegesis. All of this was a voluntary admission of ignorance, but to point it out…?

TP2 has a burning hatred for Muslims, because he does not know Muslims, and he is terrified of what he does not know. He is lashing out because that hatred is the root of his problems, not his education (which is non-existent) or his understanding (likewise non-existent) but because he is scared and ignorant. This is ultimately the functional definition of prejudice anyway. He does not understand Christianity, Sufism, Islam, Buddhism or even his list of political ideas.

And this is what is killing Christianity, and Conservatism, the ignorance and prejudice of their claimed practitioners. What is interesting, is that TP2 could actually study. He could check out the books, read the journals, and even meet the people who could help him learn, but he won’t. He could learn. He simply will not put the work into it. And I honestly have no idea why. He plagiarizes to cover the lack, but will not really study…?

I do not know why, I really do not.

Depth of faith…

As usual, the Sinai and Synapses blog has an outstanding article about faith, and plumbing the depths of that faith.

The blog states…

What we ignore — or at least forget — is just how much richness there is below the surface….

The PaRDeS method of reading texts forces us to go below the surface of what we initially see. Instead, each level invites us to discover more and more. In the words of Rabbi Dr. Norman Cohen, “The mystics of the Middle Ages understood the Torah to be an inexhaustible well that contains many levels of potential meaning, and all the reader needs to do is find a way to plumb its depth.”

This is a more in depth method of study of the spiritual, I would say scripture but there is more to it than scripture. This is what I learned to do while living in the Middle East from some of the most wonderful Muslim teachers. It was enlightening to use methods Muslims use to study their scripture to take to my own. It is like seeing a painting through completely different eyes. It is the same painting, but the perspective shifts.

The same can be applied to anything, including political philosophy. How many people have opinions on Marx, without having ever read or studied Marx? On Milton Friedman without having really studied Friedman. There is far more beneath the surface, and I think one of the problems we have in a society is that we are one thin layer deep. Our politicians and pundits are providing nothing but whitewash to political ideas and issues without getting to the depths of the issue.

This is one reason I think PBS News Hour is one of the best news shows on television, because they only cover a few stories, but their coverage is really in depth. It feeds the intellect more than bumper-stickers and platitudes.

So, whether politics, faith, science, or even something simple, invest.

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.

Afraid…

In an amusing turn, I was trying to defend Islam on the Constitution Club blog, and apparently, the “Conservative” group does not like to have their errors pointed out. I was banned. Here is my last comment which they will not allow.

You state, “I gave you the steps a Muslim jurist would use for jurisprudence.” Actually, you asked for the steps, but you did not give any.

You said you were well educated on Islam. Have you studied Islamic jurisprudence? I assumed you would know the steps, since you claimed to have studied the subject.

And what you asked for were actually the steps a Shi’a jurist would use, but not the steps that the majority of muslim jurists would use.

Not true in the slightest. Jurisprudence is roughly the same for Shia or Sunni, but the commentaries and legal decisions will differ. Ironically enough, it is also roughly the same way that Rabbis perform analysis of the Law, if you had studied Judaism.

A suggestion, instead of making feeble attempts to prove your intelligence by writing in Farsi, why not simply write the word in English for the benefit of others who do not understand Farsi?

Because I was not writing Farsi. The word is Arabic. It is a very common Arabic word in a freshman, intro to Islamic studies class. Also the word has no English translation. You continually prove you have no idea what you’re talking about. If someone claimed they were well educated on Judaism, I would expect them to recognize Hebrew. Farsi uses Arabic script, but has some different letters, easy to recognize if you are familiar with Arabic, not if you have no idea what is going on to begin with. In this case, however, this is a common word to those who have studied Islam.

Unless of course your only purpose is braggadocio.

No, I was just giving you the rope to hang yourself. You made the claims about being well studied. I simply laid out some issues for you to comment on and waited to see what you would say.

I can deduce by your insistence that I use only Ja’fari jurisprudence, which is neither used nor accepted by all muslims (nor even the majority of muslims), but is used by Shi’a muslims, which are the majority in Iran. This, coupled with your use of Farsi, leads me to deduce that you are either Iranian, or Iranian muslims are your choice of the perfect example of islam, and that you have no use for Sunnis, Sufis, Wahhabists, nor any other islamic sect. I am sure the supreme leader would be proud of you.

Or, if you were actually educated on Islam, you would know that the Sunnis stopped using اجتهاد‎ a while ago, which is why I used the Jafari school. You would also know that اجتهاد‎ relies on a person’s expertise in education and training, which you claimed to have.

You knew none of this, however, because you have no idea what you are talking about. Keep in mind, this was covered in the freshman Islamic studies class I took maybe 18 years ago.

You have asked for examples of scholarly writing supporting my views (something you yourself have not provided), but you also warned that you would not accept anything that I might provide, dismissing out of hand anything I might submit as “pseudo-scholarship.” I answered your questions anyway and provided the requested scholarly works, and true to your word, you immediately denounced it all as pseudo-scholarship, prejudice and just plain wrong.

I asked for the next page, which you could not provide. You could not provide it because you never read the book. You did not read the books because you just looked up negative Islamic quotes on the internet and posted them…thinking that this is study and scholarship. This is incorrect.

This is the problem the whole Constitution Club has, and why my posts are being deleted. Most of you have no idea what you are talking about. I have referenced Milton Friedman to claimed Conservatives (not saying it was Milton Friedman) and been told that I was spouting Socialism. No one knew what Milton Friedman taught or what Socialism was for that matter. Islam…no one has any idea. Economics…no one has any idea. Foreign policy…no one has any idea. You read talking points and assume you are educated, when you’re as foolish as you were when you started. I let you kill your own argument, and having no idea what you are talking about, you did. You will blame me, personal responsibility is no longer a faux-Conservative virtue, but it is entirely your fault.

You claim that the writings I submitted were nothing more than opinions that I happened to agree with. As anyone with common sense realizes, the writers of history interpret historical events through the filters of their own biases and preconceived ideas. In other words, their opinions. You simply choose to accept only those whom you happen to agree with and you automatically denounce all those whom you disagree with. The very same thing you have accused me of. Your standard pattern as seen in the majority of your comments, in this post and others, seems to be condemn those posts and writers and commenter’s you disagree with, disparage them, tell them they are wrong, and never offer an alternative theory with supporting evidence. This seems to be a pattern you are either unable or unwilling to break.

Then provide page 251. By now you should have been able to order from Amazon at least, but you still will not understand what I am referring to.

Therefore I see no benefit or useful purpose in continuing this debate. Please feel free to proclaim yourself the winner. I have answered all of your questions and allowed myself to be insulted and mocked by you. I have provided evidence that supports my positions (which you have not done, and have instead relied on the stunningly intelligent defense of “you’re wrong.”) I feel that I have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that my positions are correct and defensible. Your response to all of it has consistently been to denounce me. I see no point in subjecting myself to further insults and degradation at your hands. You have already stated that you will not accept any evidence I might provide, so there is no longer any point to this debate.

This has never been a debate. You have never had any grounding to begin a debate with. You have spouted prejudice and intolerance and you believe that this educates you, but it does not. And you are running away now because the weight of the knowledge you know you do not have is simply too much. This whole forum has the same problem, but having it here, on display, is good. It kills the movement faster.

I am satisfied with the veracity of the histories I have read, as well as the opinions and beliefs I have formed. You can continue to call me stupid, ignorant, and poorly read. You can continue to doubt my intelligence and education. You can continue to mock my faith in Jesus, and you can continue to proclaim that I am out of my element and that I know naught of what I speak. I am quite sure you will as it seems to be something you are incapable of avoiding. My skin, however, is sufficiently thick and I am not easily offended by personal attacks. After spending a quarter of a century managing the worst criminals the state had to offer, I have heard it all. Trust me, in spite of your proclaimed superior intelligence, you cannot hold a candle to them. Additionally, I am sure it makes you feel good about yourself, so there is a plus side to all this. I’m happy for you.

You still do not understand. I am not discrediting you. You do that all on your own. You call Arabic Farsi, you misunderstand simple Jurisprudence, you quote books you have never read, let alone understood. I am not calling you poorly read…you are. I am not calling you ignorant…you are. I am not calling you stupid…you are.

The problem is you have no sense of personal responsibility for your own intellect or arguments, only ideology.

I’ll leave the last word for you, a final opportunity to toss out another round of barbs, insults and false accusations. Enjoy yourself.

I do not need the last word, you have said all that needs to be said, I just pointed it out to you. Others who are educated in Islam would not need it pointed out. The problem is that you do not know any of these people. I assure you, you have done a sufficient job here, I don’t need to say anything, I am just telling you how bad it actually is, everyone else with a smidgen of education already knows.