The Commercial Heritage and Contribution of Islam


9thdoctor

Recommended Posts

I feel some hesitation posting this, creating a new thread destined to be a dumping ground. Oh well, I could probably find a talk by someone like Dinesh D’Souza talking about how good Christianity was for capitalism and freedom, I wonder if that would draw the same reaction. Meh, whatever, it’s a real good talk, enjoy, learn something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It is true (apparently) that the Prophet Mohammed was a merchant. According to legend, Buddha (Siddartha) also lived as a merchant. On one of my favorite blogs, Organizations and Markets, they touted THE INVENTION OF ENTERPRISE, an anthology about the history of entrepreneurship. One of the chapters is on islamic culture (by Timur Kuran; Professor of Economics and Political Science, and Gorter Family Professor in Islamic Studies at Duke University). It was both promotive and then inhibitive of enterprise. In the early years, the Muslimic places were no farther behind and often ahead of the Christian West, specifically for those very institutions which in the early Middle Ages promoted enterprise - family dealings; interest-free loans requiring partnership; flexible arrangements; common culture across huge tracts and across disperate native cultures from Africa to Indonesia.

The Arabist/Islamic lands fell behind just as - and because - the West discovered the power of the Corporation, an eternal entity. Libertarians who denounce corporations as creatures of the state should close their eyes and imagine a world limited to partnerships of living persons.

A blade with just one edge is a bastard sword. Just to say, they usually cut both ways, and as Mustafa Akyol points out, Shariah Law was never an body integrated across time and place: it was always scholarly law, independent of the state, and made by independent jurists. That vibrant individuality also prevented consistency, which by the 16th century was extracting a huge cost in inefficiency.

Just to say, given a time machine - with a safety cord - I would be an Islamic Merchant of the Middle Ages... for a while...

Edited by Michael E. Marotta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very, very interesting lecture. Though I always feel like an idiot when I agree with anyone 100%

I hate to say it but this lecture simply reinforces everything I already believe. It was informative but in no way challenging.

Thank you for finding this video and posting it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I perplexed? Perhaps I need a guide.

I am however as certain I have nothing to learn for you as I am certain you have no idea what the above sentence was about. Until you wiki it and claim a vast knowledge that is.

Edited by Joel Mac Donald
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel any need to google anything, and I really don't care what your first sentence means. Talk straight to me or don't, its up to you. I don't claim a vast knowledge of anything and I make no pretentions to that. I'm merely pretty surprised that you find nothing to take issue with in his entire lecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Arabist/Islamic lands fell behind just as - and because - the West discovered the power of the Corporation, an eternal entity. Libertarians who denounce corporations as creatures of the state should close their eyes and imagine a world limited to partnerships of living persons.

In the lecture he talked about the "foundation", which sounded like a corporation. Designed so that while rulers can confiscate an individual's wealth they can't do the same to a "foundation" the person invested in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the lecture he talked about the "foundation", which sounded like a corporation. Designed so that while rulers can confiscate an individual's wealth they can't do the same to a "foundation" the person invested in.

Called a waqf, a land trust, for instance around a common water fountain, or, even a caravansarai. Centuries later, extended even to cash-lending. I am citing Timur Kuran in the book above. I know nothing about this. Kuran's thesis is that fundamental aspects of Islamic law and culture at first enabled and then thwarted enterprise as - over centuries; a millennium - business changed because societies changed.

I will invest the time to watch the whole video all the way through. (I hate lectures. They are so slow.)

Edited by Michael E. Marotta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You agree with him 100% even though he says that Islamic anti-semitism didn't start until the formation of Israel?

The Old Testament says that we must not suffer a witch to live. (Exodus 22:18 ) And we all know about the witch trials. But they were a limited phenomenon. Even after the Civil War when Southern states copied the constitutions of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts by forbidding atheists to hold office or serve on juries or be witnesses in trials, witchcraft was no longer a capital offense.

Just to say, people are complicated and history is complicated.

It is generally true that Islam was generally tolerant of Christians and Jews who were regarded as "Children of the Book" along with Muslims. The Koran calls Jesus the Son of God and calls Mary the Virgin. But the Crusades and Zionism were military invasions, actions causing reactions. If you want to get in the middle of a religious argument, the Middle East awaits you. Myself, I prefer to discuss things that are empirical and rational, experiential and logical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to say, given a time machine - with a safety cord - I would be an Islamic Merchant of the Middle Ages... for a while...

Why a merchant? Why not a sultan? I don’t remember where I read this, but there was a case where a Sultan had a harem that was so big, that the rules for how often he had to “service” each wife were such that he had to have sex over three times a day, every day, a different partner each time, in order to cycle through them all and keep within the rules. Sounds tiring actually, but you did specify a safety cord. A fun life to visit?

I will invest the time to watch the whole video all the way through. (I hate lectures. They are so slow.)

On the Mises website you can download it as an MP3. There’s nothing to look at, so there’s no need to watch it as a video. I download stuff like this and play it while cooking, doing dishes, whatever.

http://mises.org/MediaPlayer.aspx?Id=6234

The Old Testament says that we must not suffer a witch to live. (Exodus 22:18 ) And we all know about the witch trials. But they were a limited phenomenon. Even after the Civil War when Southern states copied the constitutions of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts by forbidding atheists to hold office or serve on juries or be witnesses in trials, witchcraft was no longer a capital offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As this brilliant and powerful scene shows, "The West Wing" was one of the best series on television. It had well-written, eloquent, interesting characters and powerful conflicts.

Some of the best actors on television.

Often humor and poignancy as well.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to say, people are complicated and history is complicated.

Which goes without saying really, Mike.

It is generally true that Islam was generally tolerant of Christians and Jews who were regarded as "Children of the Book" along with Muslims.

It is also generally true that that has been whitewashed to make Islam seem more generally tolerant than it was, and in fact is.

The Koran calls Jesus the Son of God and calls Mary the Virgin. But the Crusades and Zionism were military invasions, actions causing reactions.

They were in themselves reactions, like the invasion of Iraq was a response to 9/11. Contrary to the popular view, the Crusades were actually a necessary and good thing. If they hadn't happened, then chances are the world as we know it wouldn't exist.

If you want to get in the middle of a religious argument, the Middle East awaits you. Myself, I prefer to discuss things that are empirical and rational, experiential and logical.

The empirical evidence is there.

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty good Hollywood put-down of its cultural antagonists, but that's not an American President talking. Go watch Inherit the Wind for better drama. There the gravitas comes from the exposition not from the expositor.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contrary to the popular view, the Crusades were actually a necessary and good thing. If they hadn't happened, then chances are the world as we know it wouldn't exist.

Ah, "the world as we know it." Isn't that the bulls-eye you've painted on the side of the barn after you shot your arrow into it? If your parents hadn't done X when they did X, you wouldn't be here to know it regardless.

This great world of ours.

I always though the Crusades were an expression of cultural hysteria and insanity, sort of like The Inquisition and witch trials and oil wars pretending to be something else.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel some hesitation posting this, creating a new thread destined to be a dumping ground. Oh well, I could probably find a talk by someone like Dinesh D'Souza talking about how good Christianity was for capitalism and freedom, I wonder if that would draw the same reaction. Meh, whatever, it's a real good talk, enjoy, learn something.

The speaker said Mohamed was the only Prophet who was a business-man. Not so. Abraham who is described as a prophet in the Hebrew Scriptures was a cattle baron and a land trader. His bargaining session with Effron the Hittite for a cave in which to bury his dead wife Sarah is a classical middle east bargaining session. See Gen: 23:3-6

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The speaker said Mohamed was the only Prophet who was a business-man. Not so. Abraham who is described as a prophet in the Hebrew Scriptures was a cattle baron and a land trader. His bargaining session with Effron the Hittite for a cave in which to bury his dead wife Sarah is a classical middle east bargaining session. See Gen: 23:3-6

Ba'al Chatzaf

A Sumerian, a Jew and a Hittite walked into a cave....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The speaker said Mohamed was the only Prophet who was a business-man. Not so. Abraham who is described as a prophet in the Hebrew Scriptures was a cattle baron and a land trader. His bargaining session with Effron the Hittite for a cave in which to bury his dead wife Sarah is a classical middle east bargaining session. See Gen: 23:3-6

Ba'al Chatzaf

A Sumerian, a Jew and a Hittite walked into a cave....

Which one had the beautiful daughter and which one had the ugly wife?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The speaker said Mohamed was the only Prophet who was a business-man. Not so. Abraham who is described as a prophet in the Hebrew Scriptures was a cattle baron and a land trader. His bargaining session with Effron the Hittite for a cave in which to bury his dead wife Sarah is a classical middle east bargaining session. See Gen: 23:3-6

Ba'al Chatzaf

A Sumerian, a Jew and a Hittite walked into a cave....

Which one had the beautiful daughter and which one had the ugly wife?

I think it's fair to say Abraham's wife wasn't looking too good at the time. Even before that, how would anybody look if they had a baby at age 90?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The speaker said Mohamed was the only Prophet who was a business-man. Not so. Abraham who is described as a prophet in the Hebrew Scriptures was a cattle baron and a land trader. His bargaining session with Effron the Hittite for a cave in which to bury his dead wife Sarah is a classical middle east bargaining session. See Gen: 23:3-6

Ba'al Chatzaf

A Sumerian, a Jew and a Hittite walked into a cave....

Which one had the beautiful daughter and which one had the ugly wife?

I think it's fair to say Abraham's wife wasn't looking too good at the time. Even before that, how would anybody look if they had a baby at age 90?

Damn good with the Lord's help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The speaker said Mohamed was the only Prophet who was a business-man. Not so. Abraham who is described as a prophet in the Hebrew Scriptures was a cattle baron and a land trader. His bargaining session with Effron the Hittite for a cave in which to bury his dead wife Sarah is a classical middle east bargaining session. See Gen: 23:3-6

Ba'al Chatzaf

A Sumerian, a Jew and a Hittite walked into a cave....

Which one had the beautiful daughter and which one had the ugly wife?

I think it's fair to say Abraham's wife wasn't looking too good at the time. Even before that, how would anybody look if they had a baby at age 90?

Damn good with the Lord's help!

The Lord would have to, a 100 year old husband sure couldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

I just watched that video and I enjoyed it.

I got interested in Mustafa Akyol, so I Googled him. Here is the Wikipedia link: Mustafa Akyol.

There are a bunch of other links, too, but I will let interested readers do their own Googling.

The thing that I enjoyed the most was getting a perspective from someone over there who gets how to talk to people in the West about how they view things there. He was able to present a partial vision of that perspective--and that's a really good thing for understanding.

There are a couple of controversies Akyol has been involved in that will probably not set too well with people in our subcommunity: he is a strong promoter of Intelligent Design and he was involved in a kerfuffel with Robert Spencer over his views on the flotilla thing. Surprise, surprise, a moderate has mixed views, not radical ones, but that was enough for Mr. Spencer to say he had joined the jihad (which means the violent Islamist jihad in Spencer-speak).

From my small amount of reading and watching this talk, I see Akyol as what I call a reform religious person ("reform" being in the modernize-toward-freedom-and-individual-rights sense), with emphasis equally on "reform" and on "religious person." He is also very Turkish and Turkish-minded, so he comes off as sensitive to anything that lowers the esteem of his country.

I think he represents what he is quite well and it is important for us in the West to understand that. He is not speaking within the confines of a dichotomy that rages over here, but instead from an entirely different perspective. My feeling about him is that his world starts and ends in Turkey and what he does outside (intellectually speaking) is more like travel and vacation than residence.

The important part to me is that he speaks out against violent Islamists and, from what I saw in his lecture, he now seems less critical of Israel than he was in the flotilla kerfuffel last year. I might be wrong, but he came off that way in the few things he said about Israel. (Anyway, some Turkish activists got killed in that flotilla, so I believe he spoke as a Turk just as much as he did as a Muslim.) He also said he was promoting the "open society" idea in his part of the world, which means George Soros, who--I believe--partially funded the flotilla (at least the part Dorne and Code Pink were involved in).

To be absolutely fair, it would be interesting to read what he writes for his audiences over there in Turkey and elsewhere in that region--and not in English. There have been several cases I know of where a prominent Muslim writer says one thing in English, then quite another in Arabic in a Middle East publication. I would need to verify this before accepting Akyol's views as he stated them.

But still, I'm glad he stated them. This dude is very well studied, highly intelligent, and transmits an aura of desiring peace and negotiation over dogma and war. I am hopeful that the approach he presented grows faster than it already is among Muslims.

I found his view that the Hadiths are not divine especially welcome, and that the violent prescriptions in the Qu'ran were more suited to the times than modern times. It's one thing if I say that. It's quite another for a practicing Muslim intellectual with a large audience to say it.

I am particularly glad he mentioned that Islamism has part of its roots in the fascism of Europe (which led to Hitler). I see a strong seed for development there for my pet peeve in the Middle East conflict, getting Muslims to notice where fundamental Nazi ideas have polluted their belief systems and to openly denounce them as such.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got interested in Mustafa Akyol, so I Googled him. Here is the Wikipedia link: Mustafa Akyol.

I hadn't heard of him before, it was strictly the sponsorship of the Mises people that led me to give it a try. Here's something it made me think of, he's speaking of an Islam that's pro-capitalism, or, rather, let's say pro-proto-capitalism, since it really predates capitalism by a millenia. But contrast to Karen Armstrong, who writes of the early conflict between Muslims and pagans in Mecca:

[T]hey were especially concerned that in the Quran this Judeo-Christian belief struck at the heart of their cut-throat capitalism.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ROF57nr4QboC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=karen+armstrong+capitalist+islam&source=bl&ots=sU1cnmJB1_&sig=MWTrgorUpAnxEUWaptlU3DDL7n0&hl=en&ei=YuWgTaHNIcHngQfl0ZTaBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

In general she'd have you think Islam was socialism, from the beginning. It's just like Christianity in this way, different people can spin it any which way. Imagine no religion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but that was enough for Mr. Spencer to say he had joined the jihad (which means the violent Islamist jihad in Spencer-speak).

This actually shows your ignorance of what Mr Spencer says. Jihad means something far broader and deeper in "spencer-speak" than you've characterised it. He doesn't limit the jihad to "violent Islamist jihad" as you do, nor does he actually say that Akyol supports violent jihadists. He claims that his stance on Israel isn't compatible with so-called moderation of the supremacist aspects of Islam. You wondered about Akyol in a Turkish context. Well here's a turkish commentator with his Turkish context view of Mr Akyol

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=where-islamists-and-post-modern-islamists-come-together-2010-07-20

In Turkey, as you no doubt know, there's a large struggle underway between those who want Islam to rule and secularists, who want to keep their way of life, with hundreds of thousands marching in the streets agaisnt Sharia just a few years back. There have been murders and attacks on secular judges, and manipulation to get Sharia supporters in positions of power. Anything that plays into their hands, which would include Mr Akyol's view on Israel and the Flotilla, is certainly what you could call jihad enabling. The Turkish columnist certainly agrees, and he's saying it from a Turkish context.

Pointing this out isn't to be "bigoted" or "hateful" it's merely to make an observation - something that you're doing all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike M. wrote:

. . . Libertarians who denounce corporations as creatures of the state should close their eyes and imagine a world limited to partnerships of living persons.

End quote

Well said. Insightful.

Hmmm? The contributions of Islam.

Many who have been adversely affected by Islam, don’t see it as the peaceful religious institution it purports to be, but as an intolerant religion that will kill or subjugate people of other religions . . . .

Oh, wait! They do kill and subjugate! They can stone a woman to death who is falsely accused of adultery, burn a bible or kill Christian, Hindu or Buddhist missionaries, and they will murder you for burning a Koran. Just recently those monsters of Hamas shot an Israeli school bus with an anti-tank rocket, deliberately targeting children. I PASS MORAL JUDGMENT ON THEM.

Now if Islam only produced some decent Mohammed Carols or had holidays where you gave away presents . . . Naw. It would still be ten rungs into hell worst than any other religion.

Seriously, is there any religion that more adversely affects its adherent’s reasoning abilities? I will grant you that The Amish dumb down their bearded “clients” but doesn’t Islam intrude more in the daily lives of Muslims than any other religion? I urge all Objectivists to speak out. Don’t be lulled by the politically correct hypothesis of toleration of the unspeakable.

Brant wrote:

Quote

I always though the Crusades were an expression of cultural hysteria and insanity, sort of like The Inquisition and witch trials and oil wars pretending to be something else.

End quote

In its militancy doesn’t Islam violate the Objective Rights of more people world wide than any other religion? I’m not forgetting the subjugation of the peoples of the new world, Brant, The Crusades or the Inquisition attributed to Christianity, but that was long, long ago.

Islamic Stoning is in the modern world. The slicing off of hands and heads without an objectively held trial is in the modern world. Jihad is in the modern world. The worst that Christians can come up with in the modern world is religious conservatism, and one idiot minister who burned one Koran for which the Muslims murdered many people in revenge.

Mike M. reminds us:

Quote

The Old Testament says that we must not suffer a witch to live. (Exodus 22:18 )

End quote

That is a horrible reminder Mike. Even religions we hold as reasonably benign like (fill in any blank) are irrational and potentially dangerous.

Phil Coates wrote to Ninth Doctor:

Quote

As this brilliant and powerful scene shows, "The West Wing" was one of the best series on television. It had well-written, eloquent, interesting characters and powerful conflicts

End quote

I also want to thank you Doctor for the link. That scene was exceptional!

Daunce wrote:

Quote

A Sumerian, a Jew and a Hittite walked into a cave....

End quote

Why can’t I own Canadians as slaves? It says I can in the bible.

Of course, in fairness, I agree with Michael Marrotta. It is good to be “Christopher Hitchens” fair and scold all irrational religions. That reminds me of the following old letters.

That last letter? Is that The Flouncing Lindsay?

Peter

From: Chris Matthew Sciabarra <chris.sciabarra@nyu.edu>

To: Atlantis* <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Rand and Christ

Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 15:01:07 -0500

I happen to look at the current threads on Christianity and just wanted to offer these interesting quotes from Ayn Rand herself.

In two superb articles for THE INTELLECTUAL ACTIVIST, "Artist at Work: Ayn Rand's Drafts for THE FOUNTAINHEAD" (August, September 2001), Shoshana Milgram explains that in Rand's early drafts, she "originally had Roark provide a list of creators and an inventory of their suffering." (The drafts are currently held in the Madison Building of The Library of Congress.) Rand writes:

"Socrates, poisoned by order of the democracy of Athens. Jesus Christ against the majority of [indecipherable] crucified. Joan D'Arc, who was burned at the stake. Galileo, made to renounce his soul. Spinoza, excommunicated. Luther, hounded. Victor Hugo, exiled for twenty years. Richard Wagner, writing musical comedies for a living, denounced by the musicians of his time, hissed, opposed, pronounced unmusical. Tchaikovsky, struggling through years of loneliness without recognition. Nietzsche, dying in an insane asylum, friendless and unheard. Ibsen [indecipherable] his own country. Dostoevsky, facing an execution squad and pardoned to a Siberian prison. The list is endless."

For a variety of reasons, Rand eliminated this list from Roark's speech, but the list is interesting in any event. Rand also says, quite provocatively, in her early drafts that "Christ proclaimed the untouchable integrity of Man's spirit [stating] the first rights of the Ego. He placed the salvation of one's own soul above all other concerns. But men distorted it into altruism." She expands on this in her LETTERS (July 9, 1946), where she tells a fan (Sylvia Austin) that "Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism---the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means---one's ego and the integrity of one's ego." She states, however, that "Jesus (or perhaps His [Rand capitalizes "His"] interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or ~live for~ others."

So, yes, Rand recognizes an internal contradiction here (even if she's not ready to place all the responsibility on Jesus himself)---but this does not come at the expense of an historical appreciation of the importance of early Christian thought in advancing the individualist message.

Happy holidays, a healthy and happy new year to all,

Chris

===================================

Chris Matthew Sciabarra

Visiting Scholar, NYU Department of Politics

726 Broadway, 7th floor

New York, New York 10003

Dialectics & Liberty Website:

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra

The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies:

http://www.aynrandstudies.com

From: "Bill Dwyer"

Subject: ATL: To my Christian Brothers and Sisters

Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 00:46:37 -0700

To my Christian Brothers and Sisters,

As a new Christian, thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal here, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

B) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

c) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

d) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

e) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

f) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

g) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

From: Monart Pon <monartpon@home.com>

To: Atlantis <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: [Fwd: LIBERTYLOOP: PI edit Thurs April 12]

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 23:16:22 -0600

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: LIBERTYLOOP: PI edit Thurs April 12

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:27:07 +1200

From: Lindsay <editor@freeradical.co.nz>

Reply-To: libertyloop-list@free-market.net

To: <libertyloop-list@free-market.net>

PI edit Thursday April 12, 2001

[Music - Die Fledermaus]

Good afternoon, Kaya Oraaa & welcome to the Politically Incorrect Show on the free speech network, Radio Pacific, for Thursday April 12, proudly sponsored by Neanderton Nicotine Ltd., the show that says bugger the politicians & bureaucrats & all the other bossyboot busybodies who try to run our lives with our money; that stands tall for free enterprise, achievement, profit, & excellence, against the state-worshippers in our midst; that stands above all for the most sacred thing in the universe, the liberty of the human individual.

[Music up, music down!]

Today's being the last show before the Easter break, I thought I'd do a sequel to my chat to God the other day - a retake of the Sermon on the Mount, since here too, I figure I can improve on the original:

Blessed are the poor in spirit - when they become rich in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of earth.

Blessed are they who mourn - when they get over it.

Blessed are the meek - when they become self-confident, for then they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they which do hunger & thirst after rights - when they do something about it, for then they shall become free.

Blessed are the merciful - when they learn to discriminate, for then they shall obtain justice.

Blessed are the pure in heart, since they must have been using their brains. Blessed are the peacemakers - when they learn that it doesn't come at any price.

Blessed are ye when men shall revile you & persecute you & shall say all manner of evil against you falsely - when those men are Jim Anderton & Helen Clark [leading socialist politicians in New Zealand].

Blessed are the rational, the independent, the honest, the productive, the just, the proud - for theirs is the glory of man.

Rejoice, & be exceeding glad, for great is your reward on earth - when you have earned it.

Ye are the salt of the earth - but if the salt has lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? If ye become as sheeple, ye shall be trodden under the feet of politicians & bureaucrats.

Be ye instead the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.

Do not hide your light under a bushel, but let it so shine before men that they may see your vision of reason & freedom, & glorify it, & bring it to pass on earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now