RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
Dan Minette wrote: > It may also be worthwhile to know what the nature of these > Indian Muslims > who spoke out was. If they were people who Ritu happened to > know, it would > be as anecdotal as Erik suggested. These weren't people I knew on a personal basis. These were people I saw on the news and TV programs, people I read about in newspapers and magazines, people who wrote in to the print media: movie stars, politicians, social activists, writers and poets, teachers and professors, college students, rickshaw-wallahs, vegetable vendors, people being interviewed inside mosques, people about whom all I know is this: their names indicated they were were muslim, they were shocked by 9/11 and they hailed from small towns of India. > But, if one could list important > Islamic teachers and leaders in India and point out that they have > consistently spoke out against the actions of OBL, then it > would be in line > with what Gautam asked for. I don't think any of the above could be accurately called the important Islamic teachers and leaders in India. Sure some of them are in a position of leadership, some are famous and exert a lot of social influence...but none of them are Islamic leaders. They are just political-social leaders who happen to be muslim. It would also be inaccurate to say that they have consistently spoken out against OBL - they did so right after 9/11 but by the end of the year, they were busy with other things [the attack on Indian Parliament, Akshardham temple]. Come February and the Godhra-Gujarat carnages, OBL just dropped off their radar. I would say that they have been consistently speaking out against the Modi govt. and the BJP, but then their lives are directly impacted by the latter's actions. If we are talking of Islamic leaders and teachers, well, I am not sure where they stand. Certain Islamic scholars have certainly written many articles on OBL's strategy and theology, stressing on the need for Islamic reform; I know the Shahi Imam thinks OBL is a wonderful guy but that is about it really. I don't know what the other Imams, or the Sunni Waqf board etc. think or say about OBL. They might easily have expressed their reactions and opinions in the first few days after 9/11 and I would have missed the same. I started noting the religious affiliations of the people expressing disgust only *after* I read about Shahi Imam's statement. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
ritu wrote: Well, Al Qaeda has been exhorting its members to reach Iraq and attack the US forces for months now. The borders are porous enough, so it is only a question of how obedient the cadres are. If the US had found a few barrels of anthrax or some signs of an active nuclear program or anything that might be even vaguely defined as a 'smoking gun', the world's reaction might have been different, more troops might have been forthcoming and with tighter border control, less of the international jihadis would have been able to slip into Iraq. Furthermore, because the invasion is seen as unjustified, more people are likely inclined to take up arms against what they percieve as an occupying force. It is worth noting that only democracy in the world where both the Head of Government and the Head of the Opposition are women is.. Bangladesh. I am curious as to your explanation as to why Bangladesh is more suited to democracy than Iraq. Perhaps because Bangladesh has been practicing for democracy since the Act of 1919, because by the time East Pakistan was formed in 1947, people had organised themselves into political parties, had selected their leaders, were used to voting? Perhaps because the establishment of the state of Bangladesh was a result of people wanting their democratic rights back and wanting to be rid of Yahya Khan's repression? Mukti Bahini was a Bangaladeshi/East Pakistani organisation, Bangladesh already had a democratic tradition and there was no problem in terms of people needing time to form parties and chose leaders. And perhaps, with a population that is nearly 90% Sunni Muslum, Bangaladesh is a much more homogonous so The problem in Iraq is not that the Iraqis are unsuited to democracy [I don't think any people are unsuited for democracy] but simply that the normal democratic processes had been suspended for decades. It ciety*is* going to take time to get them back in motion again and instability during the transitional period will not hurry up the process. And again, why do you imagine that the average Iraqi is as concerned about the role of Halliburton in Iraq as you are?That's almost mind-bogglingly bizzare. Not really all that bizarre. I would wager that Doug has been following the situation in Iraq and has been paying attention to the fact that not only the IGC but also the Iraqi businessmen and other Iraqis are busy criticising Halliburton's role in the reconstruction of Iraq. I would think it beyond bizzare that a country would _not_ be interested in who is rebuilding their infrastructure. Cultural condescension even . There's plenty of news coverage about Halliburton outside of the U.S. (http://english.aljazeera.net/english/DialogBox/BreakingNews.aspx). -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 5:54 AM Subject: Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question > On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 10:56:30AM +0530, ritu wrote: > > > Not that phenomenal...hmm, how about this: 'In the aftermath of 9/11, > > a large number of Indian muslims spoke out against the atrocity. In > > fact, only a few of the 120 million Indian muslims spoke in favour of > > OBL and they were condemned/criticised/stoned for doing so.' > > > > Is that better? :) > > A little. But I don't put a high value on such anecdotal evidence. A > poll of at least 1000 of those people (randomly selected across a > diverse range of backgrounds) asking how favorably they view OBL would > be more convincing. It may also be worthwhile to know what the nature of these Indian Muslims who spoke out was. If they were people who Ritu happened to know, it would be as anecdotal as Erik suggested. But, if one could list important Islamic teachers and leaders in India and point out that they have consistently spoke out against the actions of OBL, then it would be in line with what Gautam asked for. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
From: "ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:01:42 +0530 Erik Reuter wrote: > Maybe an India-based entrepreneur should start a polling organization. We have some - it's just that their questions are focused on subcontinental, national and local politics and issues. Heh. In a country with just over a billion people and 16 'official' languages I would think any polling agencies would have their work cut out for them just handling that. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ From Beethoven to the Rolling Stones, your favorite music is always playing on MSN Radio Plus. No ads, no talk. Trial month FREE! http://join.msn.com/?page=offers/premiumradio ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
Erik Reuter wrote: > Maybe an India-based entrepreneur should start a polling organization. We have some - it's just that their questions are focused on subcontinental, national and local politics and issues. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 05:51:20PM +0530, ritu wrote: > And unlike Pakistan, Indian muslims just don't seem to be included in > the international polls on the subject. I have always found that a bit > strange as India has the second largest muslim population in the world > - only Indonesia has more muslims than India. Maybe an India-based entrepreneur should start a polling organization. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
Erik Reuter wrote: > A little. But I don't put a high value on such anecdotal evidence. A > poll of at least 1000 of those people (randomly selected across a > diverse range of backgrounds) asking how favorably they view OBL would > be more convincing. I don't think their support[or lack thereof] for OBL has ever been the subject of a poll question. At least I haven't come across any such poll. And unlike Pakistan, Indian muslims just don't seem to be included in the international polls on the subject. I have always found that a bit strange as India has the second largest muslim population in the world - only Indonesia has more muslims than India. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 10:56:30AM +0530, ritu wrote: > Not that phenomenal...hmm, how about this: 'In the aftermath of 9/11, > a large number of Indian muslims spoke out against the atrocity. In > fact, only a few of the 120 million Indian muslims spoke in favour of > OBL and they were condemned/criticised/stoned for doing so.' > > Is that better? :) A little. But I don't put a high value on such anecdotal evidence. A poll of at least 1000 of those people (randomly selected across a diverse range of backgrounds) asking how favorably they view OBL would be more convincing. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
Erik Reuter wrote: > > I remember most of the 120 million muslims of my country > speaking out > > against the atrocity. > > You must have a phenomenal memory! I can only remember 120 people on a > good day, let alone 120 MILLION! *g* Not that phenomenal...hmm, how about this: 'In the aftermath of 9/11, a large number of Indian muslims spoke out against the atrocity. In fact, only a few of the 120 million Indian muslims spoke in favour of OBL and they were condemned/criticised/stoned for doing so.' Is that better? :) Ritu GCU Attempting Precisionhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
On 12 Nov 2003, at 8:22 pm, Horn, John wrote: From: Horn, John It seems to me that if there were a major terrorist attack (or natural disaster or whatever) at Mecca during the haij you could find a fair number of Bubba's in pickups who would be dancing in the streets and shooting their shotguns in the air throughout the US. So that may or may not be demonstrative of the entire population. Cr*p! That should be Hajj, I think. Star of 'Faster Pussycat Kill, Kill' ? http://www.fasterpussycathaji.com/ What a nice lady! She supports greyhound charities. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ A computer without a Microsoft operating system is like a dog without bricks tied to its head. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
> From: Horn, John > > It seems to me that if there were a major terrorist attack > (or natural disaster or whatever) at Mecca during the haij > you could find a fair number of Bubba's in pickups who would > be dancing in the streets and shooting their shotguns in the > air throughout the US. So that may or may not be > demonstrative of the entire population. Cr*p! That should be Hajj, I think. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
> From: ritu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Second, _the support is already there_. People in > > Muslim countries all over the world celebrated on > > September 11th. I've seen the videotape, and so have > > most other people. > > Sure the support is already there but it isn't as widespread as the > tactic I outlined above would make it. Andy has already asked but I'll > repeat the question here: how many muslims do you think > celebrated 9/11? It seems to me that if there were a major terrorist attack (or natural disaster or whatever) at Mecca during the haij you could find a fair number of Bubba's in pickups who would be dancing in the streets and shooting their shotguns in the air throughout the US. So that may or may not be demonstrative of the entire population. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 11:12:42AM +0530, ritu wrote: > I remember most of the 120 million muslims of my country speaking out > against the atrocity. You must have a phenomenal memory! I can only remember 120 people on a good day, let alone 120 MILLION! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
John D. Giorgis wrote: > At 09:16 AM 11/10/2003 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: > >Yes. More importantly, if we had done it properly, external > (to Iraq) > >support for the terrorists would be minimized. As it is > (and as I stated > >before) we've created access for anti Americans throughout > the world to > >attack us. Do you really think that all these attacks are being > >coordinated by Baathists alone? > > I am sure that Al Qaeda is now involved in these attacks as > well... and I > am sure that they would have just left us alone in Iraq if only we had > found a few barrels of anthrax.. Well, Al Qaeda has been exhorting its members to reach Iraq and attack the US forces for months now. The borders are porous enough, so it is only a question of how obedient the cadres are. If the US had found a few barrels of anthrax or some signs of an active nuclear program or anything that might be even vaguely defined as a 'smoking gun', the world's reaction might have been different, more troops might have been forthcoming and with tighter border control, less of the international jihadis would have been able to slip into Iraq. > >But what the Bush administration didn't take into account was the > >difficulty of establishing democracy in a country that has > no tradition of > >democracy. > > I think that President Bush has the best respone to this "cultural > condescension:" > > Time after time, observers have questioned whether this > country or that > people or this group are ready for democracy, as if freedom > were a prize > you win from meeting our own Western standards of progress. Y'know, it's strange but I actually agree with Bush on this concept of cultural condescension. However, I doubt that that is what Doug was aiming at. There is a difference between 'cultural condescension' and adequate preparations for a declared war aim. This war was fought to liberate the Iraqis, it was very well known that Saddam was a dictator and had silenced all domestic opposition. It does take time to build up the basics of a democratic polity and society and when establishment of democracy is you declared goal, then you better take all factors into account. Long before the war started a lot of people were worried about the nitty-gritty of the establishment of democracy - who would be the political leaders, [Chalabi and Co have no domestic support], how would the Iraqis react to a Merkin occupation, how would things progress if a guerilla resistance starts.and mostly, the answers to these questions were: 'We would be greeted with flowers, as liberators and we have such a good record of establishing democracy in Japan and Germany...'. So the Bush administration *did* fail to take into account the difficulties of establishing democracy in Iraq and it is not cultural condescension to say so - it is just a statement of fact. > It is worth noting that only democracy in the world where > both the Head of > Government and the Head of the Opposition are women is.. > Bangladesh. > > I am curious as to your explanation as to why Bangladesh is > more suited to > democracy than Iraq. Perhaps because Bangladesh has been practicing for democracy since the Act of 1919, because by the time East Pakistan was formed in 1947, people had organised themselves into political parties, had selected their leaders, were used to voting? Perhaps because the establishment of the state of Bangladesh was a result of people wanting their democratic rights back and wanting to be rid of Yahya Khan's repression? Mukti Bahini was a Bangaladeshi/East Pakistani organisation, Bangladesh already had a democratic tradition and there was no problem in terms of people needing time to form parties and chose leaders. The problem in Iraq is not that the Iraqis are unsuited to democracy [I don't think any people are unsuited for democracy] but simply that the normal democratic processes had been suspended for decades. It *is* going to take time to get them back in motion again and instability during the transitional period will not hurry up the process. > And again, why do you imagine that the average Iraqi is as > concerned about > the role of Halliburton in Iraq as you are?That's almost > mind-bogglingly bizzare. Not really all that bizarre. I would wager that Doug has been following the situation in Iraq and has been paying attention to the fact that not only the IGC but also the Iraqi businessmen and other Iraqis are busy criticising Halliburton's role in the reconstruction of Iraq. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
--- "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What I find most amazing is that all you opponents > of the war talked about > how hard it would be to rebuild Iraq before the war, > and many proponents of > the war agreed - but argued that it would be harder > for America to leave > Saddam Hussein in power, with no way of really > controlling his next move, > and the always-imminent possibility that he might > acquire nuclear weapons > right underneath our noses the way the North Koreans > did.Anyhow, sure > enough, rebuilding Iraq has been hard - and all you > opponents of the war > seem almost *shocked* by this development. ??? I think that many who opposed the war *as prosecuted by the Bush Administration* were _not at all_ shocked that things are tough...I frex was surprised at how *little* initial resistance there was. Although it seems that non-Iraqis (?al Quada?) are behind at least some of the current in-Iraq attacks. > How about being just a little-less defeatist about > the inevitablility of > our failures in Iraq - which I must say it almost > looks like you are > secretly hoping for? Of course, you'd rather spend > more time engaging in > recriminations and bashing of the Bush > Administration. This is ridiculous - I don't know *anyone* who is pleased with bodies coming back instead of live soldiers. Every couple of days there are sad stories on the news about someone who won't be returning to his family at Ft. Carson, or how a parent has chosen to be AWOL to keep custody of her/his children. However, the lack of WMDs capable of inflicting damage on the US is rather gratifying -- if one forgets that much public support for the war was based on the presumed existence of such WMDs. > Oh and in the vein of socio-political groups that do > not criticize their > own extremists - I would note that for all of the > opponents of the war on > this List and other List Members who talked about > how important it was to > have a "Marshall Plan" for Iraq - the silence > regarding the Democratic-lead > effort to make US aid to Iraq a "loan" instead of a > grant was deafening. Perhaps because the notion of a loan instead of a grant seemed so obviously stupid? (To be honest, I didn't know that it was a Democrat-led movement.) After all, nobody's yet commented about the Supreme Court *finally* deciding to take the issue of the Guantanamo Bay detainees under advisement (?is that the correct term?), or the fact that Congress passed the "Healthy Forests Initiative," which is supposed to reduce fire danger in National Forests, and it specifies the cutting of trees up to a foot in diameter...which just happens to be what the lumber industry 'needs' [it's underbrush that increases risk of a simple fire - which is in fact part of the natural lifecycle of a healthy forest - becoming a raging conflagration, which can even sterilize the soil], or that 'reducing fire danger' deep inside a pristine forest won't affect any neighborhoods anyway. For that matter, what are *new* houses doing *inside* a so-called National Forest? IOW, I for one don't always comment on the vast quantities of idiocy emerging from the government. Debbi who doesn't know if a Democrat proposed it, but in our recent election we soundly defeated a proposal for the city govt. to "increase peacefulness" (by pumping 'soothing' music into public buildings *at night,* promoting mass meditationsthe guy who managed to get 2000 citizens to sign his petition must have been personally quite persuative - or else canvassed the bars!) No, I am not making this up! __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > Because that seems to be normal group dynamics: > > Isolate a group, treat > > them with constant suspicion and act as if they are > > all potential > > terrorists and sooner, rather than later, there is a > > ground swell of > > support, within the same group, for the extremist > > movements. I have seen > > it happen in Kashmir, Punjab and the North-East. > > An Irish friend of mine tells me that this is also > > the pattern she saw > > in Ireland. > > But, here are two potential problems. One, we have a > real security threat that has to be dealt with. > India, despite its extended history of dealing with > terrorism, has never faced anything remotely like the > 9/11 attack, so we (the US) have one that is different > in kind, as well as in scale, from that faced by other > countries. I agree with the statement that 9/11 was different in scale but what do you mean when you say it was different in kind? It was a terrorist attack, wasn't it? The attack was audacious and unprecedented, the number of victims was more than in any other terrorist attack but what else was so very different about 9/11? I'm not sure but the para above seems to suggest that you are stating that India, despite its problems with terrorism, doesn't face a real security threat from the terrorists...are you saying/implying that? If yes, would you care to elaborate? > Second, _the support is already there_. People in > Muslim countries all over the world celebrated on > September 11th. I've seen the videotape, and so have > most other people. Sure the support is already there but it isn't as widespread as the tactic I outlined above would make it. Andy has already asked but I'll repeat the question here: how many muslims do you think celebrated 9/11? I remember seeing video-tapes of muslims who were aghast at what had happened. I remember most of the 120 million muslims of my country speaking out against the atrocity. > Opinion polls suggest that in much > of the Islamic world, Osama Bin Laden is a popular and > respected figure. Well, in at least three countries he is the international figure they trust the most to do the right thing. But these are the figures after the Iraq war and I have no idea what the level of support was before this war. However, 3 countries still doesn't make it 'much of the Islamic world'. Carry on with the current policies and it *would* be 'much of the Islamic world'. > So I am arguing that it's time to treat Muslims as > moral actors - our moral equals. They have the > ability to make moral choices - to choose freedom over > tyranny, peace over war, civilization over barbarism. > Large portions of the Islamic world have chosen to > support groups that use terrorism in the pursuit of > the vilest ends (we're not, after all talking about > the ANC here, which used terrorist tactics for > fundamentally just ends. We're talking about people > who want to establish Taliban-like rule _over the > entire world_.) Are you suggesting that the ends justify the means, that Islamic terrorism is so horrendous not because they target civilians but because their end doesn't find favour in our eyes? I'll disagree with the notion. Terrorism is terrorism, it is wrong and any clemency in judging the terrorists because we might approve of their ends is counter productive. > We certainly shouldn't accomodate it, > make ourselves more vulnerable to it, or not impose > consequences because of it when that choice impinges > upon us. Who's asking you to accommodate it or make yourselves more vulnerable to it? All I am advocating is that *we* shouldn't make choices which encourage the craziness. There is a massive difference between the two. :) > > Gautam, how many religio-political groups condemn > > their own > > lunatics/extremists loudly, clearly and constantly? > > For that matter, how > > many political organisations/groups do that? > > Such criticism becomes even more rare when there is > > a physical distance > > between the atrocities and the groups. I can't > > remember any Sikh groups > > decrying the murder of innocents in movement for > > Khalistan, can't think > > of a single Hindu group which condemned the Gujarat > > massacres last > > year.. > > They they should be condemned for it. They are condemned for it, if and when someone gets around to it, that is. But just the particular groups who fail speak up, y'see, not the entire communities. > Saying nothing > when a group commits barbarism in your name is the > same thing as accepting it. Um, not really. If you accept that the group speaks for you, then and only then, are you guilty of endorsing their actions through your silence. If you consider the group to be a bunch of lunatics, you do not usually assume that their actions reflect on you and your morality. Let's look at 9/11 as an example: OBL, born in Saudi Arabia, trained and supported by the US for years, suddenly launches a horrific terrorist
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:25:07 -0500 At 03:57 PM 11/11/2003 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote: >She may very well be right, yet I found no evidence of any official >statement condemning violence against anyone except unborn children anywhere >on their very comprehensive website. What's curious to me is that since >(afaik) the NRLC is _the_ most prominent mainstream pro-life organization in >the US, I would expect that such a stance *would* be prominently highlighted >on their site. In fairness, the last anti-abortionist violence was a long time ago. I'll check back the next time that issue is in the news. Likely due to aggressive enforcement of the FACE act. Threats are still going strong though. For instance, between the end of 2001 and the end of 2002, more than 300 women's clinics received anthrax threats. Just this summer, Florida state employees (the DA, for one) received death threats regarding the impending execution of Paul Hill. Moreover, I would not *NOT* think that such a statement would be prominently highlighted on their site. I mean, it is nice that priest-for-life has that statement highlighted, because it wins us kudos from those people who only oppose killing already-born children - but it is hardly necessary.I don't think that the people who commit violence against abortionists are going to be influenced by an official statement on the NRTLC webpage and good luck finding any statement on the NRTLC webpage that could be even remotely twisted as to be inciting violence. The point I am making is not whether these organizations are _inciting_ violence by not speaking out against it. It is that they are _failing to condemn_ acts that are being committed in the name of causes they represent. By doing so, they are giving either the impression of tacit approval or of indifference. Neither act speaks well for them. This sounds a lot like the "seriousness of the charge" school-of-indictment, which is in direct contrast to the "preponderance of evidence" school of indictment that is the usual for free societies. My original statement was a personal observation. Research on their websites seemed to back up my opinion. When violence has occurred, I have not seen or read about representatives of the organizations mentioned speaking out against it. I read multiple newspapers every day (on weekdays anywhere from 2 to 15, mostly online editions) and watch some TV news. The absence has been consistent and always surprised me. Considering the nature of pro-life organizations, you'd think they would (logically) be quite vehementl in their condemnation of people committing murder in the name of their cause. >As I said earlier, I wish more organizations would be so outspoken, whether >their members feel that way or not. They have a responsibility to speak out >against those who pervert their ideals, you know? No, I do not know, actually. I think that it is very dangerous to hold that these type of people create responsibilities. I'll refer you here to what Gautam said: "When people claim to act in your name, you have a responsibility to actively disavow their actions if you disagree with them." I couldn't agree more. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ MSN Messenger with backgrounds, emoticons and more. http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/cdp_customize ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
--- "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >As I said earlier, I wish more organizations would > be so outspoken, whether > >their members feel that way or not. They have a > responsibility to speak out > >against those who pervert their ideals, you know? > > No, I do not know, actually. I think that it is > very dangerous to hold > that these type of people create responsibilities. Come, John, this is absurd. When people claim to act in your name, you have a responsibility to actively disavow their actions if you disagree with them. I have to agree, here, actually, that to my mind most anti-abortion groups do seem to make far too little effort to condemn their own radicals. The first responsibility of responsible activism is to police _your own_ extremsists, and (judging by the examples presented so far) the pro-life movement doesn't appear to be doing a very good job. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
At 03:57 PM 11/11/2003 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote: >She may very well be right, yet I found no evidence of any official >statement condemning violence against anyone except unborn children anywhere >on their very comprehensive website. What's curious to me is that since >(afaik) the NRLC is _the_ most prominent mainstream pro-life organization in >the US, I would expect that such a stance *would* be prominently highlighted >on their site. In fairness, the last anti-abortionist violence was a long time ago. I'll check back the next time that issue is in the news. Moreover, I would not *NOT* think that such a statement would be prominently highlighted on their site. I mean, it is nice that priest-for-life has that statement highlighted, because it wins us kudos from those people who only oppose killing already-born children - but it is hardly necessary.I don't think that the people who commit violence against abortionists are going to be influenced by an official statement on the NRTLC webpage and good luck finding any statement on the NRTLC webpage that could be even remotely twisted as to be inciting violence. This sounds a lot like the "seriousness of the charge" school-of-indictment, which is in direct contrast to the "preponderance of evidence" school of indictment that is the usual for free societies. >As I said earlier, I wish more organizations would be so outspoken, whether >their members feel that way or not. They have a responsibility to speak out >against those who pervert their ideals, you know? No, I do not know, actually. I think that it is very dangerous to hold that these type of people create responsibilities. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:36:19 -0500 At 01:31 PM 11/11/2003 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote: >>From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question >>Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:26:18 -0500 >> >>At 03:30 PM 11/9/2003 +0530 ritu wrote: >> >Gautam, how many religio-political groups condemn their own >> >lunatics/extremists loudly, clearly and constantly? For that matter, how >> >many political organisations/groups do that? >> >>Pro-Lifers in the United States would be one example of a religio-political >>group that does this - particularly in the case of pro-life extremists who >>resort to violence to kill and intimidate >>abortion-providers/child-murderers. > >Really? As far as I have seen, organizations that vigorously speak out >against the murder of abortion docs are few and far between. Christian Life >Resources is a good example but are there others? Obviously we have different positions on the readiness of NRTL to speak out against violence, I suppose we do. In case I had missed a statement on the subject, I searched for "murder" "homicide" and "clinic" on their site and also looked over the cover page. I saw no statements of any kind about their stance for or against the murder of doctors who perform abortions. However, when I searched for "violence", I found a statement made by Laura Echevarria, NRLC Director of Media Relations, (http://www.nrlc.org/news/1998/NRL11.98/laura.html) blaming the mass media for not covering them when they have condemned violence. She said: "I was asked to comment on assertions made by pro-abortion groups that we (i.e., the pro-life movement) have not condemned the violence as loudly or as fiercely as we should. We have, of course, as have all responsible, truly pro-life organizations." She may very well be right, yet I found no evidence of any official statement condemning violence against anyone except unborn children anywhere on their very comprehensive website. What's curious to me is that since (afaik) the NRLC is _the_ most prominent mainstream pro-life organization in the US, I would expect that such a stance *would* be prominently highlighted on their site. but I think it is worth noting that one of the foremost right-to-life organizations out there is Priests for Life, and their rejection of violence link is right at the very top of their page: http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/rejectviolence.htm Thanks for the link. It's VERY good to see that. I think that this is typical of the pro-life movement. As I said earlier, I wish more organizations would be so outspoken, whether their members feel that way or not. They have a responsibility to speak out against those who pervert their ideals, you know? Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ From Beethoven to the Rolling Stones, your favorite music is always playing on MSN Radio Plus. No ads, no talk. Trial month FREE! http://join.msn.com/?page=offers/premiumradio ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
On 11 Nov 2003 at 12:45, John D. Giorgis wrote: > At 08:18 PM 11/9/2003 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: > >The problem is, neither do we. In invading Iraq in the manner we > >did, without the support of the UN or even all of our NATO allies, > > I am sure that if *NATO* had authorized the attack on Iraq, everything > would be hunky-dory in Fallujah and elsewhere right now. > > > and with > >little evidence that Hussain was involved in terrorist attacks > >against the West > > O.k. so, either: > 1) Israel is not part of "the West." It's not, but not in the sense you meant there. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
At 01:31 PM 11/11/2003 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote: >>From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question >>Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:26:18 -0500 >> >>At 03:30 PM 11/9/2003 +0530 ritu wrote: >> >Gautam, how many religio-political groups condemn their own >> >lunatics/extremists loudly, clearly and constantly? For that matter, how >> >many political organisations/groups do that? >> >>Pro-Lifers in the United States would be one example of a religio-political >>group that does this - particularly in the case of pro-life extremists who >>resort to violence to kill and intimidate >>abortion-providers/child-murderers. > >Really? As far as I have seen, organizations that vigorously speak out >against the murder of abortion docs are few and far between. Christian Life >Resources is a good example but are there others? Obviously we have different positions on the readiness of NRTL to speak out against violence, but I think it is worth noting that one of the foremost right-to-life organizations out there is Priests for Life, and their rejection of violence link is right at the very top of their page: http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/rejectviolence.htm I think that this is typical of the pro-life movement. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:26:18 -0500 At 03:30 PM 11/9/2003 +0530 ritu wrote: >Gautam, how many religio-political groups condemn their own >lunatics/extremists loudly, clearly and constantly? For that matter, how >many political organisations/groups do that? Pro-Lifers in the United States would be one example of a religio-political group that does this - particularly in the case of pro-life extremists who resort to violence to kill and intimidate abortion-providers/child-murderers. Really? As far as I have seen, organizations that vigorously speak out against the murder of abortion docs are few and far between. Christian Life Resources is a good example but are there others? Frankly it would be nice if NRL and DeMoss were as vocal about condeming those murders as they are about abortion. Personally, I think this recent blog post from Sebastian Holsclaw "An Open Letter To The Pro-Life Movement" is worth reading. http://www.sebastianholsclaw.com/archives/03.html Whether you agree with him or not it's food for thought. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Frustrated with dial-up? Get high-speed for as low as $26.95. https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
At 08:18 PM 11/9/2003 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: >The problem is, neither do we. In invading Iraq in the manner we did, >without the support of the UN or even all of our NATO allies, I am sure that if *NATO* had authorized the attack on Iraq, everything would be hunky-dory in Fallujah and elsewhere right now. > and with >little evidence that Hussain was involved in terrorist attacks against the >West O.k. so, either: 1) Israel is not part of "the West." 2) If only Saddam Hussein had funded the IRA, *then* everything would be hunky-dory in Fallujah right now. > (and of course the complete lack of WMDs in Iraq), we have invited >skepticism with respect to our motives. O.k., so if we had fonud the barrels of anthrax and botulin (which, by the way, the United Nations says are still unaccounted for), *then* everything would be hunky-dory in Fallujah right now, right? I'm sorry, but I disagree with all three of these predictions as Gautam is fond of pointing out - why do you consistently imagine that terrorists think like you do and share your concerns?Isn't it far more likely that terrorists think in ways that are fundamentally different from your own??? What I find most amazing is that all you opponents of the war talked about how hard it would be to rebuild Iraq before the war, and many proponents of the war agreed - but argued that it would be harder for America to leave Saddam Hussein in power, with no way of really controlling his next move, and the always-imminent possibility that he might acquire nuclear weapons right underneath our noses the way the North Koreans did.Anyhow, sure enough, rebuilding Iraq has been hard - and all you opponents of the war seem almost *shocked* by this development.Well, no kidding and moreover, give the stakes for Western Civilization in rebuilding Iraq - how about showing a little resolve in the face of those terrorists who want to return 38million just-liberated people to dictatorship and oppression??? How about being just a little-less defeatist about the inevitablility of our failures in Iraq - which I must say it almost looks like you are secretly hoping for? Of course, you'd rather spend more time engaging in recriminations and bashing of the Bush Administration. Oh and in the vein of socio-political groups that do not criticize their own extremists - I would note that for all of the opponents of the war on this List and other List Members who talked about how important it was to have a "Marshall Plan" for Iraq - the silence regarding the Democratic-lead effort to make US aid to Iraq a "loan" instead of a grant was deafening. I'd like to thank whomever it was (maybe it was Doug or Julia?) who tried to turn this thread into a constructive discussion of how to handle terrorist threats in places like Northern Ireland (and Iraq) - at least that's an honest recognition of the problem. Indeed, I have to give credit to Howard Dean, who for all his bashing of the Bush Administration, at least recognizes that America in this fight, and even though Howard Dean (wrongly :) did not want to be in it, he at least emphasizes that he recognizes that now we have to win it - whether he or Bush is president in 2004. JDG - Who is bummed that Doug Pensinger will probably never see this message. His loss, I guess. ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
At 03:30 PM 11/9/2003 +0530 ritu wrote: >Gautam, how many religio-political groups condemn their own >lunatics/extremists loudly, clearly and constantly? For that matter, how >many political organisations/groups do that? Pro-Lifers in the United States would be one example of a religio-political group that does this - particularly in the case of pro-life extremists who resort to violence to kill and intimidate abortion-providers/child-murderers. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
At 09:16 AM 11/10/2003 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: >Yes. More importantly, if we had done it properly, external (to Iraq) >support for the terrorists would be minimized. As it is (and as I stated >before) we've created access for anti Americans throughout the world to >attack us. Do you really think that all these attacks are being >coordinated by Baathists alone? I am sure that Al Qaeda is now involved in these attacks as well... and I am sure that they would have just left us alone in Iraq if only we had found a few barrels of anthrax.. >But what the Bush administration didn't take into account was the >difficulty of establishing democracy in a country that has no tradition of >democracy. I think that President Bush has the best respone to this "cultural condescension:" Time after time, observers have questioned whether this country or that people or this group are ready for democracy, as if freedom were a prize you win from meeting our own Western standards of progress. It is worth noting that only democracy in the world where both the Head of Government and the Head of the Opposition are women is.. Bangladesh. I am curious as to your explanation as to why Bangladesh is more suited to democracy than Iraq. >In any case I disagree that everyone in that part of the world thinks the >UN is a US puppet. For one thing it's unlikely that the UN would be >engaging in the kind of cronyism that the Bush administration is. For >another, their motivations would not be as suspect as regards the oil >reserves and related infrastructure. Actually, if you recall that the Untied Nations is responsible for the establishment of the State of Israel, that can tell you quite a bit about Arab impressions of the UN.Additionally, you have to remember that the Iraqis have been treated to 13 years of anti-UN propaganda by Saddam Hussein, first for authorizing the US to capture Iraq's 38th Province in 1991, and then for mandating that Iraq let US spies posing as UN inspectors into the country to plot how to destroy Iraq's natural greatness and sieze Iraq's oil. And again, why do you imagine that the average Iraqi is as concerned about the role of Halliburton in Iraq as you are?That's almost mind-bogglingly bizzare. In fact, for all your preaching about how Iraqi culture is unsuited to democracy it actually seems like you think that Iraqi culture is almsot exactly like our own, or more particularly, exactly like the culture of left-leaning Bush-hating, American liberals. Its really inexplicable to me how Iraqi culture can in your mind be simultaneously be unsuited to democracy (or more accurately, a republican form of governance) and at the same time be almost identical to your own in their political views JDG - Again, Doug's loss... ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
At 09:45 AM 11/9/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > Episcopalians aren't launching suicide bombing campaigns. No, they're too busy fighting amongst themselves about the gay bishop. The Anglican Church became the first major Christian denomination to make an openly gay man a bishop, consecrating the Reverend Canon Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. This, of course, means Reverend Robinson can now move diagonally instead of straight. (J.J. Gertler) Send Current Events submissions to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
- Original Message - From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 12:59 PM Subject: Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question > > > On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Dan Minette wrote: > > > But, that's not where we are. As far as I can tell from the opinion > > polls and other reports, the opinion of the US held by the people of > > Iraq is souring. We are being seen less as liberators and more as > > foreign occupiers. While the idea that people would welcome anyone who > > delivered them from a tyrant with open arms sounds extremely logical; > > things can often be more complex than this. For example, intervention > > in abusive families often/usually results in the victims of the abuse > > feeling resentment and anger towards the outside agency that intervenes. > > The shame of needing outside intervention to handle an internal matter > > can be very high. Different people/countries can handle that type of > > shame in different manners. Everything that I've seen indicates that > > people in that region are very concerned with face, and are willing to > > lie through their teeth in order to preserve face. > > Think globally, analogize locally? I was thinking more along the lines of offering evidence that people do indeed act in this manner, at least on a small scale. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Dan Minette wrote: > But, that's not where we are. As far as I can tell from the opinion > polls and other reports, the opinion of the US held by the people of > Iraq is souring. We are being seen less as liberators and more as > foreign occupiers. While the idea that people would welcome anyone who > delivered them from a tyrant with open arms sounds extremely logical; > things can often be more complex than this. For example, intervention > in abusive families often/usually results in the victims of the abuse > feeling resentment and anger towards the outside agency that intervenes. > The shame of needing outside intervention to handle an internal matter > can be very high. Different people/countries can handle that type of > shame in different manners. Everything that I've seen indicates that > people in that region are very concerned with face, and are willing to > lie through their teeth in order to preserve face. Think globally, analogize locally? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > --- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The problem is, neither do we. In invading Iraq in > > the manner we did, > > without the support of the UN or even all of our > > NATO allies, and with > > little evidence that Hussain was involved in > > terrorist attacks against the > > West (and of course the complete lack of WMDs in > > Iraq), we have invited > > skepticism with respect to our motives. > > Doug > > Do you really think that anyone in Iraq cares if we > involved the UN, or about WMDs, for that matter? The > ones who supported Hussein would support Hussein > regardless, yes? Everyone else _really hated him_. > Even if the UN were involved, everyone in that part of > the world thinks the UN is just an American front when > it acts with us. Why mirror image your concerns upon > the Iraqis? I rather imagine that they are far more > concerned with getting rid of Saddam and establishing > public order and a stable state than whether or not > anyone finds WMDs in Iraq. Interesting. I've met a number of people in the US who feel the opposite way about the UN, that it's *not* anything that ever works in the US's best interests. These folks tend to be rabid about gun ownership rights, as well. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
- Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question > > Do you really think that anyone in Iraq cares if we > involved the UN, or about WMDs, for that matter? Well, there is a poll that I've seen that shows the majority of the people in Iraq see the US , on balance, being a negative influence on Iraq over the next 5 years, while the UN is preceived as being a positive influence. Another poll shows the number that view the US as liberators has fallen from 46% to about 16%, with two thirds now viewing the US as an occupying force. That same poll does show that most people do not want the US to up and leave, so the message is a bit mixed, but the trends are not very encouraging. As far as WMDs are concerned, its reasonable to assume that the direct effect of the non-observance of these weapons, and the conclusions that Hussein really didn't have significant WMD when the US overthrew him on the opinion of the people of Iraq was minimal. However, I think that the atmosphere we would be operating in if we did prove that Hussein was well on his way towards developing an atomic bomb, had massive stockpiles of very dangerous chemical and biological weapons, and had significant delivery mechanisms, would be far different. I don't think the US government was wrong in thinking that a true multi-national peacekeeping force, with tens of thousands of troops from non-Anglo, non-European countries would be very helpful in selling the forces there as a temporary stabilizing entity instead of an American occupation force. I think that the possibility of India and Pakistan contributing troops would have been far greater if the WMD were as prevalent as the administration stated they were before the war. But, that's not where we are. As far as I can tell from the opinion polls and other reports, the opinion of the US held by the people of Iraq is souring. We are being seen less as liberators and more as foreign occupiers. While the idea that people would welcome anyone who delivered them from a tyrant with open arms sounds extremely logical; things can often be more complex than this. For example, intervention in abusive families often/usually results in the victims of the abuse feeling resentment and anger towards the outside agency that intervenes. The shame of needing outside intervention to handle an internal matter can be very high. Different people/countries can handle that type of shame in different manners. Everything that I've seen indicates that people in that region are very concerned with face, and are willing to lie through their teeth in order to preserve face. I think the US is now in a race between their work to develop a stable representative government and autonomous security force and the deterioration of public opinion in Iraq. I don't think that its inconceivable that, if we fail to make much progress in the next 6-12 months, that the fight between US soldiers and those opposing us will be changed, in the minds of people, from a fight between the US and the supporters of a brutal regime to a fight between occupiers and local resistance fighters. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:14:15 -0800 (PST), Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The problem is, neither do we. In invading Iraq in the manner we did, without the support of the UN or even all of our NATO allies, and with little evidence that Hussain was involved in terrorist attacks against the West (and of course the complete lack of WMDs in Iraq), we have invited skepticism with respect to our motives. Doug Do you really think that anyone in Iraq cares if we involved the UN, or about WMDs, for that matter? Yes. More importantly, if we had done it properly, external (to Iraq) support for the terrorists would be minimized. As it is (and as I stated before) we've created access for anti Americans throughout the world to attack us. Do you really think that all these attacks are being coordinated by Baathists alone? The ones who supported Hussein would support Hussein regardless, yes? Everyone else _really hated him_. But you don't take into account that there are many that really hate us, however irrational and misplaced that hate is. Even if the UN were involved, everyone in that part of the world thinks the UN is just an American front when it acts with us. Why mirror image your concerns upon the Iraqis? I rather imagine that they are far more concerned with getting rid of Saddam and establishing public order and a stable state than whether or not anyone finds WMDs in Iraq. But what the Bush administration didn't take into account was the difficulty of establishing democracy in a country that has no tradition of democracy. As we see in recent news the Iraqi governing council is on the verge of being dissolved because they can't seem to make any decisions. Are they interested in public order and a stable state or are they interested in protecting their turf? In any case I disagree that everyone in that part of the world thinks the UN is a US puppet. For one thing it's unlikely that the UN would be engaging in the kind of cronyism that the Bush administration is. For another, their motivations would not be as suspect as regards the oil reserves and related infrastructure. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The problem is, neither do we. In invading Iraq in > the manner we did, > without the support of the UN or even all of our > NATO allies, and with > little evidence that Hussain was involved in > terrorist attacks against the > West (and of course the complete lack of WMDs in > Iraq), we have invited > skepticism with respect to our motives. > Doug Do you really think that anyone in Iraq cares if we involved the UN, or about WMDs, for that matter? The ones who supported Hussein would support Hussein regardless, yes? Everyone else _really hated him_. Even if the UN were involved, everyone in that part of the world thinks the UN is just an American front when it acts with us. Why mirror image your concerns upon the Iraqis? I rather imagine that they are far more concerned with getting rid of Saddam and establishing public order and a stable state than whether or not anyone finds WMDs in Iraq. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
Andrew Crystall wrote: > I'd point you to certain elements within Israel's current government. > To some extent, they've been digging their own holes... > > Ah well. Let's just say my thoughs on the current Isralie situation > do NOT make me popular. So did you approve of what Moshe Ya'alom said a few days ago? :) Ritu GCU Curious ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
On 9 Nov 2003 at 16:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Yet. I wouldn't put it beyond a fanatic to do something unfortunate. > > (Remember a certain chap called Rabin? I do...) > > > > There was also Baruch Goldstein in 1994, I'm ashamed to say. > > The difference is, most Jews worldwide were aghast at both. With a few > despicable exceptions, there was hardly any approval of what either > did, and far less celebrating. There is certainly no culture wide > notion in contemporary Judaism (outside a handful of tiny, > marginalized groups) that violence against civilians is legitimate. I'd point you to certain elements within Israel's current government. To some extent, they've been digging their own holes... Ah well. Let's just say my thoughs on the current Isralie situation do NOT make me popular. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
Gautam Mukunda wrote: The problem is very different in Iraq, thankfully. The Ba'athists almost certainly have no popular support, very much unlike the IRA. The problem is, neither do we. In invading Iraq in the manner we did, without the support of the UN or even all of our NATO allies, and with little evidence that Hussain was involved in terrorist attacks against the West (and of course the complete lack of WMDs in Iraq), we have invited skepticism with respect to our motives. Now we've created a place wherein every anti-American in the world can participate in an attack against Americans, Moslem or no, and experience some degree of success that encourages others to join them. To countries like China, who may be anti Moslem, but are certainly anti Democracy and Anti American as well, our difficulties in Iraq are a bonanza. What's keeping them from jumping on the bandwagon You said in an earlier post that the outcome of the war is inevitable. I think you're wrong about that. In the upcoming election year you can bet that our enemies will take full advantage of our political process - as they have on other occasions such as the Tet offensive that was largely responsible for the withdrawal of LBJ from the election in 1968. As long as our resolve in Iraq in question, the success of the âwar on terrorismâ is in question as well, and it wonât take much more of the kind of news weâve been getting from Iraq lately to compromise that resolve. We're hearing rumors about the resumption of the draft recently, but that would be political suicide for the feckless Bush administration, so I suspect that those will remain rumors at least until after the election. None the less, I expect that once we find that rapidly training tens of thousands of Iraqis to man a security force has invited the kind of enemy infiltration that will doom it to failure as an effective tool against insurgency, we will have to either resume the draft and send thousands more of our young people over there, or compromise our goals. In the meanwhile, the situation in Iraq has all the trappings of a military quagmire and a political disaster, and the âwar on terrorismâ founders. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to have the US look at Britain's handling > of the IRA problem and > note what worked and what didn't, and use that to > help the US avoid making > mistakes that don't have to be made. > > Julia What worked: Very little What didn't: Pretty much everything Not meant to be humorous. I have no idea how I would have dealt with the problem. But what the British tried - not a success. The problem is very different in Iraq, thankfully. The Ba'athists almost certainly have no popular support, very much unlike the IRA. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, Andrew Crystall wrote: > On 9 Nov 2003 at 9:11, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > > Our responsibility is to stop being enablers. Since > > September 11th of 2001, the US and its allies have > > taken up that responsibility. It's time for the rest > > of the world to do the same. > > 9/11 is not a turning point in the way a lot of people seem to think it > is. The difference is purely in perception. Yes, you Americans thought > you could fund terrorists for decades and not have it rebound. Well, us > Brits learned that lesson long ago, and the IRA made sure we never > thought we were immune. I'd like to have the US look at Britain's handling of the IRA problem and note what worked and what didn't, and use that to help the US avoid making mistakes that don't have to be made. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
> Yet. I wouldn't put it beyond a fanatic to do something unfortunate. > (Remember a certain chap called Rabin? I do...) > There was also Baruch Goldstein in 1994, I'm ashamed to say. The difference is, most Jews worldwide were aghast at both. With a few despicable exceptions, there was hardly any approval of what either did, and far less celebrating. There is certainly no culture wide notion in contemporary Judaism (outside a handful of tiny, marginalized groups) that violence against civilians is legitimate. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
On 9 Nov 2003 at 8:40, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > --- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > I don't think the Methodists are launching suicide > > bombing campaigns, and > > they're not fighting with each other to the point > > that it's making it into > > my paper. That might be a better example for your > > point. :) > > > > Julia > > Maybe not. Episcopalians have managed to have a > doctrinal dispute without mass murder, so it is > _possible_, at least. :-) Yet. I wouldn't put it beyond a fanatic to do something unfortunate. (Remember a certain chap called Rabin? I do...) Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
On 9 Nov 2003 at 9:11, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > Second, _the support is already there_. People in > Muslim countries all over the world celebrated on > September 11th. I've seen the videotape, and so have > most other people. Opinion polls suggest that in much > of the Islamic world, Osama Bin Laden is a popular and > respected figure. Stats? I think you'll find, as well, that certain of the say BBC reporting was hardly unbiased. A lot of the Palestians ran for shelter on 9/11, because they were *afraid* of what the Terrorists might of brought down on them. > the vilest ends (we're not, after all talking about > the ANC here, which used terrorist tactics for > fundamentally just ends. We're talking about people Bullshit. There is NO excuse for Terrorism. None. I don't buy "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter). Either the people use legitmate tactics, or they do not. > again. If Catholic terrorists were killing protestant > children and the Vatican didn't condemn them, I would > have a big problem with that. But the Vatican _did_ > condemn the IRA. By contrast, over and over again > prominent Muslim clerics consistently excuse and > promote even viler terorrism against civilians all the You compare a religion with a centralist authority for one without. > As long as the moderate majority of the Muslim world > that we keep hearing about refuses to turn against the > extremists, then maybe they _aren't_ repulsed by the > massacre of infants. There aren't many signs that > they are. So they don't have any grounds for > resentment. Again, people outside keep acting as They ARE moderate. They're not the ones screaming on your TV. Usually, their statements are discarded as "not newsworth". I've seen THAT happen several times...often the statements are only ever published on the web. > societies, and then the rest of the world. The way > the war ends depends upon the _choice_ of the rest of > the Muslim world - whether it will decisively turn > against the terrorist groups, or continue to turn a > blind eye to their sins. No, It depends on us. The "Muslem World" is a fractured, unstable entity. What we need to do is to chop out the bits which wil not reform, while breaking down the rest of it's unity with economic incentives for steps in the right direction. And I think you'll find that moderate muslems WILL sign onto that approach. > the end, we win. Period. But it can end happily for > the Muslim world - with Muslim countries free, > democratic, and wealthy. Or it can end unhappily - So democracy is a prerequisite, for you, of "winning"? What if the people don't WANT democracy? I'd point out that for example Jordan is NOT a democracy, and yet it's policy towards Israel is friendly, and it is hostile to terrorists (admitedly, yes, they only threw out a lot of them after they tried to take over, but that's history). > To the people being attacked in their name. I want > them to prove that they _do not_ want to convert the > entire world to Islam by force, that they reject those Them? The Islamic goverments? They don't. It's preachers within their borders which are. And I think you'll find that you just called on America and it's allies to convert the world to democracy. Exactly the same kind of rallying call behind a religion or ideology. > rhetorically (no more claims that 9/11 was a Jewish > conspiracy), rejecting them financially (no more Oho. THAT'S rich, considering the number of Holocaust deniers and tin- foil-hat "The Jews are out to take over the world" theorists in America. > Our responsibility is to stop being enablers. Since > September 11th of 2001, the US and its allies have > taken up that responsibility. It's time for the rest > of the world to do the same. 9/11 is not a turning point in the way a lot of people seem to think it is. The difference is purely in perception. Yes, you Americans thought you could fund terrorists for decades and not have it rebound. Well, us Brits learned that lesson long ago, and the IRA made sure we never thought we were immune. I cannot and will not forgive Gulf War 1 for not rolling into Bagdad. And no, I DON'T care what the political fallout would of been. Because this President didn't care about it this time round, after so many deaths Sadaam caused between the wars. THis is not about them. This is about us. We cannot and should not force our ideology onto a people unwilling to accept it. If we can bring them to accept it, fine, but if they will not we must accept that. That is not to say that we must neglect legitmate security concerns, but that we must accept they are different. Democracy is no banner of sweetness and light. I have my own thoughs on democracy, and I believe America is unstable and will become a lot moreso as time passes. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
--- ritu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gautam Mukunda wrote: > Because that seems to be normal group dynamics: > Isolate a group, treat > them with constant suspicion and act as if they are > all potential > terrorists and sooner, rather than later, there is a > ground swell of > support, within the same group, for the extremist > movements. I have seen > it happen in Kashmir, Punjab and the North-East. > An Irish friend of mine tells me that this is also > the pattern she saw > in Ireland. But, here are two potential problems. One, we have a real security threat that has to be dealt with. India, despite its extended history of dealing with terrorism, has never faced anything remotely like the 9/11 attack, so we (the US) have one that is different in kind, as well as in scale, from that faced by other countries. Second, _the support is already there_. People in Muslim countries all over the world celebrated on September 11th. I've seen the videotape, and so have most other people. Opinion polls suggest that in much of the Islamic world, Osama Bin Laden is a popular and respected figure. So I am arguing that it's time to treat Muslims as moral actors - our moral equals. They have the ability to make moral choices - to choose freedom over tyranny, peace over war, civilization over barbarism. Large portions of the Islamic world have chosen to support groups that use terrorism in the pursuit of the vilest ends (we're not, after all talking about the ANC here, which used terrorist tactics for fundamentally just ends. We're talking about people who want to establish Taliban-like rule _over the entire world_.) That is their _choice_. We, as outsiders, need to demand that they choose differently. We certainly shouldn't accomodate it, make ourselves more vulnerable to it, or not impose consequences because of it when that choice impinges upon us. > Gautam, how many religio-political groups condemn > their own > lunatics/extremists loudly, clearly and constantly? > For that matter, how > many political organisations/groups do that? > Such criticism becomes even more rare when there is > a physical distance > between the atrocities and the groups. I can't > remember any Sikh groups > decrying the murder of innocents in movement for > Khalistan, can't think > of a single Hindu group which condemned the Gujarat > massacres last > year.. They they should be condemned for it. Saying nothing when a group commits barbarism in your name is the same thing as accepting it. As Dan pointed out, plenty of groups _do_, in fact, condemn extremists who use violence supposedly in their cause. We in the US see it all the time - so often, in fact, that it can become a fairly major scandal when a group doesn't do that. Furthermore, it's one thing to fail to condemn, say, the Earth Liberation Front when it burns down a ski lodge. That's bad, and when environmental groups fail to do that it's a problem. It's another when Muslim organizations the world over justify the slaughter of innocents in Israel. But we see that over and over again. If Catholic terrorists were killing protestant children and the Vatican didn't condemn them, I would have a big problem with that. But the Vatican _did_ condemn the IRA. By contrast, over and over again prominent Muslim clerics consistently excuse and promote even viler terorrism against civilians all the time. If they turend against the terrorists, the terrorists would lose much of their popular support. But they will only do so when they have a reason to do so, and only the outside world can try to create that reason. When we fail to make demands on the Muslim world - when we constantly excuse them from making demands and choices like this, we act as enablers for what is rapidly becoming a culture-wide pathology. I mean this very seriously - that's why I argue about it so much. When the outside world (I'm thinking of much of Europe in particular) constantly fails to demand basic civilized behavior from the Muslim world, constantly making excuses and protecting it from the consequences of its _choices_, they act as enablers and allow the situation to continue. > Has the Muslim world ever stood up and said that the > blowing up of > Jewish infants is a good/acceptable idea? If yes, > then it is certainly > their responsibility to refute the statement and > make whatever amends > possible. If not, then do you think they might > resent our assumption > that all of them lack the basic humanitarian > instincts to be repulsed by > the death of infants? Quite a few very prominent and important Muslim clerics _do_ routinely support the terrorists. But even many of those who do not consistently fail to condemn them. It keeps happening, over and over again, and too much of the Muslim world keeps failing to condmen it. So after a while, maybe their resentment isn't an issue any more, because it starts to become a real question about those basic humanitarian instincts.
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
Dan Minette wrote: > > Gautam, how many religio-political groups condemn their own > > lunatics/extremists loudly, clearly and constantly? For > that matter, how > > many political organisations/groups do that? > > >From my perspective, its the norm over here. I remember the > pope routinely > commenting against terrorism by the IRA. Protestant leaders > also condemned > violence by militant Loyalists. The Republican party had to > denounce David > Duke to remain credible. The Oklahoma city bombings were > overwhelmingly > criticized by the anti-big government folks. Right. I stand corrected then. :) Here, the norm is somewhat different: you get reactions from religious groups when one of their own is hurt, not when one of their own ends up hurting others. > In the US, religious and political leaders condemned violence against > Muslims in the wake of 9-11. This I remember very well - there were not only condemnations but the Bush administration acted rather fast, comprehensively and sensibly to nip all such ideas in the bud. I found that about as impressive as the work of the disaster relief organistaions on ground zero. > If any radical Christian group, such as the KKK who claim to > be a Christian > organization, killed scores of Muslim civilians in a > terrorist attack and > claimed it was in the name of God, I would expect routine > condemnation. If > the organization were to put out propaganda on a regular > basis, and there > was any risk at all that this would be followed, I would > expect the pope, > the archbishop of Canterbury, the US Council of Churches, > etc. to actively > and regularly proclaim their teachings that this violates > Christianity, not > supports in. I find myself wondering if there are certain benefits to a well organised religious heirarchy after all. At least there is a centralised authority to issue clear statements about what is an officially acceptable version of the religion. :) Ritu GCU Bedtime ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > I don't think the Methodists are launching suicide > bombing campaigns, and > they're not fighting with each other to the point > that it's making it into > my paper. That might be a better example for your > point. :) > > Julia Maybe not. Episcopalians have managed to have a doctrinal dispute without mass murder, so it is _possible_, at least. :-) = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > Episcopalians aren't launching suicide bombing campaigns. No, they're too busy fighting amongst themselves about the gay bishop. I don't think the Methodists are launching suicide bombing campaigns, and they're not fighting with each other to the point that it's making it into my paper. That might be a better example for your point. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
- Original Message - From: "ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 4:00 AM Subject: RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question > > Gautam, how many religio-political groups condemn their own > lunatics/extremists loudly, clearly and constantly? For that matter, how > many political organisations/groups do that? >From my perspective, its the norm over here. I remember the pope routinely commenting against terrorism by the IRA. Protestant leaders also condemned violence by militant Loyalists. The Republican party had to denounce David Duke to remain credible. The Oklahoma city bombings were overwhelmingly criticized by the anti-big government folks. Indeed, as the Balkans were beginning to fall into violence, the leading figures of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Muslim religions got together and issued a joint statement against the notion that the fight was for their respective faiths. They called violence in the name of their faith an attack on their faith. In the US, religious and political leaders condemned violence against Muslims in the wake of 9-11. Indeed, one congressman was raked over the coals for calling Bin Ladin a "rag-head" and thus insulting a number of innocent folks. If any radical Christian group, such as the KKK who claim to be a Christian organization, killed scores of Muslim civilians in a terrorist attack and claimed it was in the name of God, I would expect routine condemnation. If the organization were to put out propaganda on a regular basis, and there was any risk at all that this would be followed, I would expect the pope, the archbishop of Canterbury, the US Council of Churches, etc. to actively and regularly proclaim their teachings that this violates Christianity, not supports in. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > --- ritu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anyway, I digress. From where I sit, his view does > > seem to be the view > > of a vast silent majority of muslims. The worrisome > > thing, though, is > > that relentless pressure, suspicion, demonisation > > and heckling to prove > > their humanitarian credentials could easily change > > that. > > > > Ritu > > Why? Because that seems to be normal group dynamics: Isolate a group, treat them with constant suspicion and act as if they are all potential terrorists and sooner, rather than later, there is a ground swell of support, within the same group, for the extremist movements. I have seen it happen in Kashmir, Punjab and the North-East. An Irish friend of mine tells me that this is also the pattern she saw in Ireland. I am no psychologist so I can't state with conviction why people react this way but fear and violence do seem to be a more 'normal' response to threat perceptions than reason and considered action. I hope I am wrong but I think this pattern is emerging with Muslims on a global scale as well. Not just in the polls depicting an enlarged threat perception across the muslim countries but also in the recent statements of Mahathir and the response they evoked. He claimed that the war against terror was a war against Islam and asked the muslim countries to close ranks against this war. A bit more entrenching of this thought and you are staring at a delay of decades. I couldn't even begin to guess what this delay would cost in terms of money and lives. > I happen to agree with you about the beliefs of > the world's Muslims, but reasonable people could > easily _disagree_ with you, and say that the evidence > is that a large fraction of the world's Muslims - > possibly even a majority, but certainly a large > fraction - do support terrorism, have universalist > aspirations for their religion, and are willing to > gain those aspirations _by force_. True. Many reasonable people could argue that. > Certainly it is > striking that _even in the US_, probably the single > most successful country at assimilating other cultures > (Muslims included), some of the most prominent > Muslim-American organizations (CAIR, for example) act > as apologists for terrorist groups. Gautam, how many religio-political groups condemn their own lunatics/extremists loudly, clearly and constantly? For that matter, how many political organisations/groups do that? Such criticism becomes even more rare when there is a physical distance between the atrocities and the groups. I can't remember any Sikh groups decrying the murder of innocents in movement for Khalistan, can't think of a single Hindu group which condemned the Gujarat massacres last year.. It seems to me that no group based on religion would soundly condemn atrocities committed in the name of that religion. The reasons seems to be two-fold: most of these groups are formed for political purposes and any such criticism endangers the support from their own constituency. Secondly, most of the people forming such groups do not know their own religious scriptures/books in enough detail to successfully challenge the extremists on the grounds of theology. > At some point, > isn't there a responsibility on the _Muslim_ world to > say that blowing up (for example) Jewish infants is > not acceptable? So far, the Muslim world does not > seem to have lived up to that responsibility even a > tiny bit. Has the Muslim world ever stood up and said that the blowing up of Jewish infants is a good/acceptable idea? If yes, then it is certainly their responsibility to refute the statement and make whatever amends possible. If not, then do you think they might resent our assumption that all of them lack the basic humanitarian instincts to be repulsed by the death of infants? > We are the ones _being_ attacked, not the > ones doing the attacking. Episcopalians aren't > launching suicide bombing campaigns. It seems to me > that the burden to prove bona fides should rest on the > other side of the scales right now. Who's 'we': A country? A religious group? Non-muslims? Who's on the other side of the scales: muslims? Extremists? Terrorists? As for the burden of proving the bona-fides, well what bona-fides do you want them to prove? When did they lose their claim to these bona-fides? Who are they supposed to prove the same to? Also, what would consitute sufficient proof? I look forward to your answers to my above questions. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
--- ritu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyway, I digress. From where I sit, his view does > seem to be the view > of a vast silent majority of muslims. The worrisome > thing, though, is > that relentless pressure, suspicion, demonisation > and heckling to prove > their humanitarian credentials could easily change > that. > > Ritu Why? I happen to agree with you about the beliefs of the world's Muslims, but reasonable people could easily _disagree_ with you, and say that the evidence is that a large fraction of the world's Muslims - possibly even a majority, but certainly a large fraction - do support terrorism, have universalist aspirations for their religion, and are willing to gain those aspirations _by force_. Certainly it is striking that _even in the US_, probably the single most successful country at assimilating other cultures (Muslims included), some of the most prominent Muslim-American organizations (CAIR, for example) act as apologists for terrorist groups. At some point, isn't there a responsibility on the _Muslim_ world to say that blowing up (for example) Jewish infants is not acceptable? So far, the Muslim world does not seem to have lived up to that responsibility even a tiny bit. We are the ones _being_ attacked, not the ones doing the attacking. Episcopalians aren't launching suicide bombing campaigns. It seems to me that the burden to prove bona fides should rest on the other side of the scales right now. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] RE: religious/political question
Deborah Harrell wrote: > While I _understand_ why Boykin* has done so, I > strongly disagree with him; all who cast this "war on > terror" in a religious frame invoke Crusade on the > western (which Boykin has equated to 'fundamentalist > Christian') front, and jihad on the Muslim. That is a > recipe for bloodshed. It is wrong-headed, divisive, > and arrogant; it invites, nay demands! further > extremism and absolutism. I agree. > *IMO he ought to be demoted, retired or least > sidelined to a non-sensitive administrative position, > and he should _never_ be allowed command of a fighting > unit or missile site. I don't know how efficient a military commander he is but he certainly should not be a spokesperson for the war against terror. Boykin is good for laughs [and Brad linked to a wonderful satire on his blog the other day wherein Boykin focused on the Hindus] but it really is too sensitive an issue, and a rather crucial time. His outpourings don't really help - actually, it would be less harmful to give OBL airtime. > I came across this in a search for sites on the > Enlightenment (which I wanted WRT America's founding > principles); the article is much longer. While the > author, Abdal-Hakim Murad, clearly believes in the > moral superiority and universality of Islam, he also > calls for tolerant engagement and for Islam to be a > "prophetic, dissenting witness within the reality of > the modern world." > > http://www.themodernreligion.com/ht/faith-future.html > "...I want to talk about religion - our religion - and > address the question of what exactly is going on when > we speak about the prospects of a mutually helpful > engagement between Islam and Western modernity. I > propose to tackle this rather large question by > invoking what I take to be the underlying issue in all > religious talk, which is its ability both to propose > and to resolve paradoxes. Thanks for the link, it was an interesting article. :) > Islam does not limit itself to the > upliftment of any given section of humanity, but > rather announces a desire to transform the entire > human family. This is, if you like, its Ishmaelite > uniqueness: the religions that spring from Isaac > (a.s.), are, in our understanding, an extension of > Hebrew and Occidental particularity, while Islam is > universal..." [He overstates his case here, as most > Christians consider Jesus 'given for the sake of the > world' and I think there is a Jewish concept of 'being > a light unto the world' also.] Not directly related to the discussion at hand but I do find myself wondering why none of the texts/scriptures of the Sanatan Dharma mention anything similar. > So this Islamic scholar does not illustrate Spengler's > > viewpoint that "the Islamic world view is bad, > repulsive and nasty." While he points out some of the > failings of Western society, to be sure, they have > been discussed by Western scholars as well! I > disagree with his belief in 'Islam for all' and > 'sacred kingship,' but his approach of tolerance and > moderation is, I hope, the voice of the Muslim > majority. His view is a familiar one for me - sufism, the concept of a tolerant Islam where the extremists occupy the fringes, the rationalist/socialist vision of Iqbal - these are the versions of Islam I grew up with. In books and literature; movies and plays; schools, colleges and neighbourhoods. The advent of terrorism didn't alter the perception all that much either but then, we Indians were lucky/unlucky enough to see three major terrorist movements in three parts of the country and the terrorists were from three different religions: Sikhs, Muslims and Christians. Independent India's first terrorists were the Naxalites though and they are marxists. Hmm, now I find myself wondering if the Hindutva lunatics would form terrorist organisations once they are deprived of govt. patronage Anyway, I digress. From where I sit, his view does seem to be the view of a vast silent majority of muslims. The worrisome thing, though, is that relentless pressure, suspicion, demonisation and heckling to prove their humanitarian credentials could easily change that. Ritu PS - I'd recommend Iqbal very highly - poetry more than political essays. He reads the best in Urdu though. :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[I wrote:]
> > [He overstates his case here, as most
> > Christians consider Jesus 'given for the sake of
> >the world' and I think there is a Jewish concept of
> >'being a light unto the world' also.]
>
> There is a core Jewish concept of the people Israel
> being called upon by God
> to be "or l'goyim" ("a light unto the nations"). We
> are supposed to be a holy
> nation in obedience to God, which will inspire the
> rest of the world to goodness and unity.
Ah, nice to know that my recall of comparative
religions class is not totally faulty. OTOH, I'm
fairly sure that the concept of Jesus as a
world-savior is of course from interpretation of
Jewish texts...duh! Should have remembered _that_.
Debbi
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] RE: religious/political question
> [He overstates his case here, as most
> Christians consider Jesus 'given for the sake of the
> world' and I think there is a Jewish concept of 'being
> a light unto the world' also.]
>
There is a core Jewish concept of the people Israel being called upon by God
to be "or l'goyim" ("a light unto the nations"). We are supposed to be a holy
nation in obedience to God, which will inspire the rest of the world to
goodness and unity.
Tom Beck
www.prydonians.org
www.mercerjewishsingles.org
"I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the
last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
[L3] RE: religious/political question
> ritu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Robert J. Chassell wrote: > > > Is the theological-political connection right? Is > it fair to say that > > many people do wish to behave with the same > qualities as their God? > > If so, and if the qualities are as stated, does > this predefine the > > attributes that Americans seek in their > presidents, on the one hand, > > and that Eqyptians and others seek in their > leaders, on the other? > > I don't know what to think of this theoryhe has > very carefully refrained from mentioning what the > muslims look for in their leaders - the only thing > he says is that the > kind of leaders muslims like evoke only revulsion > among AmericansAnd what is so very > different between the > Americans and the Arabs/Muslims/Islamic world that > no muslim leader > could ever hope to win the adulation of both his > people and the west? > And where do the 5 million American muslims fit in > Spengler's analysis? > > I know Spengler at least believes in an unbridgeable > gap between the > American and the Islamic world view - what I don't > know is why...why does his entire article > seem to hinge on the > premise that the Islamic world view is bad, > repulsive and nasty?the entire article contains > just one sentence, > by a jewish theologian, on the nature of Allah. The > rest are blanket > assertions to the effect that more details wouldn't > help, familiarity > would only breed further contempt and that there are > so many fundamental > differences between the two faiths/cultures that > most Americans > understand why Boykin has cast the war on terror in > religious terms. While I _understand_ why Boykin* has done so, I strongly disagree with him; all who cast this "war on terror" in a religious frame invoke Crusade on the western (which Boykin has equated to 'fundamentalist Christian') front, and jihad on the Muslim. That is a recipe for bloodshed. It is wrong-headed, divisive, and arrogant; it invites, nay demands! further extremism and absolutism. *IMO he ought to be demoted, retired or least sidelined to a non-sensitive administrative position, and he should _never_ be allowed command of a fighting unit or missile site. I came across this in a search for sites on the Enlightenment (which I wanted WRT America's founding principles); the article is much longer. While the author, Abdal-Hakim Murad, clearly believes in the moral superiority and universality of Islam, he also calls for tolerant engagement and for Islam to be a "prophetic, dissenting witness within the reality of the modern world." http://www.themodernreligion.com/ht/faith-future.html "...I want to talk about religion - our religion - and address the question of what exactly is going on when we speak about the prospects of a mutually helpful engagement between Islam and Western modernity. I propose to tackle this rather large question by invoking what I take to be the underlying issue in all religious talk, which is its ability both to propose and to resolve paradoxes. "We might begin by saying that theology is the most ambitious and fruitful of disciplines because it is all about the successful squaring of circles...what we call universalism...Islam does not limit itself to the upliftment of any given section of humanity, but rather announces a desire to transform the entire human family. This is, if you like, its Ishmaelite uniqueness: the religions that spring from Isaac (a.s.), are, in our understanding, an extension of Hebrew and Occidental particularity, while Islam is universal..." [He overstates his case here, as most Christians consider Jesus 'given for the sake of the world' and I think there is a Jewish concept of 'being a light unto the world' also.] "...This will demand the squaring of a circle - in fact of many circles - in a way that is characteristically Islamic. Despite its Arabian origins, Islam is to be not merely for the nations, but of the nations. No pre-modern civilisation embraced more cultures than that of Islam - in fact, it was Muslims who invented globalisation...It also demonstrates the divine purpose that this Ishmaelite covenant is to bring a monotheism that uplifts, rather than devastates cultures...Perhaps the greatest single issue exercising the world today is the following: is the engagement of Islamic monotheism with the new capitalist global reality a challenge that even Islam, with its proven ability to square circles, cannot manage? "...The current agreement between zealots on both sides - Islamic and unbelieving - that Islam and Western modernity can have no conversation, and cannot inhabit each other, seems difficult given traditional Islamic assurances about the universal potential of revelation. The increasing number of individuals who identify themselves as entirely Western, and entirely Muslim, demonstrate that the arguments against the continued ability of Islam to be inclusively universal are simply false...Palpably, there are millions
