Lam: Let me reply to something Ernie didn't get into in his e-mail. What I know about Taoism and Zen ( which has Taoist background as well as Buddhist origins ) tells me that "living experience" is what is valued the most, in a sense "only" what is valued. There are other practices which take a similar view, like Humanistic Psychology and Existentialist philosophy. No way do I disparage these viewpoints.On the contrary, I think very highly of each of them. However............. There is value in other viewpoints. And there is a severe limitation to experience-centered approaches, namely, short shrifting of history The equivalent at a personal level is minimizing the importance of memory, our own personal histories. We have memory for a Good Purpose, just as history has real world value. Experience teaches all of us valuable lessons. We simply cannot afford to live our lives only in the here-and-now with no thought to what has gone before and the principles we know as a result of lessons that are part of our memories ( or histories ). Consequently, since life is as complicated as it is, people in almost all cultures reply upon codes of law and codes of accepted wisdom as far as values and good behavior are concerned. In America many of our treasured values are guaranteed by the US Constitution. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right for all people to be treated equally under the law, and so forth. Granted, our system is imperfect and sometimes is a mess, but by and large it serves all Americans very well. We depend upon it, day in and day out. The point to make is that in this sense the Constitution is a living document. It is the living voice of the inspired men who created the United States in the 18th century. But I would add that it can only be "alive" in this sense if the original intent of our Founding Fathers is respected in ALL cases where we need to turn to the document for specific guidance. In effect, almost all religions have their own "constitutions," even if there is different emphasis in Taoism or Zen. No-one disregards the Tao Teh Ching, do they ? But I get your point, Lao Tzu was not a law-giver, he was a discoverer of principles, instead. But what society can exist without laws ? Hence, in China, the role of Confucius in providing humane laws. Hence, in China, it is very common for people to be BOTH Taoist and Confucian. Islam has its own law code contained within the pages of the Qur'an. Some people even regard the Qur'an AS a code of law --but with inspirational material added. Muslims are supposed to know the Qur'an by heart, and almost all education in madrassas stresses memorization of the Qur'an. This means memorization of the laws which were given in the book. These laws, memorized word-for-word are part of every serious Muslim's life. Unfortunately the laws in the Qur'an, most of them, are the exact opposite of the laws of the United States. Let me emphasize this, the Exact Opposite. In America we all have freedom of religion. People have 100 % freedom to join any religion they want to, or to quit any religion, or free to have no religion. They can switch religions, or create new religions, or combine religions in their private lives. They can criticize other religions, or praise other religions, any of them. No religion is immune from criticism, and any religion can be talked about favorably. We can talk about religion to anyone, at least unless someone else gets annoyed. We can publish or go on TV or radio. Plus the Internet. All of this is OK. All of this, in principle, is regarded as Good. All of this is guaranteed to all citizens by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Some Americans, such as the Mormons, even regard the Constitution as divinely inspired, a gift from the Holy Spirit. In Islam there is no concept of freedom of religion, or at best there only is a very limited concept which, in practice, is a bad joke. No Muslim can convert to another faith, because if he or she does so the penalty is death. No-one else can seek to convince a Muslim to join another religion --anyone who tries is also liable to the death penalty. Anyone, Muslim or other, who "blasphemes" the ( false ) prophet, Muhammad, is subject to the death penalty. Such blasphemy can consist of an honest conclusion that Muhammad was wrong about X, Y. or Z, and not involve insults. But, while often in poor taste, so what if someone is disrespectful of another religious leader ? If the implied criticism is accurate, so much the better, and if it is excessive everyone else can rise up in opposition and discredit the blasphemer. But to return to the theme, in the Islamic system anyone who worships a Goddess is liable to the death penalty as well, although one school of law, the Hanifa, makes an exception for Hindus. Otherwise, most Taoists, most Buddhists, probably all neo-Pagans, etc, are under sentence of death for their beliefs. Jews and Christians can worship as "people of the book," but must pay a special tax very much like protection money paid to gangsters, to be allowed to follow either faith. And they have all kinds of legal liabilities, are subject to social pressures of many kinds, are not permitted to build new places of worship, and must defer to Muslims in almost all things. At least half of all Americans are woefully ignorant of all of this. I will guess that this is also the case for most Europeans and East Asians. But once you know, what is the choice ? To me it is totally obvious, Freedom of Religion is true, best, good in every way. Islam is false, worst, and evil in almost every way. Some day all Americans will understand a basic principle: No-one who accepts the Qur'an as an infallible guide to values and conduct can possibly be a United States citizen. The contradiction is clear, just about absolute, and dramatic. True-believer Islam has no legitimate place in America. Islam is an anti-American religion in essence and practice. The usual caveats apply, MINOs, many or most Sufis, etc, do not fall under this criticism, but otherwise I stand by what I have just said. Islam condemns itself. This has nothing to do with Arabs as people, or Iranians or Pakistanis, etc It has everything to do with religion. Billy =========================================== In a message dated 2/1/2010 11:32:47 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
Hi Lam, On Dec 15, 2009, at 12:12 AM, Lam YongXian wrote: "Mainstream Islam appears inherently dysfunctional". >From a spiritual perspective, I think the blame for all the madness is on the inherent immaturity mind of the people. I believe when Bible talks about sin, it refers not to events or doings but the source of all evil, the human ego. The only time when Quran deserves fault is when it fails to spark a light out of the spiritual darkness. But Quran is just a record of recitation of Mohammad and why are we pointing finger at non-conscious scriptures when the real imperfection lies with us? Sorry to not get back to you on this earlier. I won't rehash the entire discussion, but I did want to make one specific point. As Billy said: On Dec 15, 2009, at 11:21 AM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: Anyway, most people of all religions or political systems don't know very much about the systems they are part of. So it is entirely possible for multitudes to go along with almost anything , at least as long as they can more-or-less flourish and take good care of their children. The key issue (for me) is realizing that we live inside various *systems*, and all those systems have specific failure modes. If we want to fix, reform, or replace those systems we need to understand the 'causes' of those failure, and design our replacement accordingly. The key failure mode of Islam seems to be dysfunction, an inability to non-violently resolve conflict. Yes, we are all sinful human beings, but sinful human beings still react differently depending on the system in which they are embedded, and some failure modes are less disastrous than others. For fairness, here's an off-the-cuff analysis of other belief systems: * Atheism appears inherently sterile * Judaism appears inherently exclusive * Christianity appears inherently smug * Buddhism appears inherently detached * Confucianism appears inherently authoritarian * Communism appears inherently revolutionary * Democracy appears inherently pandering That is, these gross oversimplifications attempt to capture how these various systems most often fail in restraining human sinfulness. Does that help explain my motivation? -- Ernie P. = _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
