| View previous topic - View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
biggerUniverse
Mage
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Location: A small, b/g planet in the unfashionable arm of the galaxy
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 3:42 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| Rimpoche wrote: |
People really do go to the Sistine Chapel, fall on their knees, and stare up at the image of God on the ceiling and imagine that God is an old man with a white beard living in the clouds. To be sure, at least it's not a golden calf or a pole or a baby-burning oven, but it's really the closest thing to idolatry around these days.
|
Well, but again (and you may call this framing if you wish), they are chosing to do this for themselves. Like you have said, Muslims cannot force their way of life on others, nor can anyone. You know from reading that we make decisions for ourselves, and we will be judged on how we chose. (Disclaimer: remember, this last sentence is what I believe, you may not- and that's ok)
| Rimpoche wrote: |
You write, "[I]t is an obligation of the Muslims to at least try to help the peoples of the book to remember their roots," but I cannot help but imagine you also say things like, "Western liberals shouldn't force their culture on the Muslim world." But "help the peoples of the book to remember their roots" is a euphemism for exactly that, and you know that what is being done now is an act of force, not an act of rhetorical persuasion. |
Heh. The funny part of this is that I am a Western liberal, born and raised in middle America. (Yes, that really is a picture of me for my avatar, in all my goofiness) Yes, but what you cut was the important part: try. If you try and fail, you should not keep trying. (2:6) Actually, 2:6-9 (there's a next in the upper left)
| Rimpoche wrote: |
This is the tragedy I see the world sweeping towards: the Muslim world becomes used to being able to demand accessions from the Western world by threat of violence; eventually a demand is made to which the West will not accede; the Muslims will try to obtain it through the force they threaten; the West responds with force; civil society including secular Westerners and Muslims collapses; Western societies evict Muslim populations; liberalism dies.
|
I really hope you're completely wrong.
| Rimpoche wrote: |
It's worth noting that le Pen, running on an "evict Muslim populations" campaign, came in second in France.
For myself, I just couldn't live without schwarma and dolma, and Christian Armerians just can't do it as well. :)
|
:) Don't forget koubah and fasoulia. Well, they kinda ran on an evict "non-French" people campaign.
| Rimpoche wrote: |
I enjoyed the argument, too, although I think things might've gone better if we'd stipulated certain facts, etc. from the start. It's a hot button issue. Anyway, in a day or so I'll be deleting these posts, as it's a subject I enjoy talking about, but not leaving my feelings up about. FWIW, I happened to post about how the Taliban's decision to blow up the statues should be respected as a legitimate expression of devotion and that Westerners needed to respect it. Unfortunately, I posted it on 9/10/2001 . . . .
So, given unforeseen consequences, I'd rather have this written in sand than in stone.
|
Fair enough. Though I don't think anyone should have held you to what you couldn't foresee, and it's obvious you still feel bad for it. (at this point I don't think you should at all)
You might like this: [link]
_________________
We are on the outer reaches of someone else's universe.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rimpoche
Pretty, Pretty Fairy Princess
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:35 pm Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
Apropos of my Brokeback Mountain hypothetical:
| Quote: | Earlier this week Chief Mufti [of Russia] Talgat Tadzhuddin warned that Russia's Muslims would stage violent protests if the march went ahead. "If they come out on to the streets anyway they should be flogged. Any normal person would do that - Muslims and Orthodox Christians alike ... [The protests] might be even more intense than protests abroad against those controversial cartoons."
The cleric said the Koran taught that homosexuals should be killed because their lifestyle spells the extinction of the human race and said that gays had no human rights. |
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article345947.ece
In fairness, the Orthodox ministers were pretty outrageous too:
| Quote: | | The Russian Orthodox Church has called it "the propaganda of sin". Bishop Daniil of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk yesterday condemned the plans as a "cynical mockery" and likened homosexuality to leprosy. |
But note that there was not the threat of violence there; indeed, the threat of "protests . . . even more intense" than the cartoon protests. This is exactly the point I was making, so I do feel vindicated, in a sort of tragic way. Once you realize you can dictate policy through threats of violence, why stop with cartoons?
BiggerUniverse, any thoughts on this? Not to put you on the spot, of course. But I suspect that gay rights (like women's rights) is one of the areas where the rubber hits the road for American Muslims, since in those cases it's pretty undeniable that Muslims are the persecutors, not the victims, and the doctrine is so contrary to leftist values.
[EDIT:
I should add -- you're certainly not responsible for all the statements and actions of your coreligionists, and this post was not meant to suggest otherwise. But since part of my position on the cartoon riots was that the West should not give into them lest there be more riots (or threats thereof) in support of other illiberal aspects of Islam, this news story seemed on point. And since you had been defending the riots, after a fashion, on religious grounds, it seemed worth asking your opinion on this.]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
biggerUniverse
Mage
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Location: A small, b/g planet in the unfashionable arm of the galaxy
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 4:26 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| Rimpoche wrote: | Apropos of my Brokeback Mountain hypothetical:
| Quote: | Earlier this week Chief Mufti [of Russia] Talgat Tadzhuddin warned that Russia's Muslims would stage violent protests if the march went ahead. "If they come out on to the streets anyway they should be flogged. Any normal person would do that - Muslims and Orthodox Christians alike ... [The protests] might be even more intense than protests abroad against those controversial cartoons."
The cleric said the Koran taught that homosexuals should be killed because their lifestyle spells the extinction of the human race and said that gays had no human rights. |
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article345947.ece
In fairness, the Orthodox ministers were pretty outrageous too:
| Quote: | | The Russian Orthodox Church has called it "the propaganda of sin". Bishop Daniil of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk yesterday condemned the plans as a "cynical mockery" and likened homosexuality to leprosy. |
But note that there was not the threat of violence there; indeed, the threat of "protests . . . even more intense" than the cartoon protests. This is exactly the point I was making, so I do feel vindicated, in a sort of tragic way. Once you realize you can dictate policy through threats of violence, why stop with cartoons?
BiggerUniverse, any thoughts on this? Not to put you on the spot, of course. But I suspect that gay rights (like women's rights) is one of the areas where the rubber hits the road for American Muslims, since in those cases it's pretty undeniable that Muslims are the persecutors, not the victims, and the doctrine is so contrary to leftist values. |
Well, I can think of others who actively use the threat of violence to dictate policy. That's not a justification, but a valid observation.
You are forgetting that society and religion have a way of diverging, even when they are closely intertwined like Islam.
Women's rights in the religion are strictly enshrined. 1000 years before sufferage, Muslim women could vote, hold public office, and own property. Society, in some countries, has diverged quite widely from that ideal.
<ontopic>If you want to call this article vindication, so be it. I'll wait for a wider trend. I'm not blowing you off, but I think the signal-to-noise ratio is still too low.
Islam regards homosexuality as a big deal. That's a taboo like marrying your sister is to Western societies. That said, this guy in the article is a little far out there. To say anyone should lose their rights as a human is a very bold step in the wrong direction.
Reading up on this shows that Russia in general has some serious issues in the area of tolerance.</ontopic>
| Rimpoche wrote: |
[EDIT:
I should add -- you're certainly not responsible for all the statements and actions of your coreligionists, and this post was not meant to suggest otherwise. But since part of my position on the cartoon riots was that the West should not give into them lest there be more riots (or threats thereof) in support of other illiberal aspects of Islam, this news story seemed on point. And since you had been defending the riots, after a fashion, on religious grounds, it seemed worth asking your opinion on this.] |
Well, no one gave into the rioters, they gave in to reason. (hear me out) The Danish and Norwegian papers (and those in Europe that reprinted) would have had to backtrack without any protest at all. Freedom comes with responsibility- you have to be careful to respect your fellow-(wo)man. You can't do something someone finds offensive and then hide behind "your rights", you have to expect to take responsibility for you actions. You'll notice the loudest of the "threat to Western society" camp are nutcases like this one.
Your argument here about bowing to violence could easily be used to justify why Iran should never bow to the threats of military strikes. (Mind you, I do believe both sides of that fiasco should be talking, not blustering, and there need to be concessions from both sides too)
_________________
We are on the outer reaches of someone else's universe.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rimpoche
Pretty, Pretty Fairy Princess
Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:38 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
Everyone uses violence to dictate policy. That said, there is a traditional difference between states threatening each other over global security issues and individuals within society threatening each other over social issues. The reason the United States is threatening strikes on Iran is to prevent what most (rightly) see as an enormous security threat. I have trouble seeing a gay rights parade as even in the same ballpark. Normally, it's viewed as reasonably okay for states to threaten each other, but supremely barbaric for individuals to threaten each other. You can read Hobbes for why that's so.
That said, you're of course right. Iran should see that backing down in the face of violence means that the United States will continue to use the threat of violence to dictate Iranian policy. So Iran has to ask whether it would rather run the risk of being annihilated or run the risk of letting America dictate its military capabilities. Likewise, the West has to ask itself whether it would rather let sharia dictate its social policies or whether it would rather face the risk of Muslim terrorism.
The difference, though, is that the United States (or France -- who has threatened nuclear force against "terrorist" nations -- or Israel) could destroy Iran in a matter of days. Muslim terrorism could not destroy the West right now, as has been demonstrated by the inability of al-Qaeda to do much more than blow up trains once there was a concerted war against it.
So for Iran to back down would be rational, unless, of course, having a sliver of a chance at killing all the Jews in Israel is really worth the reasonably high risk of being bombed into rubble. But for the West to back down strikes me as supremely irrational, unless the West doesn't care much about gays, women, the press, etc.
And while I agree that the Italian is a nutcase, there seems to be something absurd about your apologies for those demanding to cut of the head of cartoonists while calling him crazy.
| Quote: | | Islam regards homosexuality as a big deal. That's a taboo like marrying your sister is to Western societies. That said, this guy in the article is a little far out there |
Judaism and Christianity also view homosexuality as a big deal. But strangely, liberals get very upset when Christians denounce gays, but turn a blind eye to it when Muslims call for their death. "A little far out there?" They should be flogged for marching? A *little* far out there?
Of course, at least they're not being stoned to death, thrown from buildings, or buried alive, as they were in Afghanistan, or hung as they are in the Palestinian territory, or shot as they are in Iran . . . .
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
biggerUniverse
Mage
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 326
Location: A small, b/g planet in the unfashionable arm of the galaxy
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:46 am Post subject: |
[quote] |
|
| Rimpoche wrote: | | Everyone uses violence to dictate policy. That said, there is a traditional difference between states threatening each other over global security issues and individuals within society threatening each other over social issues. The reason the United States is threatening strikes on Iran is to prevent what most (rightly) see as an enormous security threat. I have trouble seeing a gay rights parade as even in the same ballpark. Normally, it's viewed as reasonably okay for states to threaten each other, but supremely barbaric for individuals to threaten each other. You can read Hobbes for why that's so. |
Wow. What a justification. I don't think I need to counter this one. But let me say that you can't honestly believe that a person talking to a person is any different than a state talking to state can you? When it comes right down to it, it's still a person(leader) talking to a person(leader).
Why don't you read Locke to find out about why it can be so, but never for long, and never preemptive.
| Rimpoche wrote: | | That said, you're of course right. Iran should see that backing down in the face of violence means that the United States will continue to use the threat of violence to dictate Iranian policy. So Iran has to ask whether it would rather run the risk of being annihilated or run the risk of letting America dictate its military capabilities. Likewise, the West has to ask itself whether it would rather let sharia dictate its social policies or whether it would rather face the risk of Muslim terrorism. |
That's quite a jump. Has Sharia *ever* dictated "Western" policy? Is it dictating it now? Will it ever? No. Look past the media speculation and blustering politicians to the reality.
| Rimpoche wrote: | The difference, though, is that the United States (or France -- who has threatened nuclear force against "terrorist" nations -- or Israel) could destroy Iran in a matter of days. Muslim terrorism could not destroy the West right now, as has been demonstrated by the inability of al-Qaeda to do much more than blow up trains once there was a concerted war against it.
So for Iran to back down would be rational, unless, of course, having a sliver of a chance at killing all the Jews in Israel is really worth the reasonably high risk of being bombed into rubble. But for the West to back down strikes me as supremely irrational, unless the West doesn't care much about gays, women, the press, etc. |
That's very idealistic. If any Nuclear-capable country were to use them to flatten any other country, I don't think the outcome would be stability. So, ironically, these powerful weapons are not "peacemakers" in the face of anyone who understands that they can't be used. Oh yeah, and Chirac needs votes. Politicians say a lot of things.
Ah, and so we see the tiger's stripes: Muslim terrorism? What about the ETA, or the IRA, or the dreaded Columbians? Terrorism doesn't have a face, it is the business of fear. As long as people keep buying it, it keeps happening. What happened to "We have nothing to fear but fear itself"?
When did the "West" back down? I haven't seen it yet...
| Rimpoche wrote: | | And while I agree that the Italian is a nutcase, there seems to be something absurd about your apologies for those demanding to cut of the head of cartoonists while calling him crazy. |
Huh? You may be mistaking me for someone else. The signs are bad, and this guy is a nut. Where is the apology?
| Rimpoche wrote: | | Quote: | | Islam regards homosexuality as a big deal. That's a taboo like marrying your sister is to Western societies. That said, this guy in the article is a little far out there |
Judaism and Christianity also view homosexuality as a big deal. But strangely, liberals get very upset when Christians denounce gays, but turn a blind eye to it when Muslims call for their death. "A little far out there?" They should be flogged for marching? A *little* far out there?
Of course, at least they're not being stoned to death, thrown from buildings, or buried alive, as they were in Afghanistan, or hung as they are in the Palestinian territory, or shot as they are in Iran . . . . |
I realized that all your posts had a very interesting theme- they expect Muslims should be the most moral of all people. It means you really believe that this is the definition of a Muslim.
| QOTD! wrote: |
A people living under the perpetual menace of war and invasion is very easy to govern. It demands no social reforms. It does not haggle over expenditures on armaments and military equipment. It pays without discussion, it ruins itself, and that is an excellent thing for the syndicates of financiers and manufacturers for whom patriotic terrors are an abundant source of gain.
-- Anatole France
|
_________________
We are on the outer reaches of someone else's universe.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
  |
Page 3 of 3 |
All times are GMT
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
