|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Forgive Me, gavia . . . (Reply to this comment)
by gaviidae
Alex says: In this exchange, I see you reasonably giving ground, but your fundamental positions are untenable. They begin to make you look silly.
Well silly me---
Obviously, the people leading us now are: negligent--- NO
largely corrupt--- NO
fraudulent in their arguments--- NO criminal in many of their actions. NO
Thank you for continuing to show reason.
You're very welcome---seems none has yet made it through the logic-tight compartment in which you exist, Alex!
Gavia
|
Feb 15 '06
12:17 pm PST
|
|
Forgive Me, gavia . . . (Reply to this comment)
by macresarf1
In this exchange, I see you reasonably giving ground, but your fundamental positions are untenable. They begin to make you look silly.
Obviously, the people leading us now are negligent, largely corrupt, fraudulent in their arguments, and if ever held to account in a World Court, criminal in many of their actions.
As time may soon tell us.
Thank you for continuing to show reason.
Alex -- Macresarf1
|
Feb 14 '06
12:04 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definitions, definitions... (Reply to this comment)
by gaviidae
Vic sez: ---yes I am familiar with Li'l Abner, and you are right: it fits you perfectly!
Thank you, Vittorio, for acknowleging that I have proved that I'm right!!
Gavia
|
Jan 21 '06
12:04 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definitions, definitions... (Reply to this comment)
by asafono
(Gavia) Some of the actions of these "radical Christianists" can and should be characterized as terrorism. But as far as I know they are a VERY small minority among Christians; they operate only locally, not globally like Al Qaeda; and they are loudly, clearly, and publicly denounced by the mainstream Christian organizations---including the evangelical fundamentalists usually referred to as the Christian Right.
There is a crucial difference between extreme/militant Christianists and Islamisists that Gavia explicitly mentioned, and Vittorio skirted - that an absolute majority of Christians, lay or ordained, denounce the violence in the name of their religion. Why some Moslem mullahs and scholars do the same, I think it would be a stretch to say they are a majority, let alone an overwhelming one.
Vittorio: ---and Islam is the religion of the downtrodden and the humiliated.
And also the state religion of one of the arguably the most powerful states in the world - Saudi Arabia, as well as several other key oil producers. If there ever was an argument to reduce the West's (sic) dependence on fossil fuels and imported oil in particular, this is the most powerful one.
Vittorio: How can a few people hiding in caves rule the world?
Well, the exact expression you chose for this rhetorical question is ironic - as ca. 12-13 centuries the Assasins, the prototypes of modern-day terrorists managed to instill fear and destabilise the (Islamic) regimes of the Near East, operating from their mountain fortresses and hideouts.
|
Jan 11 '06
12:53 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Definitions, definitions... (Reply to this comment)
by vicfar
Gavia,
yes I am familiar with Li'l Abner, and you are right: it fits you perfectly!
Vittorio
|
Jan 10 '06
2:02 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Definitions, definitions... (Reply to this comment)
by gaviidae
Hi again, Vic. I don't think we're getting anywhere---but I'll respond briefly again:
About your assertion of a threat from Christion radicals more serious than the threat from Islam radicals:
Gavia: "They are intellectualy equivelent, I suppose"
Vicfar: I would say they are politically and morally equivalent.
Perhaps so. Folks like the Army of God and that whacko antigay church in Topeka, Kansas are probably equivelent to al-Qaeda intellectually, morally, and politically---but they generally don't promote terrorism or any other violence, as far as I know, and they don't have a well-funded international organization with a goal of destabilizing the whole of civilization. That's a HUGE difference in the nature of any threat they represent, in my opinion.
Christianity is the religion of the great powers (US and Europe)---
Perhaps the moral and philosophical teachings of Christianity had something to do with them becoming great powers--as well as the most just, most prosperous, most fair, and most civilized the world has ever known---
---and Islam is the religion of the downtrodden and the humiliated.
Perhaps the moral and philosophical teachings of Islam had something to do with their backward status by any reasonable measure. Of course they are mostly downtrodden by the very tyrannical governments they put in power---consistent with their religious teachings---and their humiliation is a result of their extraordinary lack of progress on any front as compared to any modern culture.
Isn't it normal for the oppressed to rally around some flag or idea?
I suppose it's "normal" for the oppressed to blame anyone but themselves---and to lash out at some external "devil" as radical Islamists are doing---when the root problem lies within----
About my disagreement with your characterization of Israeli policy as "genocide" you said:
Again, Gavia, you speak in slippery terms and simply shoot down my language as extreme simply because you seem to dislike it when people call things by their name.
To call Israeli actions to defend themselves against the PLO "genocide" is crudely inaccurate and hyperbolic, in my opinion. You can't convince me that Zionists actions have the goal of "eliminating a racial, ethnic, or political group--." If that were true the Israeli's would not be trying to cooperate in establishing a seperate Palestinian state, nor would they have bothered to negotiate and offer concessions to the likes of Yasser "that's my baby" Arafat, the original terrorist. Genocide more nearly fits the intentions and statements of the PLO and the current Iranian president. There are VERY serious issues and passionately held opposite views of that situation, and no really good answers---but your harsh mischaracterization of one side won't help.
If you read the Geneva convention's definitions of genocide---
I'll rely on the well-known standard definition, thanks!
And you must be familiar with the facts---
As a matter of fact I spent a couple of years traveling frequently to the Middle East while working on a major telecommunications project for the Government of Israel, with subcontractors in six countries. I heard a lot of the Israeli side, but also the Arab side, enough to give me a first hand awareness of the passions and bitterness over there.
---the daily slaughter of Palestinians, the destructions of their homes, and the well-known massacres which have occurred in Palestinian refugee camps.
ALL the actions you describe in those terms were retaliation by the Israeli's for PLO acts of terrorism, as I'm SURE you are aware. And of course the PLO acts of terrorism were in protest over being driven out of their homes by Zionists----with the active support of the Western civilization.
Again, are you insulted every time someone mentions the awful truth in blunt words?
Using blunt words, even with conviction and passion. doesn't convince me of anything, one way or the other---nor does it particularly offend me unless it's to call me rude names.
Does it offend your illusion that the world is a civilized place?
I don't see "civilization" as an illusion, but as a reality that some parts of the world haven't yet quite achieved to the degree the Western countries have---with the help of Christian teachings. Of course there are other, non-Christian civilizations becoming very prominent, like China and Japan for example, that are not Christian. But none at all that are Islam.
I questioned your allegation of our "desecration of Islam holy places" and you said:
I mean the purposeful destruction of Islamic holy places---
My understanding is that we've been careful to NOT do that---maybe I'm wrong?
---and the treatment of detainees in ways that we know full well are humiliating on religious grounds - you must know the details of this!
In trying to get information from terrorists about their plans I think some folks went WAY too far---and in ways that seem ridiculous---and I also think the blame for that goes right to the top. But I also think it was an understandeable mistake, given the circumstances.
The US military has ridiculed Islamic beliefs and values in a way which the Muslims will not soon forget!
My impression is that the stories to that effect have been shown to be inaccurate, if not outright lies.
--now we know I am concerned and you are not.
I'm very concerned about the threat from radical Islamists and you evidently are not, since you would rather divert attention to a misperceived threat from radical Christians that is founded on inaccuracies, mischaracterations, and outright lies. Evidently there are a few Democrats who agree with you, and if they are allowed to speak out it will assure Republicans in power for the foreseeable future---in my opinion!
You are basically saying we need to nip Islamic Fundamentalism in the bud (how? by attacking other countries? by peaceful means? by what policies?)----
The threat is from radical extremist terrorists, who falsely attribute their cause to Islamist fundamentalism. How to deal with it is a suitable subject for discussion and dispute, but the short answer is "all the above!"
---whereas the threat from our Christian fanatics simply should not be taken seriously and there is no need for action. Is that it?
I see little or no current threat from Christian fanatics---some annoyances, perhaps, but no threat, at the moment. But of course we should be on the alert for any real threat that COULD develop from that quarter. But the Bush administration ain't it, Vic!
Your newest essay on my commentary does not reveal your exact opinions.
Well, I did my best, and tried to be as clear as I could.
Maybe you're familiar with L'il Abner, a character in a popular cartoon strip called Dogpatch, a hillbilly community in Kentucky. He used to say, "Ah nevah admits Ah'm wrong until Ah proves Ah'm right---and then it ain't necessary!"
Regards,
Gavia
Gavia
|
Jan 10 '06
1:22 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Definitions, definitions... (Reply to this comment)
by vicfar
Gavia,
you say:
VF: If it cannot be equated, tell me WHY NOT!
They are intellectualy equivelent, I suppose
I would say they are politically and morally equivalent.
there is currently no international Christianist organization the equivelent of al Qaeda, as far as I know.
Obviously not! Christianity is the religion of the great powers (US and Europe), and Islam is the religion of the downtrodden and the humiliated. Isn't it normal for the oppressed to rally around some flag or idea?
I don't think Israeli policies toward Palestinians can reasonably be characterized as "oppressive" and certainly not as "genocidal."... Palestinians have legitimate grievances, but I think your formulation is over the top, Vic!
Again, Gavia, you speak in slippery terms and simply shoot down my language as extreme simply because you seem to dislike it when people call things by their name. If you read the Geneva convention's definitions of genocide, and compare it with Israel's policies and actions of the last 20 years, you will see that they fit perfectly the official definition of genocide. I can quote you the definitions, if you wish. And you must be familiar with the facts, i.e. the daily slaughter of Palestinians, the destructions of their homes, and the well-known massacres which have occurred in Palestinian refugee camps.
Again, are you insulted every time someone mentions the awful truth in blunt words? Does it offend your illusion that the world is a civilized place? Incidentally, after the war in Yugoslavia, some of the crimes were officially defined as genocide by the Hague court, and they resemble Israel's actions to the T.
I don't know what you mean by our "wanton desecration of Islamic values"---unless you mean the presence of "infidels" on Islamic soil????
I mean the purposeful destruction of Islamic holy places and the treatment of detainees in ways that we know full well are humiliating on religious grounds - you must know the details of this! The US military has ridiculed Islamic beliefs and values in a way which the Muslims will not soon forget!
I see NO serious threat from Christian fundamentalism
Again, I offered you three of the many reasons to feel threatened and you reply with a generic denial. So now we know I am concerned and you are not. Still, it is not a meaningful debate. You are basically saying we need to nip Islamic Fundamentalism in the bud (how? by attacking other countries? by peaceful means? by what policies?), whereas the threat from our Christian fanatics simply should not be taken seriously and there is no need for action. Is that it?
Your newest essay on my commentary does not reveal your exact opinions.
Vittorio
|
Jan 08 '06
8:23 pm PST
|
|
Threats from Christianity and Islam--- (Reply to this comment)
by gaviidae
Hey Vic--
I posted my answers to your excellent questions. Hope you'll take a look!
http://www.epinions.com/content_4631339140
Gavia
|
Jan 08 '06
2:27 pm PST
|
|
Re: Definitions, definitions... (Reply to this comment)
by gaviidae
Hey, Vic, thanks for your your VERY comprehensive comment on my little essay! There's a lot we agree about on this subject, and some areas I would disagree with you. You concluded with a dozen or more serious qustions which I think I'll answer in a seperate posting, in order to do them justice. I think it's possible there are others who might like to address those questions---so maybe it will evolve into a "write-off" of sorts!
You said: --you cautiously insert in your commentary the idea that Islamic Fundamentalism is more to be feared than the Christian one. You say:
"---there are some on the Left who attempt to equate the actions of radical Islamicists like Bin Laden with the actions of the small minority of Christianist whackos..."
If it cannot be equated, tell me WHY NOT!
They are intellectualy equivelent, I suppose, but they differ GREATLY in the magnitude of the threat, at least at this point in history. While there are Christianist whackos blowing up an occasional abortion clinic there is currently no international Christianist organization the equivelent of al Qaeda, as far as I know.
It sounds like you are just buying standard propaganda whose goal is to demonize Islam and set the stage for a global 'struggle between two cultures'This only thinly veils our real interests in the Middle East (hegemony and resources)..
The hope is to help people gain a degree of democracy and freedom in that part of the world where theocratic tyranny still prevails. And of course goals of the West for hegemony and resources are also part of the equation.
Do not forget that State and Religion have almost always been coupled through human history, because religion is an excellent method of mass control, especially if it is hierarchically organized.
I have always liked Ayn Rand's formulation---the Mystic and the Brute aligning themselves to control and suppress the Rational! And sometimes the Mystics claim "science" as their authority!
So what the West is trying to do, i.e. decouple the two, is a great novelty, not an aberration.
Absolutely!
---both Islam and Christianity are peaceful religions for the most part, and both have adherents that occupy a huge spectrum, from the fanatic fringe, to the peaceful moderates, to the mildly interested. To characterize Islam as a more intolerant religion than Christianity would be a gratuitous statement.
I wouldn't characterize "Islam" that way, although there seems to be much in the sacred Islam writings that can hardly be interpreted otherwise---maybe same can be said of the Bible--but the threat is from radically extreme Islamists who have formed a widespread and well-funded international organization for apparent purposes of revenge, disruption, and destabilization, to assuage their resentment over perceived centuries old injustices----now manifested primarily in Western support of Israel.
The Crusades were nothing more than plundering expeditions with papal blessing.---Why should ít be any different in the future?
Because now we're more civilized, hopefully. I don't beieve there is anything happening now that could be reasonably characterized as "plundering."
Several things contribute to galvanize all the elements in Islam, most of all the oppressive (or genocidal) policies of Israel against the Palestinians,which the West supports,----
I don't think Israli policies toward Palestininians can reasonably be characterized as "oppressive" and certainly not as "genocidal." On the other hand, many Palestinians and Arabs express an explicit genocidal intent toward Israel. Palestinians have legitimate grievances, but I think your formulation is over the top, Vic!
---the US aggression on Iraq and our wanton desecration of Islamic values---
I don't know what you mean by our "wanton desecration of Islamic values"---unless you mean the presence of "infidels" on Islamic soil????
---it is the West that is contributing heavily to this wave of Islamic fanaticism---
We can agree that Islamist fanaticism is motivated by PERCEIVED injustices by the West---whether those perceptions are accurate or reasonable is a different matter. It's a little like saying that Hitler's fanaticism was caused by the actions of Jews.
To say that Bin Laden strives for world domination is so patently ridiculous I cannot believe you even said that.
Gee, I can't either! But while the immediate goal or tactic is to weaken the West through disruption, destabilization, and fear, the end goal of radical Islamists is a worldwide theocracy. Better to stop it before it becomes a possibility.
One should fear terrorism, but not to the point we doing now.----I would submit that the Christian fundamentalism is much more dangerous TO US than the Islamic one.
That strikes me as completely irrational. I see NO serious threat from Christian fundamentalism-----but I suppose it's possible that they are a threat to the goals of the far Left---?
After all, here is where the power is! You deny that the Christian wackos have any power.
The "Christian whackos" have NO power whatsoever, in my opinion. They are powerless, and that's why they resort to terrorist tactics like bombing abortion clinics and federal buildings---just as you said. Bush and his supporters are no way in the "Christian whacko" category as the whackos of the Left keep trying to assert.
I'm going to try to address all the questions you asked, but I'll do that seperately, Vic.
Gavia
|
Jan 08 '06
11:54 am PST
|
|
Definitions, definitions... (Reply to this comment)
by vicfar
Gavia,
When it comes to terms and definitions, there is little to argue about. Yet you cautiously insert in your commentary the idea that Islamic Fundamentalism is more to be feared than the Christian one. You say:
there are some on the Left who attempt to equate the actions of radical Islamicists like Bin Laden with the actions of the small minority of Christianist whackos...
If it cannot be equated, tell me WHY NOT!
It sounds like you are just buying standard propaganda whose goal is to demonize Islam and set the stage for a global 'struggle between two cultures'. This only thinly veils our real interests in the Middle East (hegemony and resources).
Both Islam and Christianity have violent elements in their sacred texts. Do not forget that State and Religion have almost always been coupled through human history, because religion is an excellent method of mass control, especially if it is hierarchically organized. So what the West is trying to do, i.e. decouple the two, is a great novelty, not an aberration.
As practiced today, both Islam and Christianity are peaceful religions for the most part, and both have adherents that occupy a huge spectrum, from the fanatic fringe, to the peaceful moderates, to the mildly interested. To characterize Islam as a more intolerant religion than Christianity would be a gratuitous statement.
In any case, religious leaders have been able, sometimes, to rally even the moderate troops in special situations, and Christians and Muslims have been known to wage religious wars if they believe their faith is danger or that some major threat exists. The Crusades were nothing more than plundering expeditions with papal blessing. In some cases Jerusalem was not even reached, the plundering having been easier elsewhere (see the first fall of Byzantium). Why should ít be any different in the future?
It is not surprising that Islam is rallying against Western powers, which they perceive as aggressive and corrupt, and it is not surprising the religious leaders can use the Khoran to galvanize their people, because it is the Muslims that are being oppressed . Several things contribute to galvanize all the elements in Islam, most of all the oppressive (or genocidal) policies of Israel against the Palestinians, which the West supports, as well as the US aggression on Iraq and our wanton desecration of Islamic values. Our next aggression (likely Iran) will galvanize the opposition under the Islamic faith even further. Therefore, it is the West that is contributing heavily to this wave of Islamic fanaticism, in one case even to the point of providing the indoctrination (to the Afghans when they had to oppose the USSR).
Thus, widespread religious fanaticism is the result of political oppression and not on inherent elements in the religion itself. To say that Bin Laden strives for world domination is so patently ridiculous I cannot believe you even said that. Where is the center of power? How can a few people hiding in caves rule the world? This nonsense propagated by our media would have us believe that these people are really dangerous to our way of life...Terrorism is the strategy of the powerless, who simply seek to destabilize as a defense weapon. One should fear terrorism, but not to the point we doing now. I mostly fear the reaction to terrorism, and also our amply demonstrated ability to inflict disasters on ourselves, usually unwittingly.
I would submit that the Christian fundamentalism is much more dangerous TO US than the Islamic one.
After all, here is where the power is! You deny that the Christian wackos have any power. Well, give me facts and a serious analysis. Do you or do you not see that our President is pandering to the extreme right in his vague statements about moral values? Do you see that even the opposition in this country has to claim to have faith in God to hope to be elected? Do you see that the right is blaming the social and economic malaise that is gripping this country obviously not to their own rapacious policies, but to the lack of 'good Christian values'?
Do you realize the School Board in Kansas has redefined science so that they could again repropose their misguided Christian science? (poor Galileo, we have to fight his battle again, after over 300 years!). Kansas is in the US, not in Kiribati or Easter Island!
Have you followed the school prayer debate and do you know that teachers have been disciplined for refusing to lead the children in prayer (in some backwaters of our country)? Do you realize there is a strong desire to institutionalize anti-gay discrimination and that the 2004 election was won in Ohio largely on this issue? I remind you that gays do not seek to be married in front of God (doctrine here rules) but only through a civil union, and that the attempt to deny this right is simply based on the ideals of a theocracy? I could go on and on, but it is not my essay here.
The bottom line:
Islamic fundamentalism is bad, but its dangers have been exaggerated politically by the Right-wing hawks in hopes of justifying their continued plunder of the Middle East.
Christian fundamentalism is also bad, and much more dangerous because very close to our executive power. The secular elements of our society have to fight this attempt to create a regime that is more and more Taliban-flavored.
How is that for another 'over the top' statement?
Vittorio
|
Jan 06 '06
6:26 am PST
|
|
Re: Could you mean me? (Reply to this comment)
by gaviidae
Hi Stephen, and thanks for stopping by!
Could you mean me?
Your use of the term "Christianist" was one of the things that prompted me to write this piece. I think it's a nearly empty set---but semantically it makes sense.
You say: I'm a conservative--and outright "reactionary" on the subject of presidential power--
(Neglecting your important parentheticals)And I'm a Liberal in terms of personal freedom and minimal interference from government---and reactionary on the subject of government power. Possibly close to Libertarian, in fact---
The apocalyptic imagery of Pat Robertson et al. is structurally similar to that of Islamists---
But in no way does he have "Christianist" goals. His opposition to abortion and gay marriage can hardly be construed as a push for a Christian theocracy, in my opinion.
---"Christianist" seems an apt semantic parallel for those who would impose Christian beliefs---
I don't know of any mainstream Christian groups who want to "impose Christian beliefs." Again, opposition to abortion on demand and to legalizing gay marriage is NOT imposing Christian beliefs. The term doesn't fit any of the Christian Right---but possibly some of the extreme fringe groups, of which I mentioned two examples.
An umbrella term for Islamists, Christianists, and Hinduists is "antimodernist."
Evidently you equate "modernist" to secular humanist. Christians and Islam, I'm sure, are opposed to secular humanism, since it negates religious belief, and its adherents are becoming more and more strident, militant and intolerant.
All want to repeal secular humanism--- Yes
---and to maintain an ethnocentrism that is untenable in a world with a globalized economy. No
There are Christian whacko fringe groups that want to maintain ethnocentrism (and racism) but not characteristic of the main stream, as I tried to argue in my essay. But I agree with you, it's an untenable idea in the world of today. Can't say about Islam and Hindu---
Gavia
|
Dec 29 '05
10:14 pm PST
|
|
Could you mean me? (Reply to this comment)
by Stephen_Murray
I'm a conservative (not least in considering in conserving the Burkean sense of "conservative" in contrast to the big-spending, empire-seeking Bush cabal of neo-cons) and outright "reactionary" on the subject of presidential power (a part of the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers that does not seem to interest the supposed champions of "strict constructionism").
The apocalyptic imagery of Pat Robertson et al. is structurally similar to that of Islamists, and "Christianist" seems an apt semantic parallel for those who would impose Christian beliefs (their interpretations, which have precious little to do with what is in the Gospels) on everyone. "Buddhistist" trips on the tongue (and does not seem to have real-world instances), but there are definitely Hinduists (including assassins of two Gandhis).
An umbrella term for Islamists, Christianists, and Hinduists is "antimodernist." All want to repeal secular humanism and restore a status quo that never existed and to maintain an ethnocentrism that is untenable in a world with a globalized economy.
|
Dec 29 '05
10:38 am PST
|
|
Re: Very well thought out (Reply to this comment)
by gaviidae
Thanks Letta---always a pleasure to hear from you!
Gavia
|
Dec 29 '05
9:28 am PST
|
|
Very well thought out (Reply to this comment)
by grandgram
I enjoyed your review and are so right on. There are terrorist in any religion and it has been in our world from the beginning.
Letta
|
Dec 29 '05
6:10 am PST
|
|
|
|
