Lawrence de Bivort wrote: > > Hi, Brad, > > You are confounding some tribal practices with Islamic ones. Such > mutilation has nothing to do with ‘Allah’. >
"Nothing at all"? I won't argue since I don't have my citation info at hand, but I seem to recall that Mohammed urged female genital "cutting" as something good but not necessary, and he was progressive in encouraging that the cutting be only of the "moderate" type. (N.b.: There was an article about the public health consequences of female genital cutting in yesterday's NYT -- the article did not deal with the psychological or life-quality effects, only with women dying in childbirth, etc.). As for Islam and science, I think there are "interesting" issues here, and if I have failed to evoke a similar interest in others, then I have not been an effective communicator, but, here, I think the arguments are not so simple as with genital mutilation, which only requires a razor blade, and I think you are right that not all Muslims practice it, and I am pretty sure that "cultural groups" that are not Muslim also do practice it. \brad mccormick > Islamic settings have for significant periods provided cutting edge > technology and science to the world, and there is no reason to think > that that will not continue to be the case. > > Cheers, > > Lawry > > I respectfully submit that the issue of fundamentalists who, socially, > > will rip out women's genitalia to perfect them for Allah and then > > bury them alive under cover-all smocks to avoid arousing men's sexual > > drive (why not castrate instead of just circumcising?), etcc... > > -- why these everything is bad except G-d's Word (which is Good even > > when it tells you to murder your son!) -- why these people cannot > > understanf that nuclear physics is Western Secular Degeneracy, and > > why they don't disavow the atom just like they disavow MTV (E=MTV**2, > etc.). > > These people are getting off too easy with their ideological > > double-think. If you want nuclear fission, then you also want > > the "enlightenment" Weltanschauung which alone created it, starting > > ca. Galileo, and which the 16th/17th century Chinese, according > > to Joseph Needham "got right": When the Jesuits came to China > > and offered the wonders of Galilean physics/technology as side-effects > > of accepting Jesus Christ as your Personal Lord and Savior, the Chinese > > recognized that Christianisty was just one more ethnic belief system > like the > > 50 or so they already tolerated in their kingdon, but that Galilean > > physics they recognized was something new, because it was true not > just for those who > > were childreared (and often genitally mutillated, I may add...) to > > believe in it, > but it was true for any person who took the > > effort to do the proofs/demonstrations/.experiments for himself. > > If Iran wanta an atom bomb, then at least they should also want Descartes, > > if not also Erasmus, Rabelais, Kant, Husserl, Habermas et al. > > H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e-s (or the Holier-than-everyone-else > > variety, in this case, of course). An Allah with post-Rutherford > > atomic particles seems to me to be in need of im-Mullah-ation lest > > the "believers" souls end up in the wrong place for all eternity. > > \brad mccormick > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Lawry > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > From: Darryl & Natalia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 3:00 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Back to Chernobyl > > > > > > > > Thanks, Lawry, > > > > > > > > Any way to confirm this? I would think that Iran, and other nations > foolish > > enough to consider the Russian product would appreciate this tidbit. > Though > > I'm certain all reactors sold are to be "used only as directed", it > would be > > useful info for those who need it for accurate assessment or study. If > > correct, it really should be made public. And I realize this could be > > difficult. > > > > > > > > Natalia > > > > > > > > > > > > NAV scanned > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Lawrence de Bivort <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 9:32 AM > > > > Subject: [Futurework] Back to Chernobyl > > > > > > > > Greetings, everyone, > > > > > > > > After our discussion some time ago on Chernobyl, we were left with some > > uncertainty over just what happened. This information is from a reliable > > source, one of the Russian engineering team that went into Chernobyl to > > assess the accident and its causes. They used robots, of course. > > > > > > > > The reactor is a graphite, and had no containment vessel. There were > about > > 200 tons of enriched uranium (235) in Unit Four, the one that had the > > accident. The crew was experimenting with the possibility of > increasing the > > heat yield (and thus the amount of steam that could run the > > electricity-generating turbines) and lost control of the reactor. Steam > > built up rapidly within the core, and blew the top of the reactor > off. Then > > there was a second explosion, equal they think to an 'inefficient' atomic > > bomb in power. This dispersed into the atmosphere, to a height of 70,000 > > feet, approximately 190 tons of the enriched uranium. Thus now in the > > reactor only about 10 tons of the material is left. It was covered > hastily > > in a concrete 'sarcophagus.' The Ukraine is asking for more international > > money to redo the sarcophagus, as it is deteriorating. The official story > > is that the great majority of the uranium is still in the > sarcophagus, but > > photographs show that this is not correct. > > > > > > > > This person did not look at the health impacts of the explosion. > > > > > > > > The remaining three units remain in operation today. This is the same > model > > that the Russians have sold to the Iranians, in a deal made in '91 or > '92. > > The Iranians are having to pay more and more, and they still don't have > > their reactor. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Lawry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > size=2 width="100%" align=center> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > <https://www.mail.cloud9.net/horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffes.uwaterloo.ca%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffuturework> > > > > > > > -- > Let your light so shine before men, > that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) > > Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) > > <![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ > <https://www.mail.cloud9.net/horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.users.cloud9.net%2F%7Ebradmcc%2F> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > -- Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) <![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
