Rolling Stone Gathers No Blood, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #180
July 26, 2010 Mike Gold 24 Comments
I’ve been reading and listening to all those lovely little haters who demand that an Islamic organization be denied their right to have a mosque near “Ground Zero” in Manhattan. These scum say it’s an affront to those who lost their lives on 9-11, that Islam is a bloody crusade against infidels bent on the destruction of all non-believers.
My opinion? That’s quite self-righteous and massively hypocritical. I reached for my copy of the bible, one that has both the old and new testaments (by the way, define “new”), and I found some interesting quotes.
On religious freedom:
“And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.” Leviticus 24:16
“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers … thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” Deuteronomy 13:5-10
“If there be found among you … that … hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them … Then shalt thou … tone them with stones, till they die.” Deuteronomy 17:2-5
On “pre-marital” sex and marrying a non-virgin woman:
“If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her … and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel’s father shall say … these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. … But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die.” Deuteronomy 22:13-21
“If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.” Deuteronomy 22:23-24
On obedience to your masters and your lords…
“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother … Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city … And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.” Deuteronomy 21:18-21
“They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. … And the lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones…. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the lord commanded Moses.” Numbers 15:32-56
“Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die.” 1 Kings 21:10
On slavery:
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.” Exodus 21:7-11
On rape:
“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.” Deuteronomy 22:28-29
On same-sex relations:
“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Leviticus 20:13
On killing babies:
“Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.” Isaiah 13:15-18
“The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their god. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords.” Hosea 13:16
I can go on like this forever, virtually reprinting the entire bible. Instead, I’ll make a suggestion: read the bible. Then read the Koran. Then, when it comes to killing infidels, tell me the moral difference. Not the body count, since that is subject to surmise. Just the morality.
Because to me, in light of the way we treat non-Christians in the United States of America, if there’s a difference between the morality expressed in the bible and that expressed in the Koran, that difference doesn’t mean shit to a tree.
Oh, I forgot. One more topic:
On crusades:
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’“ Matthew 10:34-36, quoting Jesus Christ.
Media metaphysician and www.ComicMix.com editor-in-Chief Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking bizarro music and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com, every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, replayed three times during the week (check the website above for times). Likewise, his Weird Scenes Inside The Gold Mind political and cultural rants pop up each and every day at the same venue.
Vinnie Bartilucci
July 26, 2010 - 11:56 am
Religions are usually defined by their worst members. Islam is currently the bad boy of the world because of the actions of a vanishingly small percentage of its membership. The HRC Church is filled to bursting with pedophiles, most Christian sects teach blowing up abortion clinics in third grade (which is as high as most of its members go) and, to quote Professor Lehrer, everybody hates the Jews.
Every book of faith has passages that were 100% relevant to the people who wrote them, and to the people for whom it was written, hundreds and thousands of years ago. And a great deal of those passages are patently embarrassing to the church today. In the case of the Bible, the passages in question are left in there for historical purposes, but in almost all cases, it is understood by its followers that they are not considered active orders. Even the most fervent fundamentalist Christians do not claim it’s okay to sell their daughters into slavery if they cut their hair.
So the folks who open the Koran and find the statements about striking the necks of the unbelievers and claim “This is what they all believe” are either simple, or simply lying. As time passes, more and more of the books of faith are generally understood by its followers to be allegory. I went to Catholic school and never once was Creationism presented as science. The story of Creation was a story, a parable to present the “truth” that God created everything; the method presented was just a way to get across the idea, and was not intended to be taken as a scientific treatise. So while the Koran does teach of the importance of conversion, more and more people today understand to be done with words and ideas, and not scimitars and IEDs.
The basic problem is that there are a lot of of very stupid and/or gullible people in the world. There are endless stories of politicians in Africa accusing their opponents of casting curses upon them, or of people stoned to death in backwater villages for being witches. In my own area, I’ve read stories about people being bilked out of hundreds of dollars at a clip for the purchase of…I shit you not…magic wands. So it’s very easy to convince a lot of people that the (book of faith of choice) is entirely accurate, and it is their sacred duty to commit all sorts of acts of horror in the deity’s name.
Some maintain that religion itself is the problem, but I disagree. It’s ever the people who use the religion to further their own aims, whether it’s the Pope who wants more land, the preacher who wants more wealth or the mullah who wants more people under his thumb. The more fervent and orthodox a religion is, the more backward it usually is, and the more threatened (and threatening) it is to other belief systems. If the mindset of every religion was “Here’s what I believe; if you don’t, that’s too bad, but it’s cool” we’d have no issues.
Religion is a tool intended to guide Man’s evolution from Id to Superego. The Id mindset says “Do it”, the Ego says “Don’t do it, you’ll get caught”, the Superego says “Don’t do it; it’s wrong”. Patton Oswalt has a delightful bit about how religion was invented by small weak smart people who wanted to stop the big strong stupid people from killing them. “If you don’t kill us” they explained “When you die you’ll go to a magical land where you can eat all the cake you like.” The problems came up when different people started to meet, and the Secular Cakeists started to interact with the Reform Salted Nut Goodieites. Once people can choose to do the Right Thing as a result of of the recognition of the rights and and importance of others, and not because they’ll go to “Sad Burnt Toast land if they’re bad, we can start talking about getting rid of all the strictures placed upon us by laws and dogma. Heck, thousands of college educated economists promptly forgot the importance of their actions on other people as soon as the rules limiting said actions were removed – I think expecting people who barely got a third-grade education to do the same is asking a bit to much at this point of history.
Right now there is a lot more news about crazy backward things that Muslims are doing. The woman who was going to be stoned to death for adultery, another who was to meet a similar fate for leaving Islam, not to mention the endless stories about the way women are treated in radical Muslim countries. But in general, it’s not because of a hatred of Islam, it’s because we love hearing about how backwards “they” are in comparison to “us”. We got a big laugh about the kid in Singapore who was to be caned for littering. We love those aforementioned stories from Africa about accusations of witchcraft. Those are examples of “cute” stupidity. The stories from Islam are all examples of “dangerous” stupidity, but they all serve the same prupose…”They” are crazy”, “we” are not.
“they” are not as crazy as we like to believe, nor are “we” as not crazy as we would like to be.
Neil C.
July 26, 2010 - 2:54 pm
I am a centrist, non-religious Jew, but I think building a mosque in this part of town is a direct insult, and not because I’m a bible thumper, but just lacks common sense. At this point, the wound is fresh and it just causes problems by its existence. It would be like opening a Benihana steakhouse near Pearl Harbor in 1944: those people might have nothing to do with the attack, but will be reminders of it. Building a mosque to me is Muslims (who never renounce their terrorists) thumbing their nose instead of using common sense and saying, “Maybe we should find a better place.”
Mike Gold
July 26, 2010 - 3:11 pm
Neil, with all due respect and in the spirit of friendship and free discussion, I must ask who the hell are you to tell people of other religions where they can and cannot establish their houses of worship? You’d think that would be the frontline of freedom of religion. Should Jews be prevented from building shuls in Moslem neighborhoods? There’s a lot of synagogues in Michigan, Florida and New Jersey that would have to move.
There’s a lot of Jewish terrorists that haven’t been publicly denounced by the majority of Jews: the Irgun (surely you remember its leader, Menachem Begin), Lehi (a.k.a. the Stern Gang, which was even granted amnesty by the state of Israel), the Gush Emunim Underground, Terror Against Terror… Jews are not above terrorist acts to accomplish their religious goals, and, like Moslem terrorists, they justify their work by invoking their supreme being.
If somebody opened a Benihana near Pearl Harbor in 1944, he probably would have failed miserably due to a lack of customers. Mosques, shuls, churches and ashrams enjoy a different criterion of success.
Marc Fishman
July 26, 2010 - 4:09 pm
I’m with Mike on this point. The foundation of this nation was such that it was meant for those seeking refuge to worship freely. Sure we slaughtered the natives, built the bomb, dropped it twice, and now sit as a total nuclear super-power… But we still have laws that supposedly grant us the freedom of speech and religion. So, let’s not be coy, and realize that the Islamic people who want a house of worship in NYC aren’t asking for it to inflict pain, and pick at a scab… They are more likely simply looking for a convenient place where they can gather and pray in peace.
Mike Gold
July 26, 2010 - 4:46 pm
In point of fact, the location of this mosque is quite near the location of the first mosque ever established in Manhattan. There are over 40,000 mosques in the United States serving some seven million Muslim Americans, so folks who want to start evictions better get busy.
By the way, my father was a religious Jew (slightly south of Orthodox) and the shul of his upbringing has long been a Muslim house of worship and community center. I would like to point out that the three-story (approximately) Star of David that was part of the shul’s front facade remains intact and in good shape. I find that interesting, as I have a hard time seeing that happen in the other direction.
Neil C.
July 26, 2010 - 6:55 pm
OK, I see your points (that proves I’m not conservative!). I guess I’m just a Muslim bigot!
Reg
July 26, 2010 - 9:56 pm
Mike, taking Scripture out of context has the tendency of blinding the eyes and maiming of the spirit. Rightly weighing the Word in the proper context brings forth illumined understanding of truth.
Re: the planned positioning of the mosque…I would again submit the opinion that understanding the context of intent of purpose means everything.
p.s. It is an unfortunate fact that many preachers of the Gospel stumble in this same area which has resulted in bad doctrine and the practice of same.
Reg
July 26, 2010 - 10:08 pm
p.p.s. Your anecdote about your father’s shul is a profound one. As is the ‘what if’ scenario you offered.
Mike Gold
July 27, 2010 - 7:20 am
Reg, I appreciate your point of view but reading each of these quotes “in context” gives me exactly the same meaning. Admittedly, it’s hard to determine in bible-writing; certainly this is not out of context in the Shirley Sherrod sense. The bible’s idea of what’s acceptable and what isn’t and what to do about it seems pretty clear to THIS outsider.
And that’s the crux of the biscuit: people who are not Muslims are judging the intent of the Koran and its great many followers, and we’re all outsiders. All we outsiders have to go by, with all major religions, is the word of their Word. Making judgments based upon the actions of a handful of the most extreme practitioners is unfair to the vast majority of followers.
Mike Gold
July 27, 2010 - 7:22 am
Marc — I think the proof of the puddling here (as opposed to the crux of the biscuit, above) is that if this masque is built it will immediately become one of the most “under-surveillance” places in America. Anybody who would want to use this location as a staging area for evil intent would be at least as stupid as the recent Times Square bomber.
Mike Gold
July 27, 2010 - 7:22 am
Neil — I’ll bet you’re not.
Martha Thomases
July 27, 2010 - 9:34 am
I agree with this guy: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/nyregion/27nyc.html?_r=1&src=twr&scp=2&sq=haberman&st=cse
Mike Gold
July 27, 2010 - 9:42 am
You agree with Rick Lazio? Wow. Won’t they boot you out of NoHo for that? Well, at least you can be the one voting for him at your precinct this fall.
And maybe he’ll appoint former NYC police commissioner and current federal prisoner Bernie Kerik to some office befitting a fellow-traveler. I mean, you gotta admire his sense of time-and-place for his personal sexcapades. Ground zero right after the bombing? Damn! What a turn-on!
Martha Thomases
July 27, 2010 - 1:53 pm
No, I agree with Clyde Haberman, the man who wrote the opinion piece about how those who oppose the center would seem to disagree with our founding fathers.
Mike Gold
July 27, 2010 - 2:15 pm
Martha — Oh. You had me worried.
Who knows what the hell our founding fathers intended. Their view of non-Christians was generally suspect, even if they themselves weren’t what the Religious Right would define today as Christians. And they only thought property owners were citizens. White property owners. Male white property owners. And in some parts of the region, non-whites and/or non-Christians couldn’t own property. And blacks were only 3/5ths human. So go figure.
Most Muslims in America during our post-Revolutionary days were slaves and, by definition, not citizens. But they were here in the United States. It’s probably safe to assume that anybody wearing a burqa or a taqiyah wouldn’t be allowed to own land, let alone worship where they want.
StevenAtkins
July 27, 2010 - 4:44 pm
So…according to the bible….”EVERYBODY MUST GET STONED.”
Mike Gold
July 27, 2010 - 6:23 pm
Steven — Yep, Dylan’s cribbed from the bible before.
Marc Fishman
July 28, 2010 - 10:11 am
Mike, no doubt if they built the mosque where they wanted it would be a likely target for many a things. Personally speaking, I’m a flower power peace hippy in the sense that I don’t like to think anyone needs to make a stand and hope for violent martyrdom. If they could find another place for the mosque that could be just as accessible and far enough away that the people in eternal mourning can be “ok” with it (albeit I think those people would prefer no mosque be put anywhere, ever. at all.)… “Can’t we all get along?”
As far as the previous point about taking the Bible in context, this becomes an issue of religion: Do you take the Bible as a collection of fiction, set to assist us in issues of morality? Do you take the Bible to be creative non-fiction, to discuss points of law and commandments in accordance to the time they were supposedly written? Or you do take the Bible as LAW, complete non-fiction… meant to be followed to the letter, without argument? While many sects of organized religion use and follow the Bible (some books more than others)… it seems all the different sects (be it Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran, Methodist, Reformed Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, Jews for Jesus, Baptist, or even Pentacostals, etc.) They all take the Bible to be and mean different things. One group sees the line referential to homosexuality as THE LAW. Others see it as a sign of the times in which it was written, perhaps in opposition to pagans and other non-judeo-christians who were actively gay.
I tend to fall on the side that the Bible is a book of fiction, based on history, meant to assist in the guidance of people. And because Man is not perfect, neither is the Bible he wrote. Therefore, anyone else should be free to believe and worship what they want, where they want, how they want, so long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s ability to do the same. And simply put, a mosque placed even at ground zero is no more an insult to those who died in 9/11 than would be a church, a park, or a Starbucks. You can’t replace that which was taken away from us, and lashing out a group of people who just want a place to pray… Well that’s downright Un-American. Marc 3:16.
Vinnie Bartilucci
July 28, 2010 - 10:58 am
“The Bible is a book. It’s a GOOD book, but it’s not the ONLY book”.
Spencer Tracy, “Inherit the Wind”
Mike Gold
July 28, 2010 - 11:01 am
Vinnie — It’s kinda derivative. Too many contradictory versions. I was amazed to discover that the “10 Commandments” differ from version to version. Doesn’t matter; much of it is still unconstitutional.
Reg
July 28, 2010 - 8:26 pm
Mike, I long to have that tea and cookies soiree with you, brohym. We’ll split the cost for the broken teacups.
Whitney
July 29, 2010 - 12:51 am
Mike Gold –
If we chose to build at the site what Americans truely believe in and give their lives for daily, we would erect a shopping mall. As a people, we don’t even know God. We just fake it like groupies who drop names and pretend that they’re with the band. We even put Him on our money that we use for all kinds of darkness. As just one person, I can say that I don’t know how nor want to argue anyone into a shotgun wedding. The heart of God rests with those who are blind with pain, whether with those who bury those they have loved, or with those who believe that they have no value and choose to kill their way out of hopelessness.
God doesn’t need walls to be worshipped. This issue is another human problem.
Rick Oliver
July 29, 2010 - 1:45 pm
There are many translations of the old and new testament. There are also some “Christian” sects that decided to write their own version of the bible.
Fundamentalists conveniently cherry-pick the parts that they choose to interpret literally and those they either ignore or interpret figuratively. In particular, they like to quote the old testament when condemning homosexuals and then dismiss other parts of the old testament because it was written by Jews.
I’m not a big fan of any religion that preaches eternal damnation for those who don’t follow their rules, but I think most brands of Christianity have evolved to be more tolerant than the bible suggests, while this is not so true for Islam. And the fact that Mohammad was a “warrior prophet” doesn’t help much.
But even though I dislike Islam more than I dislike Christianity, I don’t think we should put special restrictions on the location of mosques.
Reg
August 2, 2010 - 5:19 pm
Not intending to unnecessarily rekindle this thread…but in rereading Mike’s column, I was really compelled (since no one else addressed it) to clarify the scriptural reference regarding the crusades and Jesus’ statement.
The ‘sword’ that He referred to had nothing to do with the crusades but rather concerned the relational and familial severing that can often occur when an individual makes a heart covenant with Christ. In both the ancient times as well as today, making that decision can prove costly in one sense, but be counted as a sacrifice willingly made based on what they have received in return.