What is your opinion of author Robert Spencer's books?

[Michael_Allen]

Personally when I want to learn about another faith I choose to read books by members of that faith, so that I know I am understanding their faith from their own perspective.

That’s just my choice.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Personally when I want to learn about another faith I choose to read books by members of that faith, so that I know I am understanding their faith from their own perspective.

That’s just my choice.

Its a valid point but its not one or the other, but rather both.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Peace.

Here is a review of Robert Spencer’s works taken from a Muslim magazine:

"'The Summation and Result of Spencer’s Work’:

In studying Spencer and his polemics, one gets the all too familiar feeling of listening to the ravings of a fanatic mullah (Muslim cleric) with angry motives. Like the rabid mullahs, Spencer has no sense of true scholarship and is blinded by his own cynical agenda, playing on his audience’s fear, prejudice and angst. If readers want a thorough primer of the extremist rationalization of Islam, Robert Spencer is their man. With just a slight shift, he could very well serve as a spokesman for Al-Qaeda.

The results of Spencer’s disinformation campaign are increasingly apparent. When compared to six months after 9/11, the percentage of people in America that now believe Islam encourages violence, has doubled. Right wing politicians have seized on the hysteria and made platforms out of the rhetoric Spencer has been sowing for the past decade. There are now calls to preemptively ban shariah by constitutional amendments and never-ending absurd accusations that President Obama, is a secret Muslim intent on “Islamizing” the United States.

Even more disturbing, though, is that Spencer’s propaganda inspired Anders Breivik, the right-wing terrorist who killed eight people in the 2011 Oslo bombing and another 68 at a youth camp by shooting. Breivik cited Spencer’s blog more than 160 times in his anti-Islam manifesto and views his terroristic massacre as “saving” Norway and Europe from “the Muslim takeover”. And it is this disturbing irony that lies at the heart of the likes of Robert Spencer and Breivik, that they both mimic those fanatic imams and jihadi terrorists that they claim to be fighting against, using the same false logic, double standards and heinous behavior to fan the flames of hatred and terror.

Robert Spencer has become an American mullah. He is the perfect counterpart to the fanatics spoiling the Muslim world, using the same tactics and rhetoric, misquoting the same verses, and citing the same dubious sources. And now he inspires the same hysterical and bloody results."

Excerpted from:

muslimsunrise.com/dmddocuments/2012_summer.pdf

Peace.

Status quo, I think a few different issues occur here, aside from the point above this needs to be viewed in another perspective always overlooked imho. This is politics-religion and the understanding of the two from a Catholic perspective which Spencer is. So then he is viewing this from this angle first as these three issues interact Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and then from his belief and understanding his own faith and responsibility to it.

Then we usually arrive at the point we see most on the thread arrive it. Which is the validity of the points in question in research and scholarly research. He’s certainly educated and has been focused in this area of fascination and concern since 1980. The question then may arise if he is indeed qualified to speak. And according to area 1 and 2 that would be an affirmative.

Should one seek a deeper Catholic reading, it exists as I mentioned.

Last but not least I like many am always skeptical when there is an obvious attempt to silence “anyone”. In my mind I immediately want to know what is that part of the message that is required to be silenced. Now if Robert Spencer was a babbling idiot and nothing there but disturbing primitive utterings, then we would all be in agreement. That’s simply not the case.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Dr. Dawkins is a biologist/professor and an atheist. Mr. Spencer I believe has studied Islam or rather has an M.A. in religious studies, that therefore makes him more qualified to speak on such issues than Dawkins. Moreover, I think Spencer is a lot more honest in his approach to Islam than many Islamic scholars. There is much out there that is supposedly scholarly but is funded by Saudi money, in fact, even many university departments on Islamic studies is funded by the Saudis.

frontpagemag.com/2014/andrew-harrod/preaching-islamophobia-to-the-choir-at-saudi-funded-georgetown/

-Mr. Spencer’s MA is in Religious Studies and his thesis for his MA was on the Catholic, not the Islamic, faith. It makes Mr. Spencer more qualified than Mr. Dawkins on the subject of the Catholic faith; not Islam nor qualified as an expert on Islam. I have an MA in Political Science with a minor in Middle Eastern politics, would you consider me an expert on Islam? I don’t, but I’ve had more professional training than Mr. Spencer on the subject matter. As I stated before, Mr. Spencer is as qualified to be deemed an expert on his subject (Islam) as Mr. Dawkins is to be deemed an expert on his subject (Christianity).

-If the money trail bothers you, review Mr. Spencer’s. You’ll find it leads to a politically motivated, secularly focused organization.

-You don’t like Saudi funded experts? I don’t either. That’s why I don’t use them for info on Islam. If only the Church had actual experts on Islam. Oh wait, they do. I guess they don’t count because they aren’t out there doing book tours.

 

[MattofTexas]

Thanks for all the responses everyone!

 

[Ontheway]

• As I stated before, Mr. Spencer is as qualified to be deemed an expert on his subject (Islam) as Mr. Dawkins is to be deemed an expert on his subject (Christianity).

:

Just curious - Is it your minor in college (a minor is not a degree) that qualifies you as an expert on Mr. Spencer? - or on Islamic Studies?

But, on to a more serious question - what about Mr. Spencer that bothers you so? Which of his positions do you find factually indefensible?
Or is it that you do not like the fact he actually speaks his mind and publicizes his views?

Or, maybe because he is politically incorrect?

Just curious.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If the money trail bothers you, review Mr. Spencer’s. You’ll find it leads to a politically motivated, secularly focused organization.

-You don’t like Saudi funded experts? I don’t either. That’s why I don’t use them

I’m rather surprised at this insinuation and hyperbole: Are you saying CAF is woefully misinformed?

Spencer (MA, Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) has been studying Islamic theology, law, and history in depth since 1980. As an Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation in 2002 and 2003, he wrote a series of monographs on Islam: An Introduction to the Qur’an; Women and Islam; An Islamic Primer; Islam and the West; The Islamic Disinformation Lobby; Islam vs. Christianity; and Jihad in Context. More recently he has also written monographs for the David Horowitz Freedom Center: Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future (with David Horowitz); Obama and Islam (with David Horowitz); What Americans Need to Know About Jihad; The Violent Oppression of Women In Islam (with Phyllis Chesler); Islamic Leaders’ Plan for Genocide; and Muslim Persecution of Christians.

catholic.com/profiles/robert-spencer

I’m sure you have much scholarly research to submit as proof which at this point is pure conjecture confirmed by your self proclaimed expert opinion… This is your defense, then its your responsibility to make the case. Not for me to chase demonic ghost stories. Should be no problem since you already apparently went down this rabbit hole.

Politics and religion take another twist as I suggested. Here I’ll show you where I’m coming from…

“The rôle of Catholics should be to support freedom of speech and religion, as well as other freedoms and rights. We should expose and fight against any violation of these rights by other individuals, groups, or governments. At the same time we should invest our effort into understanding these issues and making that understanding available to others.”

“To be realistic we must recognize that most Catholics will not question a politician’s meaning when he supports these freedoms. Yet this is exactly what the Catholic must do if he wants to live a fully Catholic life within the Catholic social tradition: he must question every political statement and ask for definitions.”

socialjusticereview.org/articles/political-and-catholic-perspectives-on-the-freedoms-of-speech-and-religion

clarionproject.org/news/robert-spencer-freedom-speech

God Bless.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Just curious - Is it your minor in college (a minor is not a degree) that qualifies you as an expert on Mr. Spencer? - or on Islamic Studies?
My minor in Middle Eastern politics has nothing to do with my qualifications in determining if Mr. Spencer is an expert on Islam or not. My grasp of the rather basic concept of how we determine who is an expert or not is. You see, not everyone who claims to be an expert is actually an expert. For a rather long time we (Western society specifically, and human society in general) have established that individuals must meet certain criteria in order to be deemed and expert. In fact, the reason we have higher education and the awarding of degrees is a product of this basic understanding that one must be qualified in order to be deemed an expert. If you take issue with this, I suggest you write to Rome as the Church has played a rather large role in this need for someone to be trained and recognized as an expert prior to being accepted as one. It’s actually a very Catholic concept, especially on theological matters. So no, my degree doesn’t actually play into my determining if Mr. Spencer is an expert.
But, on to a more serious question - what about Mr. Spencer that bothers you so? Which of his positions do you find factually indefensible?
I answered this in another thread on another sub-forum, but I’ll address it again. What bothers me about Mr. Spencer personally is his obvious lack of credentials to be deemed an expert on Islam. You don’t study something for 30+ years and derive your source of living from it without furthering your formal education on the subject, without having your work reviewed by experts (and no, the reviews of his work by the limited number of authors who just happen to belong to organizations either directly or slightly removed from the organization he belongs to don’t count as expert reviews.)

What bothers me about Mr. Spencer in general is the ready acceptance of him as an expert by people who a)agree with him prior to reading him b)reject other so called “experts,” like Mr. Dawkins, on similar a similar subject matter. I have yet to meet someone who holds both individuals as equally valid experts on their respective subject matters.

His positions- I’ve really only read the intro to one of his books (and here I object to his rather shallow take on the conflict in Iraq). I don’t read his works because I don’t want to bias myself against what he gets right. I’m quite sure that after studying Islam for 30+ years he correctly identifies aspects of Islam. The problem is that his lack of formal education and degree (the thing that says yeah you know what you are talking about) means you can only figure out what he gets right by referencing a recognized expert (and if you have to do this, just go to the recognized expert).

Or is it that you do not like the fact he actually speaks his mind and publicizes his views?
Him speaking his mind I don’t care about. Him claiming to be an expert I do.
Or, maybe because he is politically incorrect?
I’m an orthodox Catholic, largely socially conservative, retired combat soldier from the South. Being politically correct or being offended by politically incorrect people or statements really aren’t options for me.
Just curious.
I’m curious too. I’m curious why you would assume my disagreement with Mr. Spencer being an expert on Islam is based on me not liking that he speaks his mind or that what he says is politically incorrect. Are you assuming that those are the only reasons anyone would object to Mr. Spencer being classified as an expert? Why exactly do you consider him an expert? Would it have anything to do with his conclusions support your personal views and therefore you don’t have wonder if just perhaps your own conclusions are actually wrong? That’s what I gather for why some other CAF members are so adamant that he is an expert. I’m just curious.

 

[robwar]

So I’ve been reading Not Peace, But a Sword on my Kindle after seeing it advertised here on Catholic Answers. For anyone who is familiar with his works, what do you think of them? He seems to have done extensive research on Islam, but his words seemingly resonate with such profound bias and his claims are so clear-cut that I find myself naturally suspicious of the accuracy and reasonableness of what he claims. What do you think?

I have most all his books. He was recommended to me by a Catholic convert from Islam as being the most accurate. He is fluent in Arabic which is essential in studying and understanding Islam. i have also gone and read some of the sources he uses which are much more harsh than he is on Islam. If one wants to read anything that is truly angry read any of Ibn Warraq books. His book on Mohammed, Robert has used the earliest sources about Mohammed that all the schools of islam accept. When people complain about Robert Spencer, they either have not read his books or gone back to check his sources and I’ve done both. But the biggest things in Roberts Spencer’s favor is that those who have left Islam point to him as being the most accurate and fair. When someone is recommended by those who have left, that is the best testimony there is.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Just curious - Is it your minor in college (a minor is not a degree) that qualifies you as an expert on Mr. Spencer? - or on Islamic Studies?
My minor in Middle Eastern politics has nothing to do with my qualifications in determining if Mr. Spencer is an expert on Islam or not. My grasp of the rather basic concept of how we determine who is an expert or not is. You see, not everyone who claims to be an expert is actually an expert. For a rather long time we (Western society specifically, and human society in general) have established that individuals must meet certain criteria in order to be deemed and expert. In fact, the reason we have higher education and the awarding of degrees is a product of this basic understanding that one must be qualified in order to be deemed an expert. If you take issue with this, I suggest you write to Rome as the Church has played a rather large role in this need for someone to be trained and recognized as an expert prior to being accepted as one. It’s actually a very Catholic concept, especially on theological matters. So no, my degree doesn’t actually play into my determining if Mr. Spencer is an expert.
But, on to a more serious question - what about Mr. Spencer that bothers you so? Which of his positions do you find factually indefensible?
I answered this in another thread on another sub-forum, but I’ll address it again. What bothers me about Mr. Spencer personally is his obvious lack of credentials to be deemed an expert on Islam. You don’t study something for 30+ years and derive your source of living from it without furthering your formal education on the subject, without having your work reviewed by experts (and no, the reviews of his work by the limited number of authors who just happen to belong to organizations either directly or slightly removed from the organization he belongs to don’t count as expert reviews.)

What bothers me about Mr. Spencer in general is the ready acceptance of him as an expert by people who a)agree with him prior to reading him b)reject other so called “experts,” like Mr. Dawkins, on similar a similar subject matter. I have yet to meet someone who holds both individuals as equally valid experts on their respective subject matters.

His positions- I’ve really only read the intro to one of his books (and here I object to his rather shallow take on the conflict in Iraq). I don’t read his works because I don’t want to bias myself against what he gets right. I’m quite sure that after studying Islam for 30+ years he correctly identifies aspects of Islam. The problem is that his lack of formal education and degree (the thing that says yeah you know what you are talking about) means you can only figure out what he gets right by referencing a recognized expert (and if you have to do this, just go to the recognized expert).

Or is it that you do not like the fact he actually speaks his mind and publicizes his views?
Him speaking his mind I don’t care about. Him claiming to be an expert I do.
Or, maybe because he is politically incorrect?
I’m an orthodox Catholic, largely socially conservative, retired combat soldier from the South. Being politically correct or being offended by politically incorrect people or statements really aren’t options for me.
Just curious.
I’m curious too. I’m curious why you would assume my disagreement with Mr. Spencer being an expert on Islam is based on me not liking that he speaks his mind or that what he says is politically incorrect. Are you assuming that those are the only reasons anyone would object to Mr. Spencer being classified as an expert? Why exactly do you consider him an expert? Would it have anything to do with his conclusions support your personal views and therefore you don’t have wonder if just perhaps your own conclusions are actually wrong? That’s what I gather for why some other CAF members are so adamant that he is an expert. I’m just curious.

Fair enough. Different perspectives is all. I think though also what needs to be considered is for example here…“perhaps the foremost Catholic expert on Islam in our country” Which is a rather illusive statement.

ncregister.com/site/article/the-christian-muslim-gulf/

christianpost.com/news/experts-contrast-political-and-moderate-islam-in-wake-of-egypt-violence-101203/

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Since I’m supposed to provide support for my argument that Mr. Spencer isn’t an expert on Islam in addition to my point about him not actually having any formal education on it-

Publishers-
Regnery Press- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnery_Publishing ; self proclaimed conservative (as in politics) publishing company; has published 6 of his 12 works
Encounter Books- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encounter_Books ; surprise surprise another publishing company focusing on politically conservative books
Prometheus Press- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_Books ; rather odd for him to use a publishing company founded by Paul Kuntz (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kurtz) and that focuses on secularism, humanism and skepticism for a book on religion.
Threshold Editions- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_Editions ; another publishing firm that specializing in politically conservative works
Catholic Answers, Ascension Press, ISI Books- only publishing companies that he has used that specialize in works on religion.

Grand total- 8 books published by companies specializing in political conservatism, 1 published by a company specializing in secular humanism, and 3 works published by companies specializing in works on religion.

David Horowitz Freedom Center- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz_Freedom_Center ; a secularly oriented organization with its main focus on political conservatism; helped found and is affiliated with Jihad Watch; owns several of the websites, blogs, etc that Mr. Spencer contributes to (like Frontpage Magazine)

American Freedom Defense Initiative- Director; helped found it with Pamela Geller (politically conservative activist); focused on political and social conservatism

PJ Media- Spencer writes a weekly column for them; want to guess if it is a site focused on religion or conservative politics?

Mr. Spencer’s work history- 20 years in unspecified think tanks, 1 year with, you guessed it, a politically conservative think tank- Free Congress Foundation

Anyone else find it odd that he is so closely tied to and invested in secular politics given that his claim is that he is an expert on a religion? He looks to me to be more of an expert on secular politics and punditcy.

Edit- removed broken link

 

[Estevao]

“Oh noes, Spencer doesn’t have the right degrees!! (Except the masters in religious studies, but ignore that)”

Stop listening to what other people say about him who are not disinterested observers (this leaves out hacks and jihadist apologists like Karen Armstrong), and just read his books. They are dispassionate, scholarly, and filled with references, especially from the best traditional tafsir. They are great sources to learn about Islam.

Anybody who’s got some common sense will know that this “doesn’t have the proper degrees” card is just grasping at straws and pure ad hominem from people who can’t face the facts and don’t like what he’s saying. What’s next, you can’t read Thucydides and Josephus because they didn’t get the right degrees?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

“Oh noes, Spencer doesn’t have the right degrees!! (Except the masters in religious studies, but ignore that)”

Stop listening to what other people say about him who are not disinterested observers (this leaves out hacks and jihadist apologists like Karen Armstrong), and just read his books. They are dispassionate, scholarly, and filled with references, especially from the best traditional tafsir. They are great sources to learn about Islam.

Anybody who’s got some common sense will know that this “doesn’t have the proper degrees” card is just grasping at straws and pure ad hominem from people who can’t face the facts and don’t like what he’s saying. What’s next, you can’t read Thucydides and Josephus because they didn’t get the right degrees?

-I’m not ignoring his MA in Religious Studies (you apparently didn’t read post 23 in which I mention his degree). I’m just not ignoring that a MA in Religious Studies doesn’t make you an expert on a religion, even if your thesis is on that religion (Spencer’s was on Catholicism, not Islam). Do you consider him an expert on Catholicism, Judaism, and Hinduism? They’re all religions, one of which was his actual focus.

-"Anybody who’s got some common sense will know that this “doesn’t have the proper degrees” card is just grasping at straws and pure ad hominem from people who can’t face the facts and don’t like what he’s saying. " It’s not very nice to accuse Josie L of not having any common sense or launching an ad hominem attack against Mr. Dawkins (see post 17 in which Josie discounts Mr. Dawkins as an expert on Christianity due to his lack of degrees dealing with Christianity). If you think Mr. Dawkins is an expert on Christianity, just come out and say it. No need to attack Josie L.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Anyone else find it odd that he is so closely tied to and invested in secular politics given that his claim is that he is an expert on a religion? He looks to me to be more of an expert on secular politics and punditcy.

This is part of the issue though, as indicated above in the links, we as a post Christian US are dealing with secular politics in relation to Freedoms-speech/religion and from a Catholic perspective. The secular aspects he aligned himself with are in line with the Judeo-Christian understanding of the Constitution. These interests on the other side are not. Barry has a different extremely liberal socialistic understanding of America, its no secret someone such as Horowitz rejects this, he was a “Marxist” for years. So the agenda doesn’t go over the bow. Gellar is Jewish and often speaks in their community. Many citizens do not see these issues or by large oppose them, as they were raised largely in a period where the catechism wasn’t taught through a post 70’s period and the “enlightened” of this liberal cutting edge period of theory is still sadly embraced. Such as 55-million abortions which proceeded from the Summer Of Love when the “oops” became NYC dungeon abortion centers which proceeded to today. And so forth and so on.

I can appreciate your concern is in the Islamic area specifically though.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

This is part of the issue though, as indicated above in the links, we as a post Christian US are dealing with secular politics in relation to Freedoms-speech/religion and from a Catholic perspective. The secular aspects he aligned himself with are in line with the Judeo-Christian understanding of the Constitution. These interests on the other side are not. Barry has a different extremely liberal socialistic understanding of America, its no secret someone such as Horowitz rejects this, he was a “Marxist” for years. So the agenda doesn’t go over the bow. Gellar is Jewish and often speaks in their community. Many citizens do not see these issues or by large oppose them, as they were raised largely in a period where the catechism wasn’t taught through a post 70’s period and the “enlightened” of this liberal cutting edge period of theory is still sadly embraced. Such as 55-million abortions which proceeded from the Summer Of Love when the “oops” became NYC dungeon abortion centers which proceeded to today. And so forth and so on.

I can appreciate your concern is in the Islamic area specifically though.

-There is putting your faith in front of your politics (CAF, it’s not too hard to guess the politics of the various authors on the site, but their politics have, in my experience, always taken a second seat to the faith) and there is putting your politics in front of your faith (which is what I see in a lot of those sites I listed before).

-“The secular aspects he aligned himself with are in line with the Judeo-Christian understanding of the Constitution.” Who cares? The Constitution is a flawed man made document. As Catholics, it shouldn’t be anymore important to us than the Constitution of the Soviet Union (which also had items in line with Judeo-Christian teachings). Our society isn’t founded on the Constitution, just one aspect of it (the government) is.

-My concern with Islam- I’m playing “devil’s advocate.” I don’t personally have, and no desire to get, the necessary knowledge to provide in depth analysis of and arguments against Islam. I can, however, do my best to make sure those arguments that are put forth are as “on the level” as possible. Muslims, just like us Catholics, aren’t going to be very convinced about the errors in their faith when someone puts forth the Islamic version of “you worship Mary” or “the Church is just a money machine because it hasn’t sold all it’s stuff”.

 

[Ontheway]

Just curious - Is it your minor in college (a minor is not a degree) that qualifies you as an expert on Mr. Spencer? - or on Islamic Studies?
My minor in Middle Eastern politics has nothing to do with my qualifications in determining if Mr. Spencer is an expert on Islam or not. My grasp of the rather basic concept of how we determine who is an expert or not is. You see, not everyone who claims to be an expert is actually an expert. For a rather long time we (Western society specifically, and human society in general) have established that individuals must meet certain criteria in order to be deemed and expert. In fact, the reason we have higher education and the awarding of degrees is a product of this basic understanding that one must be qualified in order to be deemed an expert. If you take issue with this, I suggest you write to Rome as the Church has played a rather large role in this need for someone to be trained and recognized as an expert prior to being accepted as one. It’s actually a very Catholic concept, especially on theological matters. So no, my degree doesn’t actually play into my determining if Mr. Spencer is an expert.
But, on to a more serious question - what about Mr. Spencer that bothers you so? Which of his positions do you find factually indefensible?
I answered this in another thread on another sub-forum, but I’ll address it again. What bothers me about Mr. Spencer personally is his obvious lack of credentials to be deemed an expert on Islam. You don’t study something for 30+ years and derive your source of living from it without furthering your formal education on the subject, without having your work reviewed by experts (and no, the reviews of his work by the limited number of authors who just happen to belong to organizations either directly or slightly removed from the organization he belongs to don’t count as expert reviews.)

What bothers me about Mr. Spencer in general is the ready acceptance of him as an expert by people who a)agree with him prior to reading him b)reject other so called “experts,” like Mr. Dawkins, on similar a similar subject matter. I have yet to meet someone who holds both individuals as equally valid experts on their respective subject matters.

His positions- I’ve really only read the intro to one of his books (and here I object to his rather shallow take on the conflict in Iraq). I don’t read his works because I don’t want to bias myself against what he gets right. I’m quite sure that after studying Islam for 30+ years he correctly identifies aspects of Islam. The problem is that his lack of formal education and degree (the thing that says yeah you know what you are talking about) means you can only figure out what he gets right by referencing a recognized expert (and if you have to do this, just go to the recognized expert).

Or is it that you do not like the fact he actually speaks his mind and publicizes his views?
Him speaking his mind I don’t care about. Him claiming to be an expert I do.
Or, maybe because he is politically incorrect?
I’m an orthodox Catholic, largely socially conservative, retired combat soldier from the South. Being politically correct or being offended by politically incorrect people or statements really aren’t options for me.
Just curious.
I’m curious too. I’m curious why you would assume my disagreement with Mr. Spencer being an expert on Islam is based on me not liking that he speaks his mind or that what he says is politically incorrect. Are you assuming that those are the only reasons anyone would object to Mr. Spencer being classified as an expert? Why exactly do you consider him an expert? Would it have anything to do with his conclusions support your personal views and therefore you don’t have wonder if just perhaps your own conclusions are actually wrong? That’s what I gather for why some other CAF members are so adamant that he is an expert. I’m just curious.

My response will be somewhat simplistic.

Point 1 Very few of the media “experts” and TV pundits who inform or misinform us about Islam, Christianity or any political topic you would care to mention have any credentials whatsoever.

Point 2 - if we relied only the academically sanctioned and approved “experts” to comment on religion and current affairs, we would most likely hear a chorus of left-wing, atheist opinions. I know that are one or two exceptions to this, but they just prove the norm.

Point 3 - having spent a good portion of my life in the university setting, I am capable of forming an opinion on this, that or the other. I know very many professors in political science who have a very definite agenda. Their inflexibility does reflect honest inquiry.

Point 4 - calling someone an “expert” done not make him so.

Point 5 - if only the PhD’s were allowed to opine on matters of religion, or anything else for that matter, the world would be subject to the officially sanctioned tyranny, something we already see in the academe.

Finally - religious studies, politics, etc. are not “hard sciences”. They do demand academic discipline, but are highly theoretical. And there is lots of room for divergent opinions.

 

[GaryTaylor]

-There is putting your faith in front of your politics (CAF, it’s not too hard to guess the politics of the various authors on the site, but their politics have, in my experience, always taken a second seat to the faith) and there is putting your politics in front of your faith (which is what I see in a lot of those sites I listed before).

-“The secular aspects he aligned himself with are in line with the Judeo-Christian understanding of the Constitution.” Who cares? The Constitution is a flawed man made document. As Catholics, it shouldn’t be anymore important to us than the Constitution of the Soviet Union (which also had items in line with Judeo-Christian teachings). Our society isn’t founded on the Constitution, just one aspect of it (the government) is.

-My concern with Islam- I’m playing “devil’s advocate.” I don’t personally have, and no desire to get, the necessary knowledge to provide in depth analysis of and arguments against Islam. I can, however, do my best to make sure those arguments that are put forth are as “on the level” as possible. Muslims, just like us Catholics, aren’t going to be very convinced about the errors in their faith when someone puts forth the Islamic version of “you worship Mary” or “the Church is just a money machine because it hasn’t sold all it’s stuff”.

I see no sense in a circular conversation, paragraph one and two are addressed in this thread. Frankly I can’t see how you read them and came to conclusions you have in either of those paragraphs, and surely they answer your “who cares” question. As to three, I’m more concerned with one and two.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Point 1 Very few of the media “experts” and TV pundits who inform or misinform us about Islam, Christianity or any political topic you would care to mention have any credentials whatsoever.
Ah, so since everyone else is jumping off the bridge we should too.
Point 2 - if we relied only the academically sanctioned and approved “experts” to comment on religion and current affairs, we would most likely hear a chorus of left-wing, atheist opinions. I know that are one or two exceptions to this, but they just prove the norm.
Not a very nice thing to say about our clergy. You know, those guys who have at least 1 MA and spend their lives on learning about, teaching, and writing about the subject of religion. Apparently the previous Holy Father, a well known and respected scholar, is a left wing atheist. Or is he one of the two exceptions to the norm?
Point 3 - having spent a good portion of my life in the university setting, I am capable of forming an opinion on this, that or the other. I know very many professors in political science who have a very definite agenda. Their inflexibility does reflect honest inquiry.

Point 4 - calling someone an “expert” done not make him so.
I agree, hence my issues with Spencer being labeled an expert.
Point 5 - if only the PhD’s were allowed to opine on matters of religion, or anything else for that matter, the world would be subject to the officially sanctioned tyranny, something we already see in the academe.
And the Church. You know, the institution that pretty much laid the foundation for the Western idea that experts need to be qualified; as well as the field of higher education. Last I checked the Church required clergy to undergo and pass certain criteria before allowing them to be clergy. Or did I get that wrong? Are we allowed to walk into our Bishop’s office declare we’ve studied Catholicism on our own for a while and be made a priest?
Finally - religious studies, politics, etc. are not “hard sciences”. They do demand academic discipline, but are highly theoretical. And there is lots of room for divergent opinions.
Not being a “hard science” does not equate to “hey anyone can call himself an expert.” In fact, it not being a “hard science” means there is more importance placed on proper training, proper research, and proper methodology.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I see no sense in a circular conversation, paragraph one and two are addressed in this thread. Frankly I can’t see how you read them and came to conclusions you have in either of those paragraphs, and surely they answer your “who cares” question. As to three, I’m more concerned with one and two.

Paragraph one and two apparently aren’t addressed in this thread since not only did I introduce as a direct response to your own indirect answer to my question concerning Mr. Spencer looking to be more qualified as an expert on secular politics and punditry than religion. Should I take it then that your just leading this conversation in circles since you are unable to directly answer my question?

 

[josie_L]

-Mr. Spencer’s MA is in Religious Studies and his thesis for his MA was on the Catholic, not the Islamic, faith. It makes Mr. Spencer more qualified than Mr. Dawkins on the subject of the Catholic faith; not Islam nor qualified as an expert on Islam. I have an MA in Political Science with a minor in Middle Eastern politics, would you consider me an expert on Islam? I don’t, but I’ve had more professional training than Mr. Spencer on the subject matter. As I stated before, Mr. Spencer is as qualified to be deemed an expert on his subject (Islam) as Mr. Dawkins is to be deemed an expert on his subject (Christianity).

-If the money trail bothers you, review Mr. Spencer’s. You’ll find it leads to a politically motivated, secularly focused organization.

-You don’t like Saudi funded experts? I don’t either. That’s why I don’t use them for info on Islam. If only the Church had actual experts on Islam. Oh wait, they do. I guess they don’t count because they aren’t out there doing book tours.

Yes, but he has an M. A. in Religious Studies, which I would assume does include Islam, even if his thesis was on Catholicism, and therefore, my reason for stating that you comparing Spencer to Dawkins was unfair. It’s not like Spencer was coming out of left field by writing books about Islam, whereas someone like Dawkins has no theological background whatsoever, and as such is completely unfit to talk of religious matters.

Moreover, Spencer is not the only person I read with respect to Islam, however, maybe you’d be interested in reading Hillaire Belloc (I’ve also read Oriana Fallaci’s “The Rage and The Pride” and Robert Riley’s "The Closing Of The Muslim Mind’, and Emeritus Pope Benedict’s XVI Regensburg address . . . etc.).