From: Richard Finlay Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 7:28 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Question about ISIS Hi Noam I hope you are well. When ISIS force people to convert, what are they forcing people to convert to? And are the US responsible for that? Thanks. -All good things, Richard Finlay
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Noam Chomsky wrote: They’re being forced to convert to the ISIS version of Islam, which is a extremist fringe of the extremist Wahabi/Salafi doctrine of Saudi Arabia, Washington’s major regional client/ally and the main funder and ideological source of jihadi movements. The US sledgehammer in Iraq set off the sectarian conflicts that are destroying Iraq and enflaming the region. ISIS is one offshoot.
From: Richard Finlay Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 7:59 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Question about ISIS When ISIS force people to convert to the "ISIS version of Islam", is that the fault of the US? I agree that the "US sledgehammer in Iraq set off the sectarian conflicts" as you say, but isn't the "ISIS version of Islam" a literal reading of the Qur’an?
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Noam Chomsky wrote: As I said, it’s an extremist fringe of an extremist fringe of Islam, the fringe that the US has usually supported, like Britain before it. It’s the fault of the US in the manner I mentioned, and I’m hardly alone in that view. One of the most prominent US analysts of the ME, with a CIA background, Graham Fuller, recently wrote that the US created ISIS, in that sense.
From: Richard Finlay Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 8:09 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Question about ISIS Is the "ISIS version of Islam" not a literal reading of the Qur’an?
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Noam Chomsky wrote: Already answered. I wonder whether you have ever read the Old Testament, I suppose the most genocidal work in the literary canon.
From: Richard Finlay Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 8:35 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Question about ISIS What is your answer to the question? Either the "ISIS version of Islam" is a literal reading of what's in the Qu'ran, or it isn't. Which is it? Yes or No. Just like you are, I'm a big fan of blaming the US for everything under the sun, when they're actually responsible for what I'm blaming them for. No rational person believes that when bearded Neanderthals rampage around the Middle East, calling themselves Islamic State, using the Qu'ran as their constitution and stating plainly that they want Islam to take over the world by force -- that that's the fault of the US. Yes, the US is responsible for inflaming the region in sectarian conflicts as you said, but Islam is the ideology that is driving ISIS. With or without US interference, Islam is going to be there. Why are people on the "left" so terrified of admitting what's plainly and obviously true?
I'm a huge admirer of yours, but your point of view on this matter really disappoints me. It seems that you're dedicated to shifting the focus from Islam as an ideology to the US each and every time Muslim groups rampage around the place killing everything in sight, stating plainly that's it's their belief system - Islam - that is inspiring them to do so. You, and others (like Glenn Greenwald), hear this, and you seem to not want to believe them. You're bending over backwards to absolve Islam as an ideology of responsibility. It's totally irrelevant, but on the Old Testament, yes, it's horrific -- I agree. And if bearded Neanderthals were rampaging around the world in 2014 calling themselves Christian State and stating plainly that they want to force Christian State Law (in the case of IS, it's Sharia Law) on everybody, then an honest person would look at that situation and recognize that it's the ideology behind Christianity that is the driving force.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Noam Chomsky wrote: There is no such thing as a “literal reading of the Bible.” There are many readings of the Bible, from extraordinary genocidal passages that have no counterpart elsewhere in the literature, to my knowledge, to sublime passages calling eloquently for justice and mercy. I don’t know the Qur’an as well as I do the Bible, but I presume the same is true. If you know better, then you should write something to counter the views of John Esposito, Juan Cole, Raymond Baker and others who have written extensively on the topic, disagreeing with your interpretation. I quite disagree with your principle of blaming everything on the US, which is why I didn’t blame ISIS on the US. No need to comment on your interpretation of what Greenwald and I do, because it is utter fantasy. If you want to claim that it is Islam that is responsible for ISIS horror, while denying that it is Christianity that is responsible for the vastly greater and more monstrous crimes right now of good Christians, don’t expect “an honest person” to join you.
From: Richard Finlay Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 2:35 AM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Question about ISIS You said: "There is no such thing as a “literal reading of the Bible.” Of course there is such a thing as a literal reading of the Bible, or any religious text -- you simply read what's IN the Bible. If you want a literal reading of the Qu'ran, you simply read what's IN the Qu'ran. It's not complicated. A literal reading means that you read what's LITERALLY IN what you're reading. "There are many readings from the Bible", as you say, meaning that a million different people are going to interpret religious texts, which are mish-mashes of utter nonsense, in a million different ways, in any way they see fit. This reveals the nonsensical nature of all religions. Whatever one wants to justify -- a justification can be found for it in their holy text. Good Muslim people (which is the majority of them) focus on the nice parts of their holy text and deny the bad stuff. Good Christians focus on the nice parts of their holy text, and ignore the bad. Bad people, like ISIS, take the bad parts of their holy text and commit horrendous atrocities in the name of their holy book, and ignore whatever nice stuff might be in there, because it serves their purpose to do so. So you are correct, there are "extraordinary genocidal passages" in the Bible, and there are "sublime passages calling eloquently for justice and mercy". So if a person focuses on the "sublime passages calling eloquently for justice and mercy" and says that the good they're doing in life is based on their chosen holy book that contains these passages, fine. If a person focuses on the "extraordinary genocidal passages" in the Bible, and commits horrendous atrocities, and tells us that they're committing those atrocities because their holy book, which they believe to be the word of God, told them to do so -- I'll take them at their word. What is pertinent is what's actually IN the Qu'ran. I'm not interested in interpretations -- I'm interested in what is written IN the Qu'ran. It's not difficult to find out. You said: "...which is why I didn’t blame ISIS on the US" This is what I'm trying to find out. It's not clear then what your position is if you're not, as you say, blaming ISIS on the US. I'm looking for you to be clearer in what you say because I can't think of a time where I've disagreed with you on anything. We agree that the illegal and immoral Iraq war which began in 2003 inflamed the situation which gave rise to the sectarian conflicts that we've bared witness to...
Our area of disagreement seems to be this, and stop me where I'm wrong, because I'm truly trying to understand your position: So basically what you're saying is that whenever bearded Neanderthals rampage around the Middle East, slaughtering people in the name of their religion, I should not believe their clearly stated reasons for what they're doing, and not pay attention to what their clearly stated goals are (death to everyone who doesn't agree with them), and instead I should just focus my attention on blaming the US, because the US started a war in 2003 in Iraq? Noam, surely you can see that Islam is an odious ideology and it should be criticized openly -- it's causing MAJOR problems in the world. You said: "If you want to claim that it is Islam that is responsible for ISIS horror..." Islam is the ideology that is driving ISIS -- they even call themselves Islamic State and are dedicated to installing Sharia (Islamic) Law anywhere they can, worldwide if they could, by force. They're shouting it from the rooftops. Instead of condemning them, and the ideology which drives them, you and the likes of Glenn Greenwald will come out with articles laying the blame squarely at the feet of the United States, bending over backwards seemingly to distract attention from Islam as an ideology. It takes great effort to do this, so it has me wondering. It's not the fault of the US, or anyone else, that some Muslims want to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate. You said: "...while denying that it is Christianity that is responsible for the vastly greater and more monstrous crimes right now of good Christians, don’t expect “an honest person” to join you." What are you even talking about? You brought up Christianity. I didn't deny anything about Christianity... So what are you talking about? Yes, ISIS are small criminals in comparison to the US, for example. It's the old story of the pirate and the emperor (St. Augustine). I don't think the US rampages around the world in the name of Christianity, however, if that's what you're trying to say...? Noam, what is the penalty for apostasy in Islam? Whenever I ask another person on the "left" this question, they don't seem to be able to answer my question.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Noam Chomsky wrote: I’m glad you agree that there is no such thing as “a literal reading of the Bible.” There are, as you now concede, many different readings, depending on what we select and how we interpret materials that are not quantum physics. Same with the Qur’an, as you’ll discover if you investigate it. It’s entirely clear what my position is on the US role in creating ISIS. Exactly as I explained to you. Very much the same as what Fuller, Cockburn, and others have observed. I’m glad that you “agree that the illegal and immoral Iraq war which began in 2003 inflamed the situation which gave rise to the sectarian conflicts that we've bared witness to.” That’s the answer to your question. As for the “bearded Neanderthals,” and the vastly more destructive nicely shaven gangsters in Washington, London, etc., I don’t conclude that “Christianity is an odious ideology….” Or Islam. Very simple. Sorry that you seem to find a problem understanding it. On your question about apostasy, you won’t find anyone familiar with Islam to answer it, just as there is no answer to what is the penaly for homosexuality in Christianity. In the famous case of Turing, for example, it was to kill him.
From: Richard Finlay Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 4:08 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Question about ISIS You said: "I’m glad you agree that there is no such thing as “a literal reading of the Bible.” I actually said the complete opposite of that - if you'd just read my last e-mail, I stated the exact opposite at the top. It's easy to read what's literally in any text - you simply read it. I don't know what the mystery is. You said: "There are, as you now concede, many different readings, depending on what we select and how we interpret materials that are not quantum physics. Same with the Qur’an, as you’ll discover if you investigate it." Yes, there are all sorts of things written in many holy books, as we've already covered. What's your point? Either the Qu'ran says that non-believers should be killed, or it
doesn't. It does. Either the Qu'ran says that a man can beat his wife, or it doesn't. It does. What's open to interpretation if it states it clearly? You said: "It’s entirely clear what my position is on the US role in creating ISIS. Exactly as I explained to you. Very much the same as what Fuller, Cockburn, and others have observed. I’m glad that you “agree that the illegal and immoral Iraq war which began in 2003 inflamed the situation which gave rise to the sectarian conflicts that we've bared witness to.” That’s the answer to your question." The answer sneakily circumvents honestly looking at the role the ideology of Islam plays in compelling ISIS to carry out what they're doing and in pursuing their clearly stated goals, which are based on the doctrines of Islam. The US did not create ISIS - ISIS are an unintended consequence of an illegal and immoral war and occupation. The group is calling itself Islamic State and is shouting, clearly, from the rooftops exactly what it is that they want, which includes using force to spread Sharia (Islamic) Law worldwide. This, in your view, is the fault of the US? That's bizarre logic. You said: "As for the “bearded Neanderthals,” and the vastly more destructive nicely shaven gangsters in Washington, London, etc., I don’t conclude that “Christianity is an odious ideology….” Or Islam. Very simple. Sorry that you seem to find a problem understanding it." Again, it's the story of the pirates and the emperors (St. Augustine). For some reason, you find a way to try to absolve the pirates of their crimes, knowingly or not, and blame it on the emperors -- I'm condemning both. As for Islam being an odious ideology, perhaps you can give a straight answer to the following question? If a book was released tomorrow that said, for example, that a man can beat his wife, and that you should be killed if you don't agree with everything in the book -- what would your opinion be of that book? How would the "left", in general, react to that book? You said: "On your question about apostasy, you won’t find anyone familiar with Islam to answer it" Yes, it's very easy to find out, and for some reason you either want to conceal it, or don't know the answer to it. The answer is: death. It's stated clearly in the Qu'ran and the Hadith. Any Muslim will tell you, if they have the guts to answer the question clearly and honestly -- which most don't, I find.
You said: "...just as there is no answer to what is the penaly for homosexuality in Christianity. In the famous case of Turing, for example, it was to kill him." Does the Bible say that it's a sin for man to lay with man, or not? Leviticus 18 and 20: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." For some reason, to you, and the left in general, this is all open to interpretation, though plainly stated in the holy texts. A man of your intelligence is not ignorant to these facts. I think the conclusion is rather clear.
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Noam Chomsky wrote: As you wrote, “a million different people are going to interpret religious texts…in a million different ways, in any way they see fit.” These are the readings of the Bible. Since the readings interpret the Bible metaphorically (apart from Southern Baptists and some others who believe in “innerancy”), there is no literal meaning. It’s well known that the Bible is a compilation of many folk traditions, extending over hundreds of years, with many contradictions, allusive and obscure passages, etc. Only real extremists, like Southern Baptists and you, are under the illusion that there is a literal meaning. I’m sorry you cannot understand the fact, clear and obvious, that I gave an explicit answer to your question about the role of the US in creating ISIS. You now “very sneakily” (to borrow your terms) introduce a new question: what was the role of Islam in creating ISIS. I answered that too. As you can learn if you ever decide to look into Islam, you’ll discover that ISIS is an extremist offshoot of the radical extremist Wahabi/Salafi fringe of Islam that the US has been supporting just as Britain did before it.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Richard Finlay wrote: If a book was released tomorrow that said, for example, that a man can beat his wife, and that you should be killed if you don't agree with everything in the book -- what would your opinion be of that book? How would the "left", in general, react to that book?
I wrote just one plain question in the e-mail of October 7th above, which I thought would leave him very little room to obfuscate. There was no response. On October 17th, I sent the following e-mail‌
From: Richard Finlay Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 3:20 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Question about ISIS Hi Noam, I hope you're well. In a prior e-mail to me you said "Only real extremists, like Southern Baptists and you, are under the illusion that there is a literal meaning..." (in reference to the Qur'an). Isn't the problem we're facing with the people who are taking the Qur'an literally, and killing people in the name of it, and not critics of the ideology like myself? Let's say for a moment my criticisms of Islam as an ideology are wrong -- we still have people killing in the name of the ideology. Is it not time for people like yourself to be honest, and instead of ONLY criticizing US power and aggression, ALSO criticize ideologically driven violence and terror? You have done so, of course, but to a very very small degree and mostly in passing, and if one examines the left's reaction to ISIS, for example, including your own, you'd think Obama was on the phone to them every day giving them directions and ordering pizza for them. How on earth do you conclude that I myself am an "extremist" when I'm simply quoting what's written in the Qur'an? The verses in the Qur'an are plain to read most verses are not written in a way where there could conceivably be different interpretations. If you don't think this is the case, perhaps you can provide me with your own interpretation of the following verses: Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." These are just a few verses, randomly selected. There's 109 verses calling on Muslims to fight and kill nonbelievers. There's verses calling on men to beat their wives if they don't obey them, to take women as sex slaves etc etc. And yes, of course, I'm well aware of what's written in other religious texts. Are you seriously claiming that there's no literal meaning to any of this? That if I quote verses from the Qur'an and criticize them and speak about how dangerous it is for people to actually believe in their literal truth, that makes ME an "extremist"? What about a peaceful Muslim (which is the majority of them) who repeats the usual canard about "Islam is a religion of peace". If there's no literal meaning to any of it, then how does he know what it is? It'd be like me calling you an extremist for quoting what Nixon said in taped meetings, or for quoting what George W. Bush said, or anything else. What am I missing? For the record, I'd like to make you aware of the following (before you characterize me as a warmonger or something similar): I don't support US-UK wars of aggression and occupation on Muslim populations or anyone else. I don't support any bombing or wars. I don't support Israel's subjugation of the Palestinians. I've read probably more than half of your books (which is an achievement, considering I'm only 30). I've been a vocal supporter of yours for years and had the pleasure of meeting you last year. My wife met you in your office just a couple of months ago where you very kindly signed books for her and the kiddos (who I believe are around the same ages as your grandchildren). This e-mail is not meant to be hostile -- I'm honestly trying to figure out why you'd call me an "extremist" when I'm literally only trying to understand your position, because I happen to respect your opinion. When you said there's no official position on the penalty for apostasy in Islam, that's plainly false. "The consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafii), as well as classical Shiite jurists, is that apostates from Islam must be put to death. The process of declaring a person to be an apostate is known as takfir and the disbeliever is called a murtad. I can provide you with verses from the Qur'an and the Hadith if you'd like to read them." (source: Religion of Peace) Also, I've been having trouble getting the following question answered: If a book was released tomorrow that said, for example, that a man can beat his wife, and that you should be killed if you don't agree with everything in the book -- what would your opinion be of that book? How would the "left", in general, react to that book?
I've asked this question of you, and others on the left, and all I get is evasive nonsense and responses like "Have you read the Old Testament?" Would it be possible to get a straight answer to this from you, please? Thank you Richard
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Noam Chomsky wrote: There is a real problem with extremists who take the “Holy Books� seriously. The worst problem by far in this Millennium has been the crazed Christian Evangelical fanatic who invaded Iraq, with horrifying effects to the present, and tried to convince France to join his crusade by appealing to an obscure passage in the book of Ezekiel about Gog and Magog. An interesting story, which the media are polite enough not to report. Many other recent examples from Judeo-Christian radical fundamentalism. Extremists are those like Bush, Southern Baptists, ISIS, and you who assume that these books should be read literally. The vast majority of adherents to these faiths, and virtually all scholarship, knows better.
From: Richard Finlay Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 8:49 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Question about ISIS Great, so we're in agreement that people who take their holy books seriously and commit violence or atrocities in the name of those books are a real problem. However, you still label me an "extremist" for simply saying what's written in a book. I've asked you to explain how that makes any sense and you've said nothing. I don't agree with or believe in anything that Southern Baptists, ISIS or Bush do, and I don't hurt people or propose that anybody hurts anybody else -- I've simply stated plainly what's written in a book. Perhaps you can tell me how I should read or interpret the following verses? Or, how do you interpret these verses? (These are just random ones - I'm sure I can find much worse) Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." Surely you realize that I'm not at fault for simply quoting what's in a book, and in fact it's the people killing in the name of these holy books that are at fault? How are people to read books, if not literally? The Qur'an is supposed to be the literal word of God. Again, would it be possible to get a straight answer to this question: If a book was released tomorrow that said, for example, that a man can beat his wife, and that you should be killed if you don't agree with everything in the book -- what would your opinion be of that book? How would the "left", in general, react to that book? Thanks, Noam.
On Oct 18, 2014, at 4:30, "Noam Chomsky" wrote: I’ve answered you repeatedly. Only extremists like Bush, Southern Baptists, ISIS, you, and others believe that one should take literally what is written in the Holy Books, for example, the depiction of the God of the Abrahamic faiths as such an extraordinary monster that he destroyed virtually all life on earth because some humans offended him, or who called for total genocide of tribes that disturbed his chosen people – doctrines that are enunciated today by highly respected figures who you and I are supporting with our tax dollars, and whose edicts are contributing to vicious crimes (with our tax dollars).
From: Richard Finlay Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 12:03 AM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Question about ISIS How else should we read books, other than literally? What are your interpretations of the verses I included in my previous e-mail? I'd like to see how they could differ from my own reading of them. Is it your position that the Qur'an states nothing clearly? Isn't the enormous problem we face with the people who are reading their holy books literally and carrying out horrendous crimes in the name of those books, rather than honest people who are simply pointing out what's written in the books?
You still haven't explained how I'm an extremist because I stated what's written in a book. Of course, I don't for one moment really think that you truly believe that I'm an extremist. I think it's a method of stifling the commentary on Islam by staying something wildly irrational so it directs attention away from the pertinent issue, which is rather simple. Saying I'm an extremist is akin to me calling you an extremist for reading my e-mail. It makes no sense. If you've repeatedly answered me, then please point out what your straight answer was/is to the following: If a book was released tomorrow that said, for example, that a man can beat his wife, and that you should be killed if you don't agree with everything in the book -- what would your opinion be of that book? How would the "left", in general, react to that book? Thanks, Noam.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Noam Chomsky wrote: It is entirely clear how we read collections of oral history drawn from many traditions and pieced together after long periods. The way it is always done except by religious extremists such as those I mentioned. I gave a very clear and explicit response to your former question. In response to this one, “If a book was released tomorrow that said, for example, that” you should murder every living creature – man, woman, child, donkey…-- in a tribe that offended the Lord of Armies that you worship, then the left should react exactly as it does react to the Holy Bible of Christians and Jews. Exactly the way you react. From: Richard Finlay Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 3:26 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Question about ISIS You wrote previously: "I wonder whether you have ever read the Old Testament, I suppose the most genocidal work in the literary canon." You say that there is "no such thing as a literal reading of the Bible". So how do you know it's the "most genocidal work"? By reading it literally?
"It is entirely clear how we read collections of oral history drawn from many traditions and pieced together after long periods." It's "entirely clear"? But you don't read anything literally? So when the Qur'an, for example, says... Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." ...no one should read these literally? Apparently there's a special technique that you're privy to that I'm not aware of. Can you provide me with details of how I should read these verses, if not literally? How do you read them or interpret them? Again, these are just a random selection because they are short (there are verses that are much worse). Is it your position that the Qur'an states nothing plainly? Again, even if I was wrong, isn't the problem more to do with people who read these verses, take them literally, and then go out and commit horrendous atrocities in the name of their holy book? You said: "I gave a very clear and explicit response to your former question." This was my question: If a book was released tomorrow that said, for example, that a man can beat his wife, and that you should be killed if you don't agree with everything in the book -- what would your opinion be of that book? How would the "left", in general, react to that book? This was your response: In response to this one, “If a book was released tomorrow that said, for example, that” you should murder every living creature – man, woman, child, donkey…-- in a tribe that offended the Lord of Armies that you worship, then the left should react exactly as it does react to the Holy Bible of Christians and Jews. Exactly the way you react. I have absolutely no idea what you're even talking about. "the Lord of Armies that you worship" What does this mean? Are you talking about the US? I'm an Irish citizen, living in Ireland, and as I said previously, I don't support US wars of occupation and aggression.
The rest of your point I will have to spend some time trying to wrap my head around -perhaps you could be more clear and save me the trouble? Thanks, Noam.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Noam Chomsky wrote: All very simple. Those extremists who read the Bible literally – Southern Baptists, W. Bush, Wahabis, etc. – have a problem with the fact that the text they worship is not only the most genocidal in the literary canon, but depicts a divinity, the Lord of Armies, who is an monster of indescribable evil. Others do not have that problem, nor have they since, for example, St. Augustine described the Bible as a metaphoric text that personifies God and simplifies in many ways so it will present messages to humans. And of course by then passages of the kind you cite, which abound in the texts worshipped by Christians and Jews, were by then ignored apart from the extremist segments of literalists. Scholarship has understood for centuries, as do members of religious faiths apart from the extremist fringe, that there is no literal reading of a text that was put together from oral histories over hundreds of years from different traditions, and in fact gives directly contradictory accounts in many cases. It’s all pretty straightforward, not hard to understand.
From: Richard Finlay Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 3:44 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Question about ISIS How do you know that the Bible is "the most genocidal work in the literary canon"?
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Noam Chomsky wrote: By reading. Can you think of anything to compare with it? I’ve never found anything that comes even close.
From: Richard Finlay Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 5:05 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Question about ISIS Is that a literal reading?
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Noam Chomsky wrote: Of course. That’s why literal readings of the often contradictory texts redacted in the Hellenistic period are confined to fanatic extremists, like Southern Baptists and others I mentioned.
From: Richard Finlay Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 5:11 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Question about ISIS But you said previously: "There is no such thing as a “literal reading of the Bible.”
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Noam Chomsky wrote: When I answer 100 letters a day, it is not writing articles for the J. of Symbolic Logic. I assume a rational reader. To make precise what you don’t seem to understand: For centuries, in fact millennia (as the St Augustine reference indicates), it’s been understood quite generally that it makes no sense to take literally what appears in compilations of oral history and folk traditions that are often even inconsistent. Thus no reasonable person assumes that there was an individual named Adam who lived 930 years. Etc. True, there are exceptions, like Christian literalists, who happen to have extraordinary influence in the US, as we will doubtless see in a few weeks on election day.
From: Richard Finlay Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 5:27 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Question about ISIS If it "makes no sense to take literally" the Bible, or any religious text, then how can you say that the Bible "is the most genocidal work in the literary canon"? You admit that you've taken a literal reading of it in order to arrive at that conclusion. How else are you to read the Bible, or any religious text, but literally?
Chomsky’s last response: Sorry you don’t seem to be able to understand, but I’ve reached the limits of my patience on the matter. Try someone else. It’s very well understood.
My last response: Yes, although it's entertaining for me to see you obfuscate and confuse a very simple matter with contradictory gobbledegook, it's probably best you don't respond as you keep digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself every time you make a point. Looking forward to seeing you back in Ireland soon. All the best, Richard