Here are several headlines from this morning’s news. Take special note of the last one, which provides considerable insight into the rest. The second-to-last is also worthy of note.
- Official: New al Qaeda threat targets Europe, ‘notably France’
- Al Qaeda ‘most wanted’ sentenced to death
- NATO official: Bin Laden, deputy hiding in northwest Pakistan
- 15 killed as Somali troops begin new offensive
- Suspected political violence kills 25 in Pakistan
- Terror plot cooperator in trouble again in NYC
- Testimony to resume in Fort Hood suspect’s hearing
- Jordanian man faces sentencing in Dallas bomb plot
- Merkel: German multiculturalism ‘utterly failed’
- UAE court: Wife ‘discipline’ cannot leave marks
From that last article (stop reading now if you don’t want to get angry and/or feel sick):
The UAE’s highest judicial body says a man can beat his wife and young children as long as the beating leaves no physical marks…. [The United Arab Emirates Federal Supreme Court] says the man was guilty of harming the women but noted that Islamic codes allow for “discipline” if no marks are left.
They say it’s a religion of peace. What kind of peace is that?
I agree with you, wholeheartedly, but I think that the last two articles are of a different sort than the rest, for the rest involve a portion of Islam that many within and without Islam say are not representative. The second to last article doesn’t speak much of violence, but its concerns would apply to any culturally mixed society, regardless of religion. The last article is one on which I’d make a few comments, since you drew particular attention to it.
That article ends by mentioning that “[the court noted] that Islamic codes allow for ‘discipline’ if no marks are left. It also says children who have reached ‘adulthood’—approximately puberty—cannot be struck.” Many individuals in the rest of the world, including the USA, are not opposed to physical discipline of children, respecting that after a certain age where it is no longer appropriate (e.g., 5 years old versus 25 years old), and that there are limits on severity (e.g., spanking versus flogging). I expect that these beliefs are held by many in the Church, and not necessarily in contradiction to their faith.
I’d posit that it does not take all that much of a shift of opinion of family structure to be able to agree with the UAE court’s rulings and notes.
Depending on past rulings, this could even be interpreted as improvement. If in the past such cases wouldn’t have been heard, or the rulings would have been different, this would be indication of improvement, even though the present state isn’t perfection.
I’ve heard people make similar arguments about instructions regarding slaves and masters in the New Testament—instructing slaves and masters implicitly respects the institution, but the instructions themselves subvert it and thereby set the course for eventual change.
You agree wholeheartedly? With what?
No. The first two hundred years of American history show otherwise. There have been deep difficulties in mixing our cultures, but there has not been failure. Islam is different in that it specifically denies freedom of diverse opinions (freedom of conscience).
Are you serious?! The shift it would require would be for me to regard my wife the same as a toddler, for purposes of discipline. The quote in the news article made me feel both angry and sick. So does your suggestion here.
My apologies if I’ve made you sick; this certainly wasn’t my intent, so I think some elaboration on my part is necessary. Let’s scratch my first post and try again.
First, I agree with your conclusion that Islam (and any religion other than one that puts Christ at the head of all things) is ultimately in error and that this will manifest itself in some visible way. In Islam’s case this seems to be claims of peace while the reality looks much different.
You’re right that multicultural society in the USA has not failed. I took the title of that article, as well as the Chancellor’s words (which I expect were originally German) as somewhat poetic and on the side of hyperbole. However, the specific problems that she mentioned are things that we have seen here: “while immigrants are welcome …, they must learn the language and accept the country’s cultural norms”. We hear a great deal of that sentiment today, particularly in the American southwest. My point on this issue is only that many, if not all, of the specific points made in that article are not entirely unknown here, and will be present to some degree in any multicultural society. But you are right—if the attempt for a multicultural society in Germany has, in fact, “utterly failed,” then something genuinely different has happened there.
As to the final point, I think I spoke too imprecisely in my original post. Specifically, the last portion of that article made the point that Islamic law allows discipline subject to certain constraints. I’ve often been told that some portions of the Old Testament law which disturb us today were revolutionary for their time, e.g., that retribution was limited to be proportionate to the crime, or that while the Law permitted certain things, the spirit of the Law did not (e.g., divorce). Furthermore, I’ve heard this kind of argument used in support of abolishing slavery and allowing women into positions of ordained ministry. The reasoning there is that New Testament writers addressed slaves and masters and demanded obedience and compassion, the spirit pointed forward to the abolition of slavery and to the ordination of women. (Not everyone agrees that both objectives are equally supported by this kind of argument. I only point out that it has been used.)
My point in all this is that the same kind of argument could be used to argue that Islamic code that permits a husband to physically discipline his wife, but within some constraints, could, depending on the society in which the code originally appeared, be viewed as progressive. I doubt I’d accept such an argument, but in a society wherein women were denied education and the exercise of many human rights, it might, disturbingly, or sickeningly, be easier. It wasn’t all that long that the US still had slaves, that many people were denied the vote and education, yet at the same time, their intellectual culture and theology don’t appear all that different from our own.
So, to recap: I apologize for sickening you; I agree that the evidence is against Islam ultimately being a religion of peace; I claim that the cited symptoms of ‘utter failure‘ in multiculturalism are experienced in lesser forms in every multicultural society, including those that don’t ‘utterly fail’; and finally, I note, as an academic exercise, that certain forms of arguments used to support certain positions within the Church today could be used to argue that the Islamic code is progressive and forward looking (but, as I said, I’d be unlikely to accept such arguments).
“L. Rushbaugh” commented on Merkel’s statements that multiculturalism has utterly failed in Germany. He called it a warning to us in America. I think our multiculturalism between English speakers and hispanics is much more successful, even though a language barrier exists, as to some degree, a sort of Christian worldview and set of ideas is still there.
In Germany, a big issue, above the language, is what Merkel calls a “failure to accept the German cultural norms.” Christian missionaries were criticized for that in the 1700’s and 1800’s.
For me, that makes the failed multiculturalism in Germany far different from our own countries issues.
It is very obvious… Islam is NOT a religion of peace.