# I think that the attitude displayed in this mondegreen could help to unite humanity.



## .   1

G'day Cultur@s,

I read this article in the New Scientist Magazine, Feedback, page 56, February 24, 2007.

WE CALLED a halt to religious mondegreens - misremembered religious phrases that still make an incongruous kind of sense (2 December 2006) - but couldn't resist the one Mary Maher has told us about. A friend's daughter, she says, recently started at a denominational school in Brisbane, Australia. Maher asked her what was different about it. She said that they say prayers in the morning and elaborated by reciting the one she had just learned: *"Our Father which art in heaven, Allah be thy name.”*

I think that the attitude displayed in this mondegreen could help to unite humanity.
Do you agree?
Do you have a more profound religious mondegreen?

.,,


----------



## Poetic Device

I aree with the fact that it is a step in the right direction, however, I don't think that it is a good thing to say.  A few people may be insulted because that is not their god's name and therefore saying Allah is saying "I renounce my God to give my praise to a new one."

I don't know.  Just a thought.


----------



## cuchuflete

I think it's lovely.  If you believe in a power greater than any person, do you really think such a power is hung up about naming conventions?  Is it ok to call that power "God" in one language and "Deus"  or "Dios" in another, without offense to the power?  Than why would substituting an equally respectful term be an issue?


----------



## Poetic Device

True, but I have had the experience that has lead me to believe that as far as the Christian/Jewish God and Allah are concerned, though they are very similar they are different in what they want their followers to do.  In all honesty, I don't know.  If I am wrong please correct me.


----------



## .   1

Poetic Device said:


> I aree with the fact that it is a step in the right direction, however, I don't think that it is a good thing to say. A few people may be insulted because that is not their god's name and therefore saying Allah is saying "I renounce my God to give my praise to a new one."
> 
> I don't know. Just a thought.


Are you personally insulted or are you just worried that somebody else may be insulted?

.,,


----------



## liulia

What a beautiful reminder that God is one, no matter what name we call him by and how we interpret his words!

But what is a "mondegreen"?


----------



## Benjy

The meaning is given in the first post, but here is a more complete definition 



> n.    A series of words that result from the mishearing or misinterpretation of a statement or song lyric. For example, _I led the pigeons to the flag_ for _I pledge allegiance to the flag._
> [After (Lady) Mondegreen, a misinterpretation of the line (hae laid) him on the green, _from the song "The Bonny Earl of Murray"_.]
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
> Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
> Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


----------



## JamesM

I think this is cute as a story about a child, but could only be called "world-uniting" in an alternate universe where Hallmark reigns supreme. 

The idea is to re-write the Holy Scriptures of one religion by inserting the name of the Almighty from another religion in an attempt to bring understanding among religious groups? This does not seem like a good game plan to me, no matter how you slice it.  

As I said, the story is cute, but I find it hard to imagine that anyone would seriously consider this appropriate, much less helpful, beyond the confines of an amusing "kids say the darndest things" story.


----------



## .   1

JamesM said:


> The idea is to re-write the Holy Scriptures of one religion by inserting the name of the Almighty from another religion in an attempt to bring understanding among religious groups? This does not seem like a good game plan to me, no matter how you slice it.


I am not interested in rewriting scriptures.  There is already far too much evidence of inspiration by committee in those little numbers.

I think that the attitude displayed in this mondegreen could help to unite humanity.

.,,


----------



## liulia

Thank you, Benjy, for your explanation of mondegreen!

I'm not in favour of rewriting scripture either. But I think there are ways of talking about faith that can emphasise at least an openness to the idea that we are all praying to the same God under different names - rather than the opposite attitude that "we" have some kind of monopoly on truth.


----------



## Nunty

May I just interject a footnote to the effect that Arab Christians say "Allah", not "God" and Hebrew-speaking Jews say "Elohim", not "God". It's a translation issue, as has been pointed out, not different gods, at least to the best of my understanding.


----------



## Poetic Device

. said:


> Are you personally insulted or are you just worried that somebody else may be insulted?
> 
> .,,


 
The latter.  It takes all kinds, and the world is FULL of all kinds.


----------



## .   1

Poetic Device said:


> The latter. It takes all kinds, and the world is FULL of all kinds.


May we wait for those kinds rather than presupposing their thoughts?

.,,


----------



## EmilyD

As a child, I believed the adults were talking about, "10-year", [slurring their words], and that working for that length of time was a requirement for job security. 

Years later I learned that, "tenure" was not always acquired strictly by length of service.

The grown-ups discussed this matter in a quasi-religious tones.

Thank you all for this topic.    Nomi


----------



## maxiogee

Being able to take offence on another's behalf is, to my mind, the sign of a stable and mature person/society.
Sometimes the offended are too unsure of themselves and are too insecure to raise their voices in protest.


----------



## Poetic Device

> .,,Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Poetic Device*
> 
> 
> 
> May we wait for those kinds rather than presupposing their thoughts?
> 
> .,,


 
DOesn't this constitute as that?


JamesM said:


> I think this is cute as a story about a child, but could only be called "world-uniting" in an alternate universe where Hallmark reigns supreme.
> 
> The idea is to re-write the Holy Scriptures of one religion by inserting the name of the Almighty from another religion in an attempt to bring understanding among religious groups? This does not seem like a good game plan to me, no matter how you slice it.
> 
> As I said, the story is cute, but I find it hard to imagine that anyone would seriously consider this appropriate, much less helpful, beyond the confines of an amusing "kids say the darndest things" story.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> Being able to take offence on another's behalf is, to my mind, the sign of a stable and mature person/society.
> Sometimes the offended are too unsure of themselves and are too insecure to raise their voices in protest.


If anybody in this forum is too afraid to voice their own opinion on this matter I can not see how anyone could possibly possess vicarious knowledge of that lack of proffered opinion.
This is just another transparent device to add to the advocacy of the Devil.

To take offence on another's behalf is the sign of something.

.,,


----------



## ireney

I'm afraid I don't get it really. True, the wording is that of the christian Sunday prayer in English but the Muslims believe that God is in Heaven too and so do the Jewish and many more religions aside.

Allah, as far as I know means "God" in Arabic and Muslims know that so for them this just says "may God be your name". If someone doesn't know what "Allah" means and considers it to be the name of the Muslim God, what it says is that the father in heaven is the Muslim God.

I'm probably overanalyzing this but I can't see how this can work. Why can't they make a new prayer? We don't HAVE to say one in particular we laymen, not in most days, so why not make one that delivers the message more clearly? One that includes all religions (that would leave us atheists out but you can't have everything it we _are_ talking about a prayer afterall  )

As it is I don't think it could help unite humanity. As an idea however I think it's on the right direction. True, that alone won't change more than probably the way some youngsters think. If however all youngsters were taught something along that idea then yes, one of the many reasons for international contention and separation could be not eliminated but smoothed over perhaps? Stop being an issue maybe?


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> If anybody in this forum is too afraid to voice their own opinion on this matter I can not see how anyone could possibly possess vicarious knowledge of that lack of proffered opinion.


Allow me to enlighten you

Forer@ QAZ is upset and concerned at some things she sees written in a thread.
She PM's forer@ WSX (a forer@ she trusts and has had confidences respected in the past.
Forer@ QAZ checks with a few forer@s whom she feels are of like mind with WSX.
Some agree - again by PM - and some disagree.
Forer@ QAZ goes public in the thread and says "People may be offended by ....."

I fail to see what it is which eludes you.

We know that this forum - like many on the web - has "lurkers" who are too unsure of their 'voice' and of themselves to post - even when things come right into one of their areas of interest.


----------



## Lombard Beige

Nun-Translator said:


> May I just interject a footnote to the effect that Arab Christians say "Allah", not "God" and Hebrew-speaking Jews say "Elohim", not "God". It's a translation issue, as has been pointed out, not different gods, at least to the best of my understanding.



I sometimes translate replies to legal documents written in English, but coming from Saudi Arabia, and they begin: "In the name of God, the Clement, the Merciful", i.e. as you say the English word God and not the Arabic word.

Is their a linguistic relationship between "Elhohim", which I believe is a plural, and Allah? 

regards


----------



## JamesM

Nun-Translator said:
			
		

> May I just interject a footnote to the effect that Arab Christians say "Allah", not "God" and Hebrew-speaking Jews say "Elohim", not "God". It's a translation issue, as has been pointed out, not different gods, at least to the best of my understanding.


 



Lombard Beige said:


> I sometimes translate replies to legal documents written in English, but coming from Saudi Arabia, and they begin: "In the name of God, the Clement, the Merciful", i.e. as you say the English word God and not the Arabic word.


 
When speaking English, using Allah for God comes across to me as a deliberate association with the Muslim faith. To say "God" would be more inclusive, would it not? Or perhaps I'm missing something. Lombard Beige's point about translating it as God leads me to believe that the use of the word Allah while speaking English is not simply a translation problem, Nun-Translator. 

I know that I run the risk of being the "offended unenlightened one" for not smiling and nodding at the sweetness of the original story and extrapolating it to "why can't we all just get along?" I thought it worth offering a different viewpoint, though. If we are to promote cultural sensitivity, should we not also be sensitive to respecting _everyone's_ religious traditions? I don't imagine that muslims would find it endearing if I inserted a reference to Elohim in one of their prayers in Arabic from the Quran and thought it was a sign of building peace, and I wouldn't expect them to. I would expect they would like the same respect for their scriptures as I would for mine.

I'd like to say that I don't find this offensive, but more irritating than anything. There are so many ways to build peace and many of them proven effective. Can we build peace on common understandings, though, rather than on monkeying with scriptures? 

I think part of what I may be missing here is what the original poster called the attitude exemplfied by this story. I'd like to hear what is his interpretation of the attitude. I may agree completely with the attitude and simply have a problem with using this vehicle to express it.


----------



## cuchuflete

If you think of a mondegreen as a felicitous mistake —I do— and it leads you to stop with a jolt, and reconsider something from a new perspective, this might have some nice effects.  I'm told that some of the so-called major religions, including Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, are all monotheistic.  If each of these belief systems assumes a single deity/creator, then the differences on points of myth, theology, ritual, and naming conventions don't change the common perception of a single force or being or whatever you wish to call it.
Intermixing the nomenclature of one form of such monotheism with a ritualistic chant from another can serve as a reminder that, despite the many obvious differences, there is something very important in common.


----------



## JamesM

cuchuflete said:


> If you think of a mondegreen as a felicitous mistake —I do— and it leads you to stop with a jolt, and reconsider something from a new perspective, this might have some nice effects. I'm told that some of the so-called major religions, including Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, are all monotheistic. If each of these belief systems assumes a single deity/creator, then the differences on points of myth, theology, ritual, and naming conventions don't change the common perception of a single force or being or whatever you wish to call it.
> Intermixing the nomenclature of one form of such monotheism with a ritualistic chant from another can serve as a reminder that, despite the many obvious differences, there is something very important in common.


 
I can see the point of commonality here in what you're saying. 

Does "In the name of Christ, the Clement, the Merciful" strike you the same way? In other words, do you consider equally effective no matter which traditions you are mixing? What is required for it to have that effect? I think it might be that you must be very familiar with the "standard" saying to the point that your mind runs directly down one track; otherwise the "jolt" doesn't work. So I imagine "Christ, the Clement, the Merciful" would not have so much of a jolt for someone living outside a predominantly Muslim society as it would for one living inside one.  Do you see it as having potential for uniting humanity?


----------



## Nunty

JamesM said:


> When speaking English, using Allah for God comes across to me as a deliberate association with the Muslim faith. To say "God" would be more inclusive, would it not? Or perhaps I'm missing something. Lombard Beige's point about translating it as God leads me to believe that the use of the word Allah while speaking English is not simply a translation problem, Nun-Translator.[...]


James, I should have quoted the post to which I was replying there, but I'll do it now. In Post #4, Poetic Device said: "True, but I have had the experience that has lead me to believe that as far as the Christian/Jewish God and Allah are concerned, though they are very similar they are different in what they want their followers to do. In all honesty, I don't know. If I am wrong please correct me." That is the remark I was addressing. I was making the point that "God" is not an international word. That Christians speaking Arabic say Allah, Jews speaking Hebrew say Elohim.

You may well be right in saying that "When speaking English, using Allah for God [seems like] a deliberate association with the Muslim faith." I've been outside an English-speaking environment for too long to know. I was only saying that there is only one God, no matter what name we use. 

As far as the topic of this thread, I found the story cute. I don't find it any more inspiring _*or*_ any more shocking than a little kid belting out, "Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear".


----------



## JamesM

Nun-Translator said:


> I found the story cute. I don't find it any more inspiring _*or*_ any more shocking than a little kid belting out, "Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear".


 
 This reminds me of a story about a little girl in our congregation who had waited while her mother attended a choir rehearsal. The choir was singing, "Take up your cross and follow me." When they were driving home, the girl asked, "Why do we have to take off our bras to follow Jesus?" The choir finally started to focus on diction after that.

I'm not offended or shocked by the story. I'm simply saying that I don't see how it is encouraging world peace, either. I could say more, but I don't quite know how to present it properly.  I tend to over-explain and bore, or under-explain and miscommunicate.   I'm opting for silence on one aspect of the discussion, at least until I've thought about it some more.


----------



## Nunty

JamesM said:


> [...]I'm not offended or shocked by the story. I'm simply saying that I don't see how it is encouraging world peace, either. I could say more, but I don't quite know how to present it properly.  I tend to over-explain and bore, or under-explain and miscommunicate.   I'm opting for silence on one aspect of the discussion, at least until I've thought about it some more.


I do understand. That is why I'm not saying that much, either.


----------



## loladamore

I was more familiar with "Harold be thy name". I used to think there was something about swimming in the Hail Mary, and in Away in a Manger, the little lord Jesus lay down his sweet ted. I wonder if it was a cross-eyed teddy bear.

It may be that mondegreens reflect contemporary concerns, and I'm sure it is telling that a Christian child today is able to make an inter-religious comprehension error, by including Allah in a Christian prayer. It is perhaps a sign of greater cultural awareness. 

I'm not sure how genuinely deep and moving it is, though. I also recently heard that children somewhere now say _and deliver us some e-mail _(and deliver us from evil). Symptomatic of a godless, technological society? Perhaps. Or of the desire of young people for God to contact them in a way that they can relate to. Or just another "kids say the darndest things" story. Hard to tell really.

My favourite musical mondegreen is from Bohemian Rhapsody: Beelzebub has a devil for a sideboard.


----------



## elpoderoso

. said:


> G'day Cultur@s,
> 
> I read this article in the New Scientist Magazine, Feedback, page 56, February 24, 2007.
> 
> WE CALLED a halt to religious mondegreens - misremembered religious phrases that still make an incongruous kind of sense (2 December 2006) - but couldn't resist the one Mary Maher has told us about. A friend's daughter, she says, recently started at a denominational school in Brisbane, Australia. Maher asked her what was different about it. She said that they say prayers in the morning and elaborated by reciting the one she had just learned: *"Our Father which art in heaven, Allah be thy name.”*
> 
> I think that the attitude displayed in this mondegreen could help to unite humanity.
> Do you agree?
> Do you have a more profound religious mondegreen?
> 
> .,,


I think that this attitude would have no effect on ''world unity'' whatsoever, sure it points out that Muslims and Christians worship one god (Is it the same ''one god''?) but I'm sure lots of Muslims, Jews and Christians are aware of this already. Will it help unite Atheists or polytheists?
People can be aware of attitudes or beliefs they hold in common with others but that doesn't mean that won't pick out the things that seperate them. I think not bothering about anothers differences is a better attitude than loooking for common ground in that well known unifying force we call a belief in God, Dios, deus or whatever.


----------



## .   1

ireney said:


> True, that alone won't change more than probably the way some youngsters think.


Can you suggest any other way to rid the world of stupid issues revolving around religious bigotry?

.,,


----------



## winklepicker

maxiogee said:


> We know that this forum - like many on the web - has "lurkers" who are too unsure of their 'voice' and of themselves to post - even when things come right into one of their areas of interest.


The meek shall inherit the earth - in plots about 6 foot by 3.



loladamore said:


> My favourite musical mondegreen is from Bohemian Rhapsody: Beelzebub has a devil for a sideboard.


'Scuse me while I kiss this guy...


----------



## cherine

. said:


> [...] A friend's daughter, she says, recently started at a denominational school in Brisbane, Australia. Maher asked her what was different about it. She said that they say prayers in the morning and elaborated by reciting the one she had just learned: *"Our Father which art in heaven, Allah be thy name.”*
> I think that the attitude displayed in this mondegreen could help to unite humanity.
> Do you agree?


This is a cute story. But I don't agree with the idea that such things can unite humanity, mainly for two reasons:
First, because humanity is not only devided over religion, but on so many other things.
Second, because mixing religious texts together, or re-writing them, would really offend many -if not all- religious people. Personally, I wouldn't like reading a re-written Qur'an (I don't even like reading the translation!) nor would I be thrilled at the idea of mixing the Bible with the Qur'an. I respect people's religious choice, rewriting their sacred book to bring it "closer" to mine is not something that would make me happy. I think I'm not the only one who thinks like that.


JamesM said:


> I know that I run the risk of being the "offended unenlightened one" for not smiling and nodding at the sweetness of the original story and extrapolating it to "why can't we all just get along?" I thought it worth offering a different viewpoint, though. If we are to promote cultural sensitivity, should we not also be sensitive to respecting _everyone's_ religious traditions? I don't imagine that muslims would find it endearing if I inserted a reference to Elohim in one of their prayers in Arabic from the Quran and thought it was a sign of building peace, and I wouldn't expect them to. I would expect they would like the same respect for their scriptures as I would for mine.
> 
> I'd like to say that I don't find this offensive, but more irritating than anything. There are so many ways to build peace and many of them proven effective. Can we build peace on common understandings, though, rather than on monkeying with scriptures?


I agree with all the points brought up by James, and thank him for sparing me the effort of writing all that 



JamesM said:


> Does "In the name of Christ, the Clement, the Merciful" strike you the same way? In other words, do you consider equally effective no matter which traditions you are mixing? What is required for it to have that effect?


Thanks again for the example.
Now this makes me more confident about what I said earlier.
Saying "In the name of Christ, the Clement, the Merciful" would be -in Islamic point of view- a sort of "associasionism" (?) (it's "shirk" in Arabic); which means associating others to God, specially that Christ is not God in Islam, but one of God's messengers/prophets.
So, such a mondegreen would certainly not help uniting people.



. said:


> Can you suggest any other way to rid the world of stupid issues revolving around religious bigotry?


I'd suggest people start considering the similarities between their believes more than focusing on the differences. But more important, they should start respecting each other's choice of belief, stop trying to impose their own choices on others, stop using religion as an excuse for fight....

But I think this is more of an optimistic thing.  People just love to fight over their differences, prove they're right and that the others are wrong...


----------



## Mate

winklepicker said:


> "The meek shall inherit the earth - in plots about 6 foot by 3..."


 

Dear winklepicker, this is unlike you. 
This thread is - at least in part - about tolerance, which is normally a feature of your posts. I am not offended but I think it possible that some foreros might be.
I am not belittling your beliefs - or the lack of them: just advocating respect for matters that others hold dear. However daft they may seem to you.

I'm sorry to "quote" you in such a dishonest way   

Mateamargo, el memorioso


----------



## la reine victoria

"Crown him with many crowns, the Lamb upon the bone" (throne) sang one of my small sons in church.  

Humanity has been around for about a million years, say some.

Of our earliest ancestors we have fossil records and stone implements.

In the prehistoric era we know that the settled people dug huge defensive ditches and threw up high banks around their enclosures. Conclusion - they lived in fear of attack from neighbouring settlers.

Throughout history humanity has never been united nor, in my opinion, will it ever be. All we hear talk of nowadays is wars, nuclear weapons, terrorism, spy satellites, etc. Nobody appears to trust anybody in the larger world arena.

But put a group of small, multicultural children together and watch the way they unite and play happily. 

"Unless ye become as little children . . . ." Simplistic, I know.

LRV


----------



## .   1

la reine victoria said:


> But put a group of small, multicultural children together and watch the way they unite and play happily.
> 
> "Unless ye become as little children . . . ." Simplistic, I know.


LRV
Thank you.
This is my main point.
I do not think that it would be very likely that those little kids would grow up to be haters and bigots.

.,,


----------



## liulia

la reine victoria said:


> "
> But put a group of small, multicultural children together and watch the way they unite and play happily.
> 
> "Unless ye become as little children . . . ." Simplistic, I know.
> 
> LRV



Thank you for that, and I don't think it is "simplistic" at all!
I think children are not as afraid of differences as many adults are. They are curious and interested - not afraid. 
 I grew up in a school where we once counted 30 different nationalities in our classroom, and I made sure my children had the same multi-cultural upbringing. 

Exposure to other ways of praying and other images of God did nothing to weaken my faith, but did make me aware of the fact that others approach God in different ways, from different angles, and that I have much to learn from other religions. 

One thing I learned is that, for me, the real common ground with people, whatever their background or faith, is a serious commitment to personal growth at a spiritual level - an ongoing journey, a search for truth and for God. If you are constantly questioning your own beliefs and aware that we are all beginners, really, on this journey, it is difficult not to be open to the insights of others, grateful when they share them. It's an exciting adventure!
And bigotry, on the other hand, can be found in every group,  not only in religious groups!

I'm not saying this very well, but I know that the attitude I am trying to describe, the attitude I'm trying to nourish in myself, is similar to the uncomplicated acceptance and openess of children.


----------



## Kajjo

liulia said:


> Thank you for that, and I don't think it is "simplistic" at all!
> I think children are not as afraid of differences as many adults are. They are curious and interested - not afraid.  [...] but I know that the attitude I am trying to describe, the attitude I'm trying to nourish in myself, is similar to the uncomplicated acceptance and openess of children.


You are right about the openness of children -- but children are also curious and straightforward. They will point to people that look or behave differently and ask why, how, what. They are not politically correct, they do not like everything the same, they do have preferences and voice them clearly. 

As adults we are trained to lie. To be politically correct. To say different things are just different, not differently well. It's bigotry and hypocrisy. It's the source of communication barriers. Not all ideas and concepts are equally well. Some are better, some are worse. Tolerance is good, but also must have limits.

Kajjo


----------



## Lombard Beige

The Swiss Constitution, of all things, begins with the words:

*Preamble* [no surprise]
In the name of *God Almighty*! [that's more surprising]
_We, the Swiss people and Cantons,_
whereas, we are mindful of our responsibility towards creation; ...

regards


----------



## Brioche

la reine victoria said:


> But put a group of small, multicultural children together and watch the way they unite and play happily.
> 
> LRV



And just like monocultural children, left to their own devices, they will fight over the toys or the food.


----------



## ireney

. said:


> Can you suggest any other way to rid the world of stupid issues revolving around religious bigotry?
> 
> .,,



Quote a little more of what I wrote and you'll have your answer 

As to the matter of mixing up religions etc. Well, calling the Christiand God "Allah" is not really mixing up religions if you think about it, it's mixing up languages. It's not the same as giving Jesus a godly status in the Muslim religion. If the  mondegreen named God Budha or Zeus then we would indeed have the same mixing up.

True, I find the verse of a Greek song much better suited for the purpose of teaching religious tolerance (for anyone interested it says "I say God you say Allah but we both say 'ah' and 'vah' (Grecoturkish sounds of moaning from frustration of any kind)" - "Εγώ Θεό κι εσύ Αλλάχ όμως κι οι δυο μας αχ και βαχ"). That does not mean that any effort, intentional or not, toward making religion a personal matter and not a reason to put humanity into different slots should be shot down.


----------



## maxiogee

ireney said:


> That does not mean that any effort, intentional or not, toward making religion a personal matter and not a reason to put humanity into different slots should be shot down.



Is it not humanity which puts itself into slots? We tend to begin identifying with family and extend that as we age some to reach to our street and then our school/village and onwards all the time adding new identifying badges to our 'selves' - we assume these badges willingly and we include our religion in there also - all these badges signify that not only are we part of X group, but (and probably more importantly) we are not part of Y or some other group.

'Shooting down' is a pseudo-egocentric approach to the 'other', the 'different' - whatever it is it cannot be as good as my group. 
Whether this is a throwback to our forest-dwelling ancestors I don't know, but I would imagine that back then any stranger in our neck of the woods would have been seen as a threat to our food supply, our sexual partners, our offspring or even our 'living space' and as such was fit to be attacked. As we would never attack something which was obviously stronger/more powerful/more vicious than us, we would begin to associate the other with the less strong/less powerful/less aggressive.

I find it difficult to place much credence in the words of those who say that they are X, but that they view all religions as equally valid.


----------



## ireney

Well maxiogee I am safe then since I am not an X unless X includes atheists 

Anyway, two notes: 
a) the fact that we did something way back then doesn't mean that we should not stive to get over it. Is it possible? I don't know. Is it worth the effort? I say yes.

b) I'll probably shock people but there's some truth in the ""Kill them all. God will know His own". I don't mean by that that someone should act this way, but according to what I know about some religions, it is God who does the final judging. As far as I know He wants us to use our personal judgment in some cases so killing everyone is a ticket to Hell. On the other hand, since He's doing the most important judging of all there's no reason to hate the others for not following His teaching. He will punish/reward them as He sees fit. In other words why hate me for not being an X? When we die God will know if I am one of His own or not.

In that light I think that from a religious point of view, one can believe in X and let the others to their own devices. He/she clearly thinks that he/she is right and they are wrong but she/he will let Him do the judging.


----------



## Nunty

ireney said:


> [...]
> In that light I think that from a religious point of view, one can believe in X and let the others to their own devices. He/she clearly thinks that he/she is right and they are wrong but she/he will let Him do the judging.


That is definitely how I see things. <ducking the flying objects>

A few years ago I participated in a three-day seminar about God. It was a Christian seminar, with mostly Latin (Roman Catholic), but also some Orthodox and Protestant speakers. There was also one Muslim speaker. He started by saying, in so many words, "I know the truth and you do not. You think that you know the truth and I do not. When the time comes we will be before God, and then we'll all know." Then he grinned and said, "Of course, _I_ know already," and everyone laughed.

I have enough on my plate without judging everyone else's beliefs and actions. Not my job, anyway.


----------



## Etcetera

Nun-Translator said:


> I have enough on my plate without judging everyone else's beliefs and actions. Not my job, anyway.


Oh Sister Claire Edith, may I sign my name under these words?


----------



## Nunty

Etcetera said:


> Oh Sister Clair, may I sign my name under these words?


Only if you spell my name right,
Sister Clair*e *Edith,
ducking under the chat radar


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Nun-Translator said:


> Only if you spell my name right,
> Sister Clair*e *Edith,
> ducking under the chat radar



Ahem.


----------



## .   1

Nun-Translator said:


> That is definitely how I see things. <ducking the flying objects>


There will be none launched from this vicinity.



Nun-Translator said:


> A few years ago I participated in a three-day seminar about God. It was a Christian seminar, with mostly Latin (Roman Catholic), but also some Orthodox and Protestant speakers. There was also one Muslim speaker. He started by saying, in so many words, "I know the truth and you do not. You think that you know the truth and I do not. When the time comes we will be before God, and then we'll all know." Then he grinned and said, "Of course, _I_ know already," and everyone laughed.


That Muslim bloke has my heart which feels much lighter having read his translation of an answer to a question I couldn't ask. This is the point. The traditional bush fella and the sophisticated city dweller and the seeker in between will all be given the same opportunity come Judgement Day. 
I simply can not accept the premise that God would create a situation where Gilarum could say, "_kurridu zinundan inda_" (I love you), to Weetah who replied, "_Da zinda gulirdul_" (You are my love) and both went on to live exemplary lives but are condemned by God to be denied entrance to Heavenly Eternity because they did not say some other words in a different language on a different continent and then go on to live exemplary lives on that different continent created by that same God. It simply defies logic.



Nun-Translator said:


> I have enough on my plate without judging everyone else's beliefs and actions. Not my job, anyway.


I will stick strictly to union lines. That is one picket line that is mightely dangerous to cross and once crossed you have a hard time backing over.

We are all in this mess together.

.,,


----------



## JamesM

> That Muslim bloke has my heart which feels much lighter having read his translation of an answer to a question I couldn't ask. This is the point. The traditional bush fella and the sophisticated city dweller and the seeker in between will all be given the same opportunity come Judgement Day.
> I simply can not accept the premise that God would create a situation where Gilarum could say, "_kurridu zinundan inda_" (I love you), to Weetah who replied, "_Da zinda gulirdul_" (You are my love) and both went on to live exemplary lives but are condemned by God to be denied entrance to Heavenly Eternity because they did not say some other words in a different language on a different continent and then go on to live exemplary lives on that different continent created by that same God. It simply defies logic.


 
I agree with all of this, but are you reading all of this into "Allah be thy name"?  If so, I think it might be that it struck a resonant chord for you that rang strongly. I don't think the actual phrase, though, conveys that meaning on its own.

That's why I asked earlier about what "attitude" you thought the mondegreen reflected. I think you'd like us to respond to the attitude you are reading in the phrase and some of the miscommunication that is going on (if any) is a result of not knowing what attitude _you_ think the phrase exhibits.


----------

