I know that some of my readers would like to think that insane religious fanaticism is limited to Protestants, but other faiths have their share of whackos, too.
Ovadia Yosef, a former chief rabbi of Israel, said in his weekly sermon on Israeli televisino that Hurricane Katrina was "God's retribution" for President Bush's role in forcing Israelis to leave the Gaza Strip.
In some way, I guess he agrees with this Muslim leader in Kuwait, the one I mentioned in this thread, although the Muslim cleric might not agree that this was punishment for the expulsion of Jews from their settlements. At least extremist Jews and extremist Muslims are finding common ground.
According to the news piece, the 85-year-old Ovadia Yosef also said Katrina's victims suffered "because they have no God." And he singled out black victims, saying "they don't study Torah."
The rabbi has been at the center of controversy before. Yosef has called on the Israeli army to "joyfully" annihilate Arabs, and he once said stated that Jews who perished in the Holocaust were reincarnations of sinners from previous generations.
Oh, brother.
Sometimes I'd just like to buy the world a Coke.
I know that a lot of my readers would like to think that insane religious fanaticism is limited to Protestants, but other faiths have their share of whackos, too.
ReplyDeleteIf the first part of the sentence is true, then it says a lot about your readers.
James
aka Guns and Butter
aka The Asianist
I was trying to avoid an overgeneralization of the United States itself, so I just focused on some people who do read my blog whose views on religion have been made to me through comments or private communication (some... not a majority, I don't think).
ReplyDeleteBut what I really wanted to point out was that this is a problem in the U.S. in general: there is a disturbing divide between the religious and the non-religious which typically fissures along Christian versus non-Christian lines, especially Protestant Christian versus non-Protestant.
In short, a lot of non-Protestants see the Religious Right and assume they represent all people who consider themselves Christians, and they fault all of Christianity for the absurd, often anti-Christian beliefs of people like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, etc. And part of that subconscious paradigm is that only Christianity is this way.
Well clearly, it's not.
James, I'm glad you pointed that out. After a little consideration, I think I will change "a lot of my readers" to "some of my readers."
ReplyDeleteHurricanes occur with or without global warming.
ReplyDeleteBut it's a fundamental characteristic of tropical storms that warm waters fuel them.
If waters are warmer, then stronger cyclones (e.g., typhoons and hurricanes) will occur. The question is whether or not the warming waters are really due to human effects. Even some on the right are beginning to acknowledge this. It's not all that far-fetched.
Ahssa Staff (aka Shelton) wrote:
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you ask The Marmot to let you guest blog? I'm sure he'd agree to it.
Shelton, due to relevance issues, I am going to reply to your comment here.
Dan, both of your links seemed to work. I agree that it might have been good to have the Red Cross in there more quickly, but I think their reasons for not going in now seem sound.
ReplyDeletethere is a disturbing divide between the religious and the non-religious which typically fissures along Christian versus non-Christian lines, especially Protestant Christian versus non-Protestant.
ReplyDeleteHuh? While there is some truth to this in terms of radical secularists vs. fundamentalists, I don't see the Protestant vs. non-Protestant thing.
My Catholic friends and acquainstances get along quite well with Protestants and vice versa.
In short, a lot of non-Protestants see the Religious Right and assume they represent all people who consider themselves Christians...
Has it occurred to you that may be this holds for your "crowd," but may not be the case in general?
This may be a case of "I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon [in Upper Eastside, NYC], how the heck did he win?"
But it's a fundamental characteristic of tropical storms that warm waters fuel them.
If waters are warmer, then stronger cyclones (e.g., typhoons and hurricanes) will occur. The question is whether or not the warming waters are really due to human effects. Even some on the right are beginning to acknowledge this. It's not all that far-fetched.
Your understanding of science is as flawed as that for religions (or religious people):
Katrina was not caused by global warming. As a New York Times article pointed out on Aug. 30: "Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming. But [scientists say] … the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean."
The Left Finds an Avenging Angel in Katrina
As for whether human activity causes "global warming," the jury is still out.
There are two issues. First, significant climactic changes occurred on earth long before humans showed up.
Second, reliability of long-term data on temperatures is not high, particularly from prehistoric periods.
One can infer from this that the coefficient of human activity (emissions of gas, for example) on earth's climate is indeterminate.
It is, of course, entirely possible that our behavior is affecting the earth's climate significantly.
It is more likely that much of climate change, if any, may be based on earth's long-term climactic cycles with rather minute impact from human activity.
Either way, scienstists have not established any causal relationship between the variables in question. However, that does not stop "earth" activists from equating the coincidence of tempearature rise from the 18th Century and on with the rise of gas emissions from human activity.
As you probably know, coincidence not equate causality.
James J. Na wrote:
ReplyDeletethere is a disturbing divide between the religious and the non-religious which typically fissures along Christian versus non-Christian lines, especially Protestant Christian versus non-Protestant.
Huh? While there is some truth to this in terms of radical secularists vs. fundamentalists, I don't see the Protestant vs. non-Protestant thing.
My Catholic friends and acquainstances get along quite well with Protestants and vice versa.
Forgive me if it sounded like I was suggesting that all Protestants fell into that category; they don't. But amidst the rhetoric and the day-to-day thoughts of some fundamentalist Protestants, this way of thinking does exist. I'm a hybrid Catholic-Protestant myself, and when I attended a certain Baptist church, I heard it A LOT that Catholics (and some Protestants) were "not true Christians." And Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses weren't even considered Protestants at all.
On the other hand, when I attended another Baptist church (a different convention from the first one), I almost never heard anything about other Protestants or Catholics not being true Christians.
In short, a lot of non-Protestants see the Religious Right and assume they represent all people who consider themselves Christians...
Has it occurred to you that may be this holds for your "crowd," but may not be the case in general?
Perhaps, but the mainstream media certainly is under the impression that there is a religious divide.
I have seen this with "my crowd," of course, but not just with them. Look, I'm sitting here as a moderate Democrat bashing some fellow Democrats for their dismissive attitude of disregarding the views of people of faith as unimportant or not worth listening to. I wouldn't be doing this unless I had seen it in a variety of different places: Democratic expats here in Korea, Democrats back in California, Democrats I know from other parts of the country.
This may be a case of "I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon [in Upper Eastside, NYC], how the heck did he win?"
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I know what you mean by the reference, but are you suggesting that there are NOT a lot of Democrats or others if the far left or moderate left who are dismissive of people of faith?
But it's a fundamental characteristic of tropical storms that warm waters fuel them.
If waters are warmer, then stronger cyclones (e.g., typhoons and hurricanes) will occur. The question is whether or not the warming waters are really due to human effects. Even some on the right are beginning to acknowledge this. It's not all that far-fetched.
Your understanding of science is as flawed as that for religions (or religious people):
Katrina was not caused by global warming.
I don't believe I said it definitely was was. Katrina would have occurred with or without global warming. But cyclones have been strengthened by warming waters, is what I said. Did I say that "global warming" definitely caused it? I said, "The question is whether or not the warming waters are really due to human effects."
As a New York Times article pointed out on Aug. 30: "Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming. But [scientists say] … the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean."
The warming oceans may be cyclical or they may be induced by human behaviors. Or both. Again, I said: "The question is whether or not the warming waters are really due to human effects."
The Left Finds an Avenging Angel in Katrina
As for whether human activity causes "global warming," the jury is still out.
That sounds like something I said: " The question is whether or not the warming waters are really due to human effects."
There are two issues. First, significant climactic changes occurred on earth long before humans showed up.
But prior global warming would not preclude current global warming from being related to human activities either.
Second, reliability of long-term data on temperatures is not high, particularly from prehistoric periods.
Prehistoric when?
One can infer from this that the coefficient of human activity (emissions of gas, for example) on earth's climate is indeterminate.
It is, of course, entirely possible that our behavior is affecting the earth's climate significantly.
It is more likely that much of climate change, if any, may be based on earth's long-term climactic cycles with rather minute impact from human activity.
More likely? That may be wishful thinking as well. I think you are hoping that "indeterminate" (so far) means "no correlation." In other words, not knowing the answer so far means the answer is no.
Either way, scienstists have not established any causal relationship between the variables in question. However, that does not stop "earth" activists from equating the coincidence of tempearature rise from the 18th Century and on with the rise of gas emissions from human activity.
As you probably know, coincidence not equate causality.
Again, let me point out what I wrote: "The question is whether or not the warming waters are really due to human effects." I wrote it that way precisely because I don't know if it really is primarily due to human activity. It's entirely possible that it will turn out not to be the case. Although I really don't see the harm in developing practices and technolgies that will limit the amount of gaseous or particulate chemicals we pump into the environment. Or is pollution in general also a myth?
I know this guy is kind of a nut, but he's the supposed head of Irish Protestants (I think), and he heads a group called the European Institute of Protestant Studies. Anyway, here's what he had to say about "Pope Ratzinger."
ReplyDelete