Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Oh SNAP!
Now that Marmar has thrown the blogging gauntlets down, I feel compelled to respond, because I don't want to be the victim of hearsay. Let's get the facts straight. I did, yes, in fact, state that Islam was a 'worse' religion than even Christianity, which as you may know, I am not a big fan of in the first place. I did not call it "eviler" than other religions, because in my mind, 'evil' as a word is filled with religious connotations, whereas 'better' and 'worse' are better reflections of personal views. Here's where definitions come into play.
If I simply define a 'better' religion as simply those whose values match up with mine better, then there shouldn't be a big argument- in fact there can't be an argument, because it's a totally personal definition. And that shouldn't be surprising. I do live in a largely Christian society, and simply by upbringing and culture, my values match up well with Christianity's values well.
But I'm not going to do that, because that would be boring. On the other hand, defining what is good and bad in religion is a huge task in itself, and I don't want to try here while simultaneously defending myself. Let's just, in the interest of full disclosure, try to keep in mind that I do live in a Christian nation, and therefore have been colored by it. I'll try to keep it in check. That aside, I think that as non-religious people, we can think of a religion as good or bad in roughly the same way- whether it is good for the world, good for the individuals that practice it, and good for those that do not.
I know that Marmar and David would love for me to try and quote verses from the Quran and the Bible that "prove" that one text is better, but I can't, and I won't. We all agree that both texts are old-fashioned, vague, and hopelessly contradictory. There would be no point. But that speaks to a problem that both religions have- that because of varying interpretations of the text, there is no one 'true' ideology of their religion. Can we really say that the Pope has the same ideology as a Catholic in Mexico City? Can we compare them in any but the most superficial ways? Sure, they both believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and they both believe that Sundays are the day of rest- but to outsiders like us, what impact does it make on the way they behave? Christians, by definition, reject the very tenet of Muhammed being the one true Prophet- and yet that is totally irrelevant to our outsider discussion. There is more to discuss than ideology and text-- all we care about is behavior and results.
That's why it's totally futile to say that one religion is better than the other based on ideology. I find Christian values to be quite good: the idea that altruism is good, the idea that judgment should be withheld, and the idea of helping those less fortunate, the idea that pride, greed, sloth, etc. are bad. If we went through the Quran, we would find similar ideas and supporting evidence. It's why Muslim scholars try to plead that Islam is a peaceful religion, because by and large, people that practice it are peaceful. I totally agree, and I don't want to pigeonhole Muslims as bad people, just as I try not to pigeonhole Christians as bad people. It's the big picture that I don't like, and that's why it leads to generalizations.
A little digression here-- I think that as open-minded liberals, we tend to react against generalizations (especially views that conservatives and racists might have) a little too strongly. But I find it interesting that I have bashed Christianity before, religion in general, and drawn no criticism at all. But because Islam is in disfavor in America, there's an urge to defend it as a minority interest here. And that's good- I think that it's a dangerous line to cross when we label Islam as 'evil', and I can understand Marmar's reticence to supporting views like that. However, was it only ok to label Christianity as evil because they're in power? Is it only OK to be racist against white people? So let's be clear. I am not saying that Muslims are evil people, and I think that we do have to be AWARE of crossing that line, and that labelling Islam as evil may help take the first steps across that line.
Ok, so now that we have the disclaimers out of the way, we can talk. Religion is and often has been about history, tradition, and the practices of it MORE than it has been about the tenets and ideals of it. In that context, Islam and Christianity have long been religions loaded with violence, perversion of power, corruption, and even pettiness. But here's the kicker. Religions evolve and change. I think I have massive support in saying that Christianity is a 'better' religion than it was before the Protestant Reformation, when it gave out indulgences for money, was under the thumb of various European leaders, and when it led the crusades in desperate land grabs under the guise of religion. Were the ideologies much different? Didn't the Bible contain the same text then as it does now? Answers: Of course not, and yes. But what has changed is that even though Christianity accepted the idea of paying money to sin back in the day, it no longer does now. But back then, you couldn't take an individual Christian and say 'this person is a worse Christian because he thought indulgences were OK'. Just as you can't say "this person is a bad Muslim because he supports Sharia law." No, in the context of their situation, it makes them a good person.
That is, I believe, where Islam finds itself now. The leaders of Islam in large advocate fundamentalist policies to practice Islam- leading to Sharia laws that are governmentally enforced, strict adherence to traditions, and Islamic universities where the only study is memorization and interpretation of the Quran (as it represents all truth). In effect, Islam needs to shake off its fundamentalism and evolve into a religion that is about personal rather than societal change. Christianity has in large moved past this stage- things like allowing Mass in English rather than only Latin, because of the realization that adherence to rules that actually hurt the individuals (assuming that they don't understand Latin) is a hallmark of fundamentalism. Now that I have sung the praises Christianity several times in this post, I need to find some plastic forks to stick in my eyes.
But I don't want to end on that note. I'll end with the thought that though I find Islam as a religion even worse than Christianity, that doesn't mean we can shun it, and it doesn't mean we can dismiss it. And it certainly doesn't give us the right to invade any Muslim country under the guise of them being evil. So we do have to work with them and be constructive. But it also doesn't mean I have to love everyone, their beliefs, and their values equally.
If I simply define a 'better' religion as simply those whose values match up with mine better, then there shouldn't be a big argument- in fact there can't be an argument, because it's a totally personal definition. And that shouldn't be surprising. I do live in a largely Christian society, and simply by upbringing and culture, my values match up well with Christianity's values well.
But I'm not going to do that, because that would be boring. On the other hand, defining what is good and bad in religion is a huge task in itself, and I don't want to try here while simultaneously defending myself. Let's just, in the interest of full disclosure, try to keep in mind that I do live in a Christian nation, and therefore have been colored by it. I'll try to keep it in check. That aside, I think that as non-religious people, we can think of a religion as good or bad in roughly the same way- whether it is good for the world, good for the individuals that practice it, and good for those that do not.
I know that Marmar and David would love for me to try and quote verses from the Quran and the Bible that "prove" that one text is better, but I can't, and I won't. We all agree that both texts are old-fashioned, vague, and hopelessly contradictory. There would be no point. But that speaks to a problem that both religions have- that because of varying interpretations of the text, there is no one 'true' ideology of their religion. Can we really say that the Pope has the same ideology as a Catholic in Mexico City? Can we compare them in any but the most superficial ways? Sure, they both believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and they both believe that Sundays are the day of rest- but to outsiders like us, what impact does it make on the way they behave? Christians, by definition, reject the very tenet of Muhammed being the one true Prophet- and yet that is totally irrelevant to our outsider discussion. There is more to discuss than ideology and text-- all we care about is behavior and results.
That's why it's totally futile to say that one religion is better than the other based on ideology. I find Christian values to be quite good: the idea that altruism is good, the idea that judgment should be withheld, and the idea of helping those less fortunate, the idea that pride, greed, sloth, etc. are bad. If we went through the Quran, we would find similar ideas and supporting evidence. It's why Muslim scholars try to plead that Islam is a peaceful religion, because by and large, people that practice it are peaceful. I totally agree, and I don't want to pigeonhole Muslims as bad people, just as I try not to pigeonhole Christians as bad people. It's the big picture that I don't like, and that's why it leads to generalizations.
A little digression here-- I think that as open-minded liberals, we tend to react against generalizations (especially views that conservatives and racists might have) a little too strongly. But I find it interesting that I have bashed Christianity before, religion in general, and drawn no criticism at all. But because Islam is in disfavor in America, there's an urge to defend it as a minority interest here. And that's good- I think that it's a dangerous line to cross when we label Islam as 'evil', and I can understand Marmar's reticence to supporting views like that. However, was it only ok to label Christianity as evil because they're in power? Is it only OK to be racist against white people? So let's be clear. I am not saying that Muslims are evil people, and I think that we do have to be AWARE of crossing that line, and that labelling Islam as evil may help take the first steps across that line.
Ok, so now that we have the disclaimers out of the way, we can talk. Religion is and often has been about history, tradition, and the practices of it MORE than it has been about the tenets and ideals of it. In that context, Islam and Christianity have long been religions loaded with violence, perversion of power, corruption, and even pettiness. But here's the kicker. Religions evolve and change. I think I have massive support in saying that Christianity is a 'better' religion than it was before the Protestant Reformation, when it gave out indulgences for money, was under the thumb of various European leaders, and when it led the crusades in desperate land grabs under the guise of religion. Were the ideologies much different? Didn't the Bible contain the same text then as it does now? Answers: Of course not, and yes. But what has changed is that even though Christianity accepted the idea of paying money to sin back in the day, it no longer does now. But back then, you couldn't take an individual Christian and say 'this person is a worse Christian because he thought indulgences were OK'. Just as you can't say "this person is a bad Muslim because he supports Sharia law." No, in the context of their situation, it makes them a good person.
That is, I believe, where Islam finds itself now. The leaders of Islam in large advocate fundamentalist policies to practice Islam- leading to Sharia laws that are governmentally enforced, strict adherence to traditions, and Islamic universities where the only study is memorization and interpretation of the Quran (as it represents all truth). In effect, Islam needs to shake off its fundamentalism and evolve into a religion that is about personal rather than societal change. Christianity has in large moved past this stage- things like allowing Mass in English rather than only Latin, because of the realization that adherence to rules that actually hurt the individuals (assuming that they don't understand Latin) is a hallmark of fundamentalism. Now that I have sung the praises Christianity several times in this post, I need to find some plastic forks to stick in my eyes.
But I don't want to end on that note. I'll end with the thought that though I find Islam as a religion even worse than Christianity, that doesn't mean we can shun it, and it doesn't mean we can dismiss it. And it certainly doesn't give us the right to invade any Muslim country under the guise of them being evil. So we do have to work with them and be constructive. But it also doesn't mean I have to love everyone, their beliefs, and their values equally.
# posted by Stuart @ 10:28 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
"The leaders of Islam in large advocate fundamentalist policies to practice Islam- leading to Sharia laws that are governmentally enforced, strict adherence to traditions, and Islamic universities where the only study is memorization and interpretation of the Quran (as it represents all truth). In effect, Islam needs to shake off its fundamentalism and evolve into a religion that is about personal rather than societal change."
This quote is the crux of your argument about why you view Islam as "worse," than Christianity. (and I apologize for misquoting you by inserting "evil" for "worse," I acknowledge the important differences between the two." But if this is really your view as to what Islam demands, what it's people want, and what it's leaders want, I think you are gravely mistaken. Therefore, your personal opinion about Islam vis a vis Christianity and all other religions would lie on false premsises.
Let's do a quick survey of the world's 1 Billion Muslims.
20 percent live in Indonesia, a country that is now a Parliamentry Democracy.
15 percent are a minority population in India: the world's largest Liberal Democracy.
another 15 percent live in Bangladesh, which is also a Parliamentry Democracy.
So right there is half the Muslim world which has not adapted sharia as it's legal code, but rather adapted a system of government similar to our own "western," ideal. I think that pretty much discredits your argument.
Now the Greater Middle East is not so rosy, but for every Iran (theocratic with some weak elements of democracy thrown in,) you have a Turkey, where the army intervenes every time an Islamic party is put in power to throw them out. In fact most of the Middle East is not controlled by Muslim clerics, but good old fashioned military dictaorships, such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Syria.
Of course there are fundamentalist Muslims and Muslim imams who fear modernization, or whom truly believe that literal interpretation of Scripture is the only means to true salvation. But that element at least exists in Christianity in the U.S. today. It manifests itself in issues such as abortion (where you have psychos murdering people in clinics,) and creationism in schools. If evangelical Christians had control over the U.S., I am sure there would be plenty of "Biblical" edicts that both of us would have serious issues with.
The point is, the entire Middle East is, developmentally, behind Europe and North America. Coming out of the colonial age, rife with resources, the peoples of the Middle East are discovering how to best rule themselves, and the relative power that fundamentalism holds in certain countries is greater than in Europe and the Americas as this stage, most likely because the region does not have the tradition of 200 years of democracy.
But if you look at the big picture with regards to Muslim peoples, it's clear that this strain of Islamic fundamentalism is such a minority within it's own people, and within it's own countries. Therefore I think you need to reconsider your judgment.
This quote is the crux of your argument about why you view Islam as "worse," than Christianity. (and I apologize for misquoting you by inserting "evil" for "worse," I acknowledge the important differences between the two." But if this is really your view as to what Islam demands, what it's people want, and what it's leaders want, I think you are gravely mistaken. Therefore, your personal opinion about Islam vis a vis Christianity and all other religions would lie on false premsises.
Let's do a quick survey of the world's 1 Billion Muslims.
20 percent live in Indonesia, a country that is now a Parliamentry Democracy.
15 percent are a minority population in India: the world's largest Liberal Democracy.
another 15 percent live in Bangladesh, which is also a Parliamentry Democracy.
So right there is half the Muslim world which has not adapted sharia as it's legal code, but rather adapted a system of government similar to our own "western," ideal. I think that pretty much discredits your argument.
Now the Greater Middle East is not so rosy, but for every Iran (theocratic with some weak elements of democracy thrown in,) you have a Turkey, where the army intervenes every time an Islamic party is put in power to throw them out. In fact most of the Middle East is not controlled by Muslim clerics, but good old fashioned military dictaorships, such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Syria.
Of course there are fundamentalist Muslims and Muslim imams who fear modernization, or whom truly believe that literal interpretation of Scripture is the only means to true salvation. But that element at least exists in Christianity in the U.S. today. It manifests itself in issues such as abortion (where you have psychos murdering people in clinics,) and creationism in schools. If evangelical Christians had control over the U.S., I am sure there would be plenty of "Biblical" edicts that both of us would have serious issues with.
The point is, the entire Middle East is, developmentally, behind Europe and North America. Coming out of the colonial age, rife with resources, the peoples of the Middle East are discovering how to best rule themselves, and the relative power that fundamentalism holds in certain countries is greater than in Europe and the Americas as this stage, most likely because the region does not have the tradition of 200 years of democracy.
But if you look at the big picture with regards to Muslim peoples, it's clear that this strain of Islamic fundamentalism is such a minority within it's own people, and within it's own countries. Therefore I think you need to reconsider your judgment.
Thank you for totally misrepresenting the 'crux' of my argument. The US is a liberal republic even though it is made up of Christians, but I would say it is BECAUSE they recognize the value of a secular state. The same is true of India. As for Indonesia and Iran, which are both democracies, they have adopted many Islamic laws in their legal code.
I appreciate you trying to point out "Oh, look, these countries are democracies! Therefore their values are the same as yours and therefore they cannot be not fundamentalist by nature." It ignores that Iran is also a democracy, it ignores that Indonesian law is strongly influenced by Islamic law, and it also ignores the fact that I'm talking about religion, not politics. (just as US law is influenced by the Bible). In any case, I am talking about religious leaders, not governmental leaders.
Of course you are ignoring the fact that there is indeed a fundamentalist movement in Islam in these countries and in the US. I think that the US succeeds in spite of Christianity, not because most of the US is Christian.
I honestly don't see how you can bash Christianity on one hand, worrying about "Biblical" edicts that you "would have serious issues with" and then trying to argue that you somehow feel just as rosy about Islam as you do Christianity. If their leaders had complete control over US law, we'd have problems. The key here is that if a fundamentalist movement took hold in Christianity, promoting its beliefs and trying to do many of the same things that Muslim clerics are trying to do, we would both agree that Christianity was getting worse. That does NOT mean that each individual Christian would be getting worse, just that the religion, as an entity, was moving away from what we thought was good.
And thank you for pointing out that most Muslims are not fundamentalists! You'd think that after I wrote that over and over again, you might realize that I am not arguing against you on it. What I'm saying is that fundamentalism is a bigger problem in Islam than in Christianity. Even the Pope seems progressive and grassroots compared to the ayatollahs and imams. Are you arguing that fundamentalism is an equally bad problem in both? Just because there are fundamentalists in both faiths does NOT prove that it is equally bad in both religions; it ignores the place of leadership, it ignores the STRENGTH of the fundamentalist movements, and it ignores how far they want to go. I think Islam looks worse on all three of these claims.
You seem to be making these apologetic arguments as if to say, no, we should not discriminate against Muslims. I have already conceded that point, again and again. You seem to be trying to goad me into saying something like "All muslims are bad" or "Muslim people are worse than Christians" or "All muslims are fundamentalists". I am not going and have never made that jump. Islam has problems, I simply think it has more problems that Christianity. And I think they both have more problems than other religions. Why should that even be surprising, given that I live in a Christian nation?
I appreciate you trying to point out "Oh, look, these countries are democracies! Therefore their values are the same as yours and therefore they cannot be not fundamentalist by nature." It ignores that Iran is also a democracy, it ignores that Indonesian law is strongly influenced by Islamic law, and it also ignores the fact that I'm talking about religion, not politics. (just as US law is influenced by the Bible). In any case, I am talking about religious leaders, not governmental leaders.
Of course you are ignoring the fact that there is indeed a fundamentalist movement in Islam in these countries and in the US. I think that the US succeeds in spite of Christianity, not because most of the US is Christian.
I honestly don't see how you can bash Christianity on one hand, worrying about "Biblical" edicts that you "would have serious issues with" and then trying to argue that you somehow feel just as rosy about Islam as you do Christianity. If their leaders had complete control over US law, we'd have problems. The key here is that if a fundamentalist movement took hold in Christianity, promoting its beliefs and trying to do many of the same things that Muslim clerics are trying to do, we would both agree that Christianity was getting worse. That does NOT mean that each individual Christian would be getting worse, just that the religion, as an entity, was moving away from what we thought was good.
And thank you for pointing out that most Muslims are not fundamentalists! You'd think that after I wrote that over and over again, you might realize that I am not arguing against you on it. What I'm saying is that fundamentalism is a bigger problem in Islam than in Christianity. Even the Pope seems progressive and grassroots compared to the ayatollahs and imams. Are you arguing that fundamentalism is an equally bad problem in both? Just because there are fundamentalists in both faiths does NOT prove that it is equally bad in both religions; it ignores the place of leadership, it ignores the STRENGTH of the fundamentalist movements, and it ignores how far they want to go. I think Islam looks worse on all three of these claims.
You seem to be making these apologetic arguments as if to say, no, we should not discriminate against Muslims. I have already conceded that point, again and again. You seem to be trying to goad me into saying something like "All muslims are bad" or "Muslim people are worse than Christians" or "All muslims are fundamentalists". I am not going and have never made that jump. Islam has problems, I simply think it has more problems that Christianity. And I think they both have more problems than other religions. Why should that even be surprising, given that I live in a Christian nation?
What are you saying? Are you aruging that fundamentalism is a bigger problem is Islam than Chirstianity? Are you saying that the Middle East is in bad shape? Because I think these statements are correct.
Or are you arguing that Islam as an ideology is inherently violent and that the values and ideas islam promotes, are inherently "worse," than Christianity and other religions. Because I am pretty damn sure that's what you were arguing when this conversation began, and the point I have been arguing against the whole time. If this is the case, then your indictment of the entire religion based on the prevelance of a minority fundamentalist movement remains wildly off base, and I find no fault in bringing up the points I did before. Thanks for being such a dick about it though. Very funny!
Rather than trying to make me look like an ass, I would appreciate if you could clarify this issue.
(also Iran is a Democracy...in the sense that the candidates are pre-screened by a council of clerics who also hold absolute auhthority over all legislation. So it isn't at all.)
(Also if Christian fundamentalists took over the U.S., I would think they were a bunch of wackjobs, just like I do now. I would condemn the rise in CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM rather than throwing the whole religion under the bus.)
(Also I like how you paint me as this whiny liberal apologist for minorities. It's very Karl Rove of you.)
Or are you arguing that Islam as an ideology is inherently violent and that the values and ideas islam promotes, are inherently "worse," than Christianity and other religions. Because I am pretty damn sure that's what you were arguing when this conversation began, and the point I have been arguing against the whole time. If this is the case, then your indictment of the entire religion based on the prevelance of a minority fundamentalist movement remains wildly off base, and I find no fault in bringing up the points I did before. Thanks for being such a dick about it though. Very funny!
Rather than trying to make me look like an ass, I would appreciate if you could clarify this issue.
(also Iran is a Democracy...in the sense that the candidates are pre-screened by a council of clerics who also hold absolute auhthority over all legislation. So it isn't at all.)
(Also if Christian fundamentalists took over the U.S., I would think they were a bunch of wackjobs, just like I do now. I would condemn the rise in CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM rather than throwing the whole religion under the bus.)
(Also I like how you paint me as this whiny liberal apologist for minorities. It's very Karl Rove of you.)
Wow, kiddos, calm down. Disagreement doesn't need to turn to petty sniping, parenthetical or otherwise.
Marmer, you wrote this:
The point is, the entire Middle East is, developmentally, behind Europe and North America. Coming out of the colonial age, rife with resources, the peoples of the Middle East are discovering how to best rule themselves, and the relative power that fundamentalism holds in certain countries is greater than in Europe and the Americas as this stage, most likely because the region does not have the tradition of 200 years of democracy.
This seems to be the main, underlying argument Stu is making. (Stu, if I am wrong, I apologize. Really, I do. I'm sorry. So very sorry). From what I can tell, Stu is saying "Christianity used to be rife with violence, but it has improved. Right now, it, on the whole is better than Islam, which is still importantly (perhaps not by a large majority, or even generally, but importantly nonetheless) stuck in the developmental infancy of fundamentalism." Marmar, you agree. You are not willing, or do not think it is logical, to follow this by saying that right now Christianity is better than Islam; Stu thinks it appropriately follows.
So, you see guys, you agree! Unless I'm wrong.
Marmer, you wrote this:
The point is, the entire Middle East is, developmentally, behind Europe and North America. Coming out of the colonial age, rife with resources, the peoples of the Middle East are discovering how to best rule themselves, and the relative power that fundamentalism holds in certain countries is greater than in Europe and the Americas as this stage, most likely because the region does not have the tradition of 200 years of democracy.
This seems to be the main, underlying argument Stu is making. (Stu, if I am wrong, I apologize. Really, I do. I'm sorry. So very sorry). From what I can tell, Stu is saying "Christianity used to be rife with violence, but it has improved. Right now, it, on the whole is better than Islam, which is still importantly (perhaps not by a large majority, or even generally, but importantly nonetheless) stuck in the developmental infancy of fundamentalism." Marmar, you agree. You are not willing, or do not think it is logical, to follow this by saying that right now Christianity is better than Islam; Stu thinks it appropriately follows.
So, you see guys, you agree! Unless I'm wrong.
# posted by 
: 6:21 PM
: 6:21 PM
Ok, I agree that I went overboard with my comment. I'm sorry. But your comment suggested that I had somehow forgotten about all other populations and that pointing it out 'discredited' my argument, which seemed to ignore everything I wrote above.
I think we do agree, to be fair, on a lot of things. But I do want to answer some of the questions above, like:
1) Why did it not previously irk you when I criticized Christianity as a whole?
2) If a fundamentalist group takes control of the US, wouldn't you say that the US had become more fundamentalist? Would that be a totally unfair judgment? And would it be considered throwing the US under the bus?
3) Is it OK for someone to think that one religion is better than another based on ideology and values? Is it ok to think that one group of people (religious or not) are better based on the behavior of its members?
I never said that Islam as a religion has no good points and is totally without merit. I am not throwing it under the bus.
As for your point about my views about Islam's ideology and central tenets, I purposely did not address those in this blog post, because as I wrote, I have no leg to stand on- I don't know the Quran or Bible well enough. I have not read enough theology. You may be totally right on that point, and I even admitted as much in person, and which I tried to account for by saying I was NOT going to discuss ideology and quotes, and by also saying that my values are obviously Christian.
But why, as I ask, is it even up for debate? Am I not free to choose which values I find better and worse? And can't I say that I find Christian values better than Muslim values? Why is this wildly off base?
Post a Comment
I think we do agree, to be fair, on a lot of things. But I do want to answer some of the questions above, like:
1) Why did it not previously irk you when I criticized Christianity as a whole?
2) If a fundamentalist group takes control of the US, wouldn't you say that the US had become more fundamentalist? Would that be a totally unfair judgment? And would it be considered throwing the US under the bus?
3) Is it OK for someone to think that one religion is better than another based on ideology and values? Is it ok to think that one group of people (religious or not) are better based on the behavior of its members?
I never said that Islam as a religion has no good points and is totally without merit. I am not throwing it under the bus.
As for your point about my views about Islam's ideology and central tenets, I purposely did not address those in this blog post, because as I wrote, I have no leg to stand on- I don't know the Quran or Bible well enough. I have not read enough theology. You may be totally right on that point, and I even admitted as much in person, and which I tried to account for by saying I was NOT going to discuss ideology and quotes, and by also saying that my values are obviously Christian.
But why, as I ask, is it even up for debate? Am I not free to choose which values I find better and worse? And can't I say that I find Christian values better than Muslim values? Why is this wildly off base?
<< Home
