1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

One Post to Answer Many

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Omar, Oct 26, 2002.

  1. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    FYI, that asshole is the ringleader for http://www.godhatesfags.com.

    Serioulsy, I encourage EVERYONE to check out that site. It is a shining example of religious intolerance and radical fanaticism. Those people are on a religious crusade. It just amazes me how socially primitive people can be. I am glad that they do not represent all, or even a large minority of Christians. These assclowns even picket people like Pat Roberts and Jerry Falwell! They think that President Bush is too liberal! :nut:
  2. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    May I assume, we are in firm agreement
    when I say we have to get rid of our 10%.

    If these guy you linked to don't qualify,
    I sure as hell don't know who would!
  3. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    Are you saying Ralph Nadar is a bad person? Huh? Are you insulting Ralph Nadar?
  4. fritzmp

    fritzmp Fire Fire For Effect

    You know, I liked the Corvair Monza.
  5. yazdzik

    yazdzik Veteran Member

    Dear Friends,

    With deep gratitude I must we acknowledge Omars thorough, lucid, and sympathetic post as being a very necessary beginning to the exploration of a topic whose thorns prick the bare ankles of those who dare tread in its underbrush. It is impossible to see the culture of those whose mores we do not own, whose language we do not speak, and whose clothes we do not wear in any light but our own, unless someone present it, clearly, from one whose daily bread is baked and eaten within it.

    To examine the crisis facing the world, and not the US, one ought to see the mythological, historic, and social frame, and then, the interstices of the three. How different the view is from the other side of the temple wall is a matter of which the underestimation may prove to be the undoing of our civilisation.

    First of all, it might do to examine what, for want of a better word, the secularisation of Christianity. As abhorrent as it may be to believers, it is the basic values of Christianity, rather than the divine existence, that informs our modern thought. Whatever one may say of the horror of the Crusades, there are no modern apologists for them. No mainstream Christian believes that it would be acceptable to kill to maintain Christian control over a mere symbolic place. No Catholic argues the crusaders cause was just, nor would Rome now, to save the crypt, embark upon military folly. For better or worse, Christianity has evolved, for political purposes, into a kind of secular humanism, its values existing independent of the deity, and, in that itself, now admonishes us to see that political purposes and religious belief in the modern west are no longer one, nor have been for nigh on a thousand years.

    Look for contrast, the deeply fundamentalist Christian, whose belief is still that a return to theocracy, the Boston puritan state, where temptation is fought not with an internal jihad, but with a political banishment, the excision of those who may differ, the heterodox, indeed, the heretics. Thus, even in Christianity, there exists the shunning of the western world, the world of Descartes and Jefferson, seeking the feudal realm where religious and civic duty are one, spiritual and temporal safety are one.

    The Anglo-American model rejected this more than a millenium back, yet who would argue that Charlemagne would be more at ease conversing with Jefferson than Kohmeini. None who understands the difference between medieval and renaissance worlds. One need only to look closer to home, not at the raiment of the Orthodox Jews, but the spiritual aloofness, as separate from us as we from the Mesopotamian tribes. What to us may be the highest good, the celebration of the individual, eros itself, the life force beckoning, in a tank top, in learning to love freely, unfettered by imaginary gods is an obscene violation of a living gods law to them. To protect themselves from such impurity, the temptation away from study of Torah, that which purifies and saves, succours and elevates, the modern ghettos are erected.

    To what observant Moslem is the civil libertarianism of Jefferson, the scientific exploration of the psyche of a Freud, more necessary than the study of qoran. Indeed, what a different culture in many lands would result if technology replaced spirituality as the primary focus of human study. Who doubts for a moment that if Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, had put into practice a modern secular government, and devoted the energy of the law to material betterment, rather than islamic compliance that the very weapons we so fear would long since have appeared? Or, if not, because there would be no foreseen strife, the west and east one, in pursuit of betterment in this life, leaving the next to the clerics?

    If, on the other hand, the belief in an after life be sincere, to what end a secular government? There are many on these shores who would abolish such, living in a land where the law of Moses and Christ would be the law of the land. It is the irony that Christianitys greatest contribution to religious thought, tolerance, is that which weakens it politically. To what medieval man would even Mores dichotomous use of his lawyerly skills and adherence to religious principle make sense? One believed in a god in whose world we dwelt and whose laws were to be seen and obeyed. No, one can safely conjecture that the most finely pointed argument of the best educated intellectual of the ninth or tenth century would be far more similar to the Islamists than the modern, liberal Moslems, Jews or Christians.

    It is not the war between Moslems and Christians, Israelis and Arabs, but the war between feudalism and secularism that is to be fought. If not, what value has Jerusalem to the Jews, if not mythological? Why do the Arabs simply not accept that after fifty of sixty years, for better or worse, adversarial possession or the international equivalent thereof is occurred?

    For that matter, would a mid-east with secular democratic governments threaten the west? Unlikely. It is the fear that the west, with the rejection of religious morals and the acceptance of contract governments as the arbiters of temporal ethics, having no values, since the ethos of man is purely ephemeral, will pollute the purity of the children that threatens peace. Seen from the other side, what sane man would sacrifice his childs immortal soul for political freedom? Seen from our side, what sane man would sacrifice freedom to gain something which may, in the final analysis, not even exist?

    Feudalism is fath based. Anglo-American law, reason based. For some strange reason, moderate Christianity has adopted well to a kind of moderation of faith. Believe in god, but build better laptops. One wonders if a few generations of philosophy instead of bible would change the Islamic world, as it has the west.

    One thing is for certain: Omars moderate Moslems may or may not exist, but it is not inherent in a theocracy to practice diplomacy rather than proselytising, tolerance rather than punishment. To argue that a medieval world where temptation itself may, with all good conscience, be eliminated at any cost allowed by scriptural dictum should coexist with a world in which only those things deeply offensive to a social contract may be politically remedied is without basis in everyday experience.

    Falwell does not want his daughter to remain chaste, but demands as well that my libertinism be abolished, and my daughter be taught the rightness of his gods justice, not in heaven, but on earth. Is this ultimately so different than a country ruled by mullahs? The worlds will collide, and to set forth that peace loving Moslems want to live in a world where their children, because the world in which we really live is in fact as small as it is, and from each other we are not distanced by time and space, but as close as the laptop and T1 line, will accept that sex is better than jihad is folly. The systems will not, not for animosity but for incongruence, coexist.

    (I am reminded, on a very personal note, of my brother in law, an orthodox rabbi, who does not want his daughters to see mine, as it would corrupt them!)

    To argue that a middle ages, pre-industrial revolution society will gladly allow its government to be secularised, is contrary not only to reason, but to fact. What benefit would accrue? On the other hand, if this life is less important than the next, the ever present forces of the evil of moral relativism, the logical consequence of political freedom, may in fact need be vanquished. Of the malevolent intention of Falwell and his ilk to destroy America from within I have no doubt. My Arabic is too primitive to understand how deeply the fear of secular society runs, and I must, for want of better intellect on my part, accept Omar at his word. I question then, however, how sincerely the Arab world wants peaceful co-existence, when the system of government itself is so contrary to reason. A monarchy, a theocracy, how can they aught but demand, for the safety of their childrens souls, the silencing of the sensualists, the secularists?

    Dred Scott was horrible morals, but good law, well reasoned, and consistent within itself, and the only possible conclusion of law given the authority granted the Supreme Court. Somerset, given the far more sweeping powers of the Lord Chief Justice likewise. The issue of slavery was not decided in the wells, but in the battlefields. At some point, the blueprints of the epochal changes of man are drawn in blood, and not in ink.

    Right now, unless Omar could argue that a secular, tolerant, non-Islamic government would evolve by itself, even in homogeneously Moslem lands, and that these governments would act in rational best self interest rather than upon the need for consistency with the law of god, the underlying proposition of the less jihad is always with us. In the US, the heterogeneity of the populace keeps, for the meantime, those who would revert to feudalism at bay. What would be the advantage of a secular contract government to a land of Moslems? The concept of submission to the will of god and the need for a government in which that will is absolutely unrecognised do not mix. Such a dichotomy is not demanded socially by a heterogeneous society.

    Allowing children to damn themselves for all time by seeing toothpaste sold with sex can be avoided with a few planes and martyrs. This would every medieval bishop understand. This would Falwell preach. To say that Islamic law would not support this is contrary to text and common sense.

    Omars thesis is thus a logical fallacy, since submission to the will of god cannot be the same as submission to the will of the majority of men, however reasoned. The law of god may or may not be the reasoned will of men. Islam requires submission to the former. If the former is not the latter, the religious law is either obeyed, or a secular government must be erected, with no reference to the former. The likelihood of this happening in a homogeneous Islamic land?

    Faith and reason may coexist, but generally only do so when forced by the social frame. The mythology is too strong, and like some repressed unconscious urge, it surfaces with no warning, and its being is not to be known from its signs.

    Thus, like every previous battle between totalitarianism and reasoned government, this one will not be fought at the ballot box. The laws of the prophet and the laws of the humanist are not sufficiently alike to allow the assuaging of the fear of one of the other. The war, which inevitably will come, comes not from ill will, but from the very nature of our psyches. The loss of the values of our superego by force is too frightening for most of us to bear without rebellion. The secularists may rationalise, the Christians pray, and the Moslems submit, but the forces of nature will not be overcome. The fear is the only autogenic reality.

    Will secular technology prevail over medieval superstition? Will Islam, like Christianity, evolve into a private relationship with god in a publicly secular world? Will men ultimately see that a secular peace is always preferable to religious annihilation?

    Only if those secular technologies do not kill us first.

    Reasonable means in the hands of men of faith have usually proven deadly.

    All good wishes,
  6. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    A masterpiece, Martin, although I do not agree with everything that was written.
  7. pupowski

    pupowski Banned

    Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi fundamentalists are the #1 sponsors of terrorism, and should be dealt with accordingly. Bush loses credibility in the war on terrorism by overlooking the role of Saudi Arabia in 911 and al-queda attrocities.
  8. DSL Dan

    DSL Dan Registered User

    Pup, when you're right, you're right--and in this case you're right. BTW he's also not doing such a good job tightening up the borders or kicking the INS squarely in their collective asses. :mad:

    Bet you thought I was just another knee-jerk Bush supporter. ;)
  9. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    There's plenty to criticise, and I think I can trust Pup's judgement when he makes critical posts around Mr. Bush and some of his advisors. It doesn't necessarily mean I agree with him, but I don't tend to throw it out with some of the other people over the net and how mindlesless they follow the herd in ignorant Bush bashing.
    Hey, Maureen Dowd of NYT does it, SHE MUST BE RIGHT!

    As for the problem you've mentioned, totally agree. Add to that the dismal airport security, which is not necessarily under the Federal government, but I betcha that will change if another disaster involving terrorism takes place.
  10. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    If I were to try and break it down so I could explain it to my ten year old, I
    would start as describing this as a continuation of the age old battle between
    good and evil.

    In our country, we have Timothy McVeigh, James Kopp and Griffin (who shot a
    doctor and prayed for his soul as he waited for the police). And we have no
    problem "taking care" of them.

    In both the Kopp and the Griffin cases it appears they had aid from a somewhat
    organized network. This is purely homegrown terrorism.

    We also have our equivalent of these militant clerics. We have our Falwells, Roberts
    and many others.

    As RRedline mentioned, we have the godhatesfags lunatics, to which I would like to
    add, the American Nazi Party, Christian Identity and it seems almost 700 identified
    card-carrying hate groups in the US.
    No problem though, they haven't done anything wrong, you know freedom of speech
    and all that. You can read about these fun groups of Americans here.

    Ah, but if it is a Muslim militant viewpoint, well then that must be somehow different
    from the good old homegrown kind.

    Now, why is it that we allow these assholes to live and benefit in our society but we
    want to go to war to kill them in someone else's society. Furthermore, why is it we
    ignore the historical fact that Hitler's Nazi party had a few thousand members in 1932
    and in less than seven years caused a calamity on a world scale.

    I caused quite a stir over screaming I won't stand for hate speech. I am not talking
    about censorship. I am saying anyone who paints a broad picture against a segment
    of the world's population in an attempt to dehumanize and incite hatred is going to
    hear it from me. History has shown if we ignore them they eventually become a problem.

    Thank you Martin, that was quite a piece. I don't believe there is anything inherently
    conflicted in Islam which would not allow it to flourish in a peaceful co-existence.
    It is more the interpretation than the religion. I believe you pointed that out very
    clearly with the comparison to Christianity.

    Dan, I have never thought of you as a mindless conservative unable to criticize the
    administration. I would like to point out, if I had said the exact same thing, I would
    have been "templated" and dismissed. Does that say something about all our ability
    to express the same view and be interpreted differently?
  11. jamming

    jamming Banned

    It is difficult to explain to a ten year old what hate and evil is about at anytime, let alone now . The Reason that we allow these "A&&hole&" is that we judge people based upon what they actually do and not about what they say. It is one thing to be politically incorrect and another thing to actively hurt or kill others. I believe a ten year old would understand that "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."

    We do allow free speech to these people because we want to know who they are and when they step over the bounds of speech into action. We allow free speech, because someday our views may be unpopular and be considered incorrect at the time. It is called living in a free society, not one where ideas are considered too dangerous to be allowed to be voiced. that is why we allow people to have free speech.

    As to your attempt to oppose them, that is great and is allowed you by the right of free speech. It is exactly why we have been given the freedom of our words, so that the ideas that are without merit may be exposed as the hollow ideas that they are. Keep opposing them but to adopt their methods is the first step to a tyranny of what you believe and to heck with others' opinion or thoughts make you more like them instead of less. If you don't see that then I feel sorry for you.

    As to you feeling "templated" and dismissed, there is probably another story that your ten year old knows that would explain that well to him, it is "the boy who cried wolf.":_
  12. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    While agreeing that it does not appear our country is paying as much attention to Saudi Arabia's faults as I would like we would be remiss if we did not recoginize that we do not always know what is going on behind the scenes. We have important bases in the kingdom and would need to find other bases or reduce our exposure before publicly taking on the Saudis. I have adopted a wait and see attitude regarding this issue.
  13. pupowski

    pupowski Banned

    You would have lost that bet Dan.
  14. DSL Dan

    DSL Dan Registered User

    Ken, that is one of the best questions anyone has posed in along time--succinct and irrefutable. When does the hypocrisy end? When do we really stand for something, or are all decisions based upon expediency and hidden agendae? :(
  15. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    It's a brave new world. Time to adapt.


    Let's try to understand the world isn't the way it was 20 years ago.

    The might of our combined NATO military forces is no match for two
    college kids and a small homemade genetics lab.

    The issue of a delivery system is mute, it can be delivered by any
    unknowing person. Considering the inability to prevent drugs from
    getting into he country (forget illegal immigrants pouring through our
    borders) we'd better find a new strategy.

    The bottom line is hate.

    The entire world needs to address hate. It needs to become so despised
    throughout every corner of the world that we all agree to work to eradicate
    it everywhere we find it. Blind hatred must be elevated to the level of repulsion
    cannibalism invokes in the common man.

    The clock is ticking. In another five to ten years based on historical evidence,
    some lunatic is going to launch a bacterial nightmare, which will devastate

    The Black plague killed 70% of Europe's population in it's time.
    Imagine that in Boston, LA or NYC.

    Want to play war games? Think we can continue to influence people by
    having the biggest weapons on the planet?

    It's time we figured out how to all play nice in the sandbox. We either
    straighten this out or technology will enable just about anybody to create a
    disaster that will make Timothy McVeigh look like Walt Disney.

    <small>This random reality check brought to by <b><i>them stinking liberals.<i><b></small>
  16. jamming

    jamming Banned


    War is not a Game.

    Opposing Hate Speech is Good.

    Suppressing Hate Speech promotes some lunatic launching a bacterial nightmare, more than allowing them to give voice to their concerns. If they cannot speak about it openly they will seek other ways to make their voice heard.
  17. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    I am not suggesting we suppress hate speech. On the
    contrary, I love to challenge it every time I see or hear it.

    It is the allowing of it to go unchallenged that I cannot tolerate.
  18. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Then challenge it, but one person's hate speech is another person's point of view.....don't they teach about moral relativism in Liberal School anymore, or is that rule suppose to only apply to Conservatives. Liberal's - the do as I say and not as I do agenda.

  19. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    And, speaking of generalizations...

Share This Page