Small Government Book Fan Club discussion

A great, though LONG, interview, not just on the book but covering a variety of topics, most interesting of which is a role of artists in modern society. Might offend some atheists, but I think it's only fair as a balance to the Terry Goodkind post:) Good thinking/discussion material anyway. Of course now I just want to re-read the book, but no time:(

http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink....

That is such a provocative statement, I'm surprised it didn't get wider press when the interview first came out. Certainly food for discussion, although it's one of those things that usually kills threads:)

Well I will venture something since I'm a moderator and will not ban myself:)

I appreciate that Klavan said "what kind" of G-d instead of simply "what G-d." So he leaves the door open for interpretation of any religion being a force for good with the right kind of leaders who believe in a just, merciful deity rather than one condoning violence. It also answers the critic of Christianity who love pointing out to the Crusades, but in modern days Christian leaders preach conversion through missionary work (and generally emphasize love and forgiveness) which makes a world of difference in how Christianity is viewed and practiced. It's not impossible that some time from now Islam will undergo the same transformation given the right circumstances, but for now the two views are in violent conflict.

I have to admit to not knowing a whole lot about Islam. But here's where I'm coming from (and by the way I am Jewish so I'll use what I know). If you read the Old Testament, there's a lot of references to stoning people for not observing rules, or putting wayward sons to death, or the famous "eye for an eye." But what happened over time was that the leaders said, "We are not doing that anymore. We will not stone people for gathering sticks on Shabbat. And eye for an eye means restitution. And wayward son stuff is just there as a precautionary note, but we will NOT ever rule for that to happen. We have decided that our G-d does not require violence in these cases, and that is now our law, period." So I can see future Islamic leaders saying the same thing, that even there are parts of Koran that call for violence, they choose to interpret it differently. I think religious leaders have power to do that, not matter what literal text says.

Here's an excellent column by Orson Scott Card on the issue of religion adjusting to civilized society, in particular the LDS Church moving away from polygamy and how the same principle should be applied to Islam. It's sort of what I've been trying to say, only better (and he sees the role of government in this as well, which in this case may be more realistic than expecting for it to happen naturally).

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch...

O-kay, maybe there IS a reason no major Islamic leader has come out to denounce the killings, although I doubt there's NOTHING in the whole book of Koran that could be interpreted to prefer mercy over violence. I suspect the leaders just are not looking hard enough (frankly, they have no reason to do so right now since violence or threat of it is working very much in their favor right now).

Card's point was not so much that Mormonism gave up on polygamy, but that the leadership was forced to change its official position to be accepted into a civilized society. So in effect (at least in Card's view) it's possible for the leaders to just declare a part of the teachings no longer officially applicable, even if some people believe it in private. Would it entirely destroy/water down Koran's teaching to dismiss (interpret away) the calls for violence? At least this is a question that needs to be asked of those who profess Islam to be a religion of peace. I don't particularly see this discussed, anywhere.

Ah, Mark Steyn... Never fails to depress me, mostly because he's right.

When OSC is right, he's REALLY right. But he does annoy me a lot too.

Of course, referring to the Media Bias thread, the popular culture representation of Mormons is still all about polygamy.

Yeah I will probably read it someday. I like Biblical stories. They can be a lot of fun, especially with all the different interpretations.

By the way, Romney is running for president again and this time around him being a Mormon seems to be less of an issue. I wonder why. Religious attitudes don't really change in 4 years. (Unless everyone has been reading a LOT of OSC lately???).

A lot of interesting posts on Klavan's blog. Scroll down to the post on crucifixion and Jesus as representation of Truth, followed by shameless self-promotion of True Crime (which I now can't wait to read). The War on Women post is cool too.
http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/

I picked up THE IDENTITY MAN a few days ago. I think I will read it next. I could use a good realistic thriller.

Cool. I'd have to say it's my favorite non-YA Klavan book so far. It has so many layers to it, and I loved the movie references. Enjoy!

This is a good one... Make sure to click on the Neil Lister link...
http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2012/...

Pretty much summarizes the Dem's campaign.

Klavan is going to be on Red Eye tonight. Set your DVRs if you have one. I'll probably be awake so hopefully I will remember. Hope he doesn't spoil THE IDENTITY MAN. Actually, I'll probably be finished by then.

Picked up EMPIRE OF LIES for $1. This should be my next Klavan read.

Yay! Can't wait to hear what you think. I hope the Christian stuff will not be a turn off for you.

As long as it is more of a ritual thing more than an abstract philosophical pondering it shouldn't bother me.

Andrew Klavan rocks! Love this column. Also his new book is out.

http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2013/...

A new interview with Klavan- talks about his new book, movies and other stuff. Love his take on everyone focusing on villains nowadays instead of victims.
http://www.mysteryscenemag.com/index....