Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion Subject: Re: Islam (long but not propaganda) Message-ID: <5690@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 11:47:27 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.5690 Posted: Fri Aug 2 11:47:27 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 09:44:47 EDT References: <297@mit-athena.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 62 Keywords: Islam, humiliation, degradation, `ulama, Qur'an Xref: watmath net.politics:10270 net.religion:7321 One paragraph in Y. Martillo's article reads: >Several have argued that Muslims are no better Muslims than >Christians are good Christians. Therefore, my arguments would be >irrelevant. But the fundamental ideology is important. Because Jim >Crow conflicted with the fundamental ideology of American society, >Jim Crow died in the USA. But in Germany several hundred years ago, >Martin Luther said the synagogue should be burned and that the Jews >should be gathered and murdered. And the Germans eventually carried >out these tasks. I think it's important to note that "eventually" here means "after about 450 years". I think Luther's attitude toward Jews was ugly. But though Luther's influence was strong during the Reformation, his suggestions for the Jews were not really taken seriously. I think this is mainly due to the fact that Luther did not set himself up as an authority (like the Pope). He emphasised *sola scriptura* as the principle authority and put the Scriptures themselves in the hands of the common people by translating them into their language. Your paragraph insinuates that the German persecution of the Jews was a direct fulfillment of Luther's mandate. I agree that "the fundamental ideology is important." But I think you are mistaken in including Luther's attitude toward Jews as part of that. I think it was on the fringe. If it wasn't why did it take so long for the tasks to be carried out? Things were different in Germany 450 years after Luther. In particular, the Church's attitude toward Scripture had deviated considerably from Luther's view. Hitler did use Luther's opinion as part of his rallying call. But the thing that allowed him to get away with it was the change in context. The "fundamental ideology" of the church (not to mention society) had changed considerably since Luther's time. I think that was what either allowed it to accept the fringe as fundamental or made it powerless to oppose such acceptance effectively. Also, I think Luther's opinion played a relatively minor part with Hitler compared to Nietzsche, for example (either directly, or indirectly through men like Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre). Also, where do you think Hitler got his ideas about eugenics and social Darwinism? Was that part of Luther's fundemental ideology? It is generally argued that the ideas of people like Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre and Darwin were selectively applied or twisted by Hitler. Indeed, these men did, or probably would have, strongly opposed the Nazi way of doing things. No one (especially those sympathetic to the views of these men) wants to admit that their ideas provided a significant influence for the Nazis. But the effects of ideas often go beyond the intent and foresight of their progenitors. Affixing blame is an irresistable temptation for many, however. And it is so much easier to cut through the complex web of influence in history to draw simple lines of influence that suit the blamers purposes better. If the influence of these men on Nazism was not their intent, or part of their "fundemental ideology", still less is it of Christianity. Yet, the blamers must have a real devil and Christianity makes a nice one in some circles. I really doubt that Mr. Martillo has the intent that I just mentioned, but simplistic, cause-effect statements like this one do have that cumulative, subtile effect on others. Where is the hate going to stop? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd