Covering up women

[contracycle]

Originally posted by dk
These weren’t wars but governments founded upon Western rational philosophies that systematically slaughtered their own people by the hundred’s of thousands. You do need to distinguish modern liberalism from the atrocities committed in the name of Reason in the 20th Century before telling Muslims how to live a good life. Anything less presumes upon reason.

And indeed, atrocities committed today in the name of Liberalism, as the alleged "war on terror" (sic) escalates.

But indeed, to return to the central point: Western philosphy is crippled by its reliance on Moralism. The west therefore excuses its complicity in Nazism by asserting a moral critique, and then considers its hands to be washed. But it does not permit/recognise this behaviour among Muslims.

[dk]

NCDescartes was well aware of what happened to Galileo and was fearful that he might meet the same fate, so he had to be careful. To ignore that fact is to be obtuse. Descartes is called the father of modern philosophy because he was the first to break away from the tradition of the Scholastics.

You're making a needless exaggeration here. Galileo presented a flawed proof of Copernican heliocentric system, and when Kepler corrected Galileo he received Galileo's ridicule. Newton worked from Kepler’s conclusions. Despite modern secular myths Galileo was not subjected to brutality and never forbidden from his work. Galileo’s greatest scientific contribution came in mechanics especially dynamics, and his great contribution to astronomy was the telescope which Kepler used to prove a heliocentric solar system. Galileo’s jail keeper was his own daughter and his jail a home where he lived out his old age and continued his work unimpeded. If you check the historical record opposition for the Copernican system rose from the Protestants not Pope Paul III or his successors. Truth stranger than fiction.

Descartes was Jesuit educated and claimed to have received a revelation in a dream, and wasn’t shy about saying, “it was the Spirit of Truth that willed to open for him all the treasures of knowledge". While Descartes sought to avoid the condemnation Galileo had incurred, he repeated over and over again that one can not rely solely upon human senses because they are easily fooled. That much Descartes got right. Secularism at its core accepts only "sense perceptions" i.e. material causes. Therefore Hume's skepticism and Locke's empiricism can't be laid at Descartes' doorstep, and much less Freud's exagerated egoism that percolates post modern liberalism and feminism.

[dk]

Originally posted by contracycle
And indeed, atrocities committed today in the name of Liberalism, as the alleged "war on terror" (sic) escalates.

But indeed, to return to the central point: Western philosphy is crippled by its reliance on Moralism. The west therefore excuses its complicity in Nazism by asserting a moral critique, and then considers its hands to be washed. But it does not permit/recognise this behaviour among Muslims.

Whatever Muslim might be or might not be, they are not NAZIS, and they have no affinity for Darwin's theory or Darwin's cousin Galton's theory of Eugenics, both theories being central planks of NAZISM.

Ok, ctracylce here's where the rubber meets the road. Darwin's theory was published in 1859 as "Origin of Species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life". Two questions...

Why do secular nations tuncate the title on the library shelves and curriculums taught children across all liberal Western secular nations?
Is this a case of moralism or scientific indoctrination?

[contracycle]

Originally posted by dk
[B]Whatever Muslim might be or might not be, they are not NAZIS, and they have no affinity for Darwin's theory or Darwin's cousin Galton's theory of Eugenics, both theories being central planks of NAZISM.

Erm, granted? I never suggested they did; I suggested that western moralism excuses western complicity in Nazism, but does not extend the same courtesy to non-fundamentalist Muslims. Islam is demonised collectively and without nuance.

Why do secular nations tuncate the title on the library shelves and curriculums taught children across all liberal Western secular nations?

Difficult to speculate, but brevity is a suitably probable answer. The General and Specific Theories of Relativity are often only described as "relativity". The book "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" is usually truncated to "The Wealth of Nations". There need not be malice.


Is this a case of moralism or scientific indoctrination?

I see no particular reason to assume that it is either.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by dk
A reasonable person in the face of such brutal and systematic slaughter needs to question blind faith in progress.

A reasonable person must reject blind faith in anything. It was blind faith that lead to the USSR’s gulag, Germany’s death factories, the Crusades, the Rwandan and Bosnian massacres, and 9/11.

[dk]

contracycle: Erm, granted? I never suggested they did; I suggested that western moralism excuses western complicity in Nazism, but does not extend the same courtesy to non-fundamentalist Muslims. Islam is demonised collectively and without nuance.
dk: Well some Muslim people supported the NAZIS, and the Young Turks systematic irradiation of the Armenians in an effort to secularize Islam. Hitler used the Young Turks as an example to prove that genocide worked. In one of the most quoted passages in "Mein Kampf," Adolf Hitler asks, `Who remembers the Armenians?' I think you’ve got some explaining to do.


dk: Why do secular nations truncate the title on the library shelves and curriculums taught children across all liberal Western secular nations?
contracycle: Difficult to speculate, but brevity is a suitably probable answer. The General and Specific Theories of Relativity are often only described as "relativity". The book "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" is usually truncated to "The Wealth of Nations". There need not be malice.
dk: Who said propaganda needs to be malice. The omission of the subtitle in liberal secular school curriculums does perpetrate a fiction upon students that denies them a meaningful lesson.


dk: Is this a case of moralism or scientific indoctrination?
contracycle: I see no particular reason to assume that it is either.
dk: I think there is a particular nontrivial reason and its called indoctrination. Liberals use science to indoctrinate kids because they lack moral integrity. The end.

[dk]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
A reasonable person must reject blind faith in anything. It was blind faith that lead to the USSR’s gulag, Germany’s death factories, the Crusades, the Rwandan and Bosnian massacres, and 9/11. Ok, then NC deserves a measured response to his questions... I'd like to hear...What gives the West the right to tell Muslims how to live a good life?

With respect to dress codes.

[lpetrich]

LP:
So Catholic priests and nuns are living grossly anti-family lifestyles? ...

I'm wondering if these people are evil traitors because they live in an anti-nuclear-family fashion, either alone or in convents.

Originally posted by dk
Do you find it edifying to libel priests and nuns without cause? How am I supposed to be libeling them when I am pointing out that these supposed exemplars of virtue are living non-nuclear-family lifestyles?

[lpetrich]

dk:
NC has a point everyone has neglected to address. Blind faith in progress lead to the USSR’s gulag, Germany’s death factories, Chinese Great Leap Forward and Pol Pots killing fields.

The Great Leap Forward was a colossal blunder, a Great Leap Backward. The others were exterminations of supposed undesirables. Which makes me wonder what dk and NonContradiction would think about someone who proposed the mass extermination of supposed threats to True Religion and Family Values.

Like homosexuals and anyone who seems the least bit different from rigid gender stereotypes.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by dk
dk: Well some Muslim people supported the NAZIS, and the Young Turks systematic irradiation of the Armenians in an effort to secularize Islam. Hitler used the Young Turks as an example to prove that genocide worked. In one of the most quoted passages in "Mein Kampf," Adolf Hitler asks, `Who remembers the Armenians?' I think you’ve got some explaining to do.

I'm obviously not following the point you are making and do not know how to respond.


dk: Who said propaganda needs to be malice. The omission of the subtitle in liberal secular school curriculums does perpetrate a fiction upon students that denies them a meaningful lesson.

What fiction does it perpetrate, and why would it be undercut by citing the whole title?


dk: I think there is a particular nontrivial reason and its called indoctrination. Liberals use science to indoctrinate kids because they lack moral integrity. The end. [/B]

Ah, down to the bald statements. No, the mythical "liberals" do not "use science" to "indoctrinate"; they explore reality and discuss - I'll even allow propogate - their understanding of the world. This is by contrast to theistic propaganda that only certain and specific sources of data are valid, and that certain observable information must be ignored.

Please note I have avoided any moral claims or claims to moral society. Indeed, this moralism, I charge, is a leftover from theism. What people do with the tools that science and technology provide is up to them. However, I think that while such tools may be abused in a non-theistic context, the reliance on the supernatural and the secret in theism makes it much less competent and much more likely to rationalise atrocity.

[lpetrich]

dk:
Whatever Muslim might be or might not be, they are not NAZIS, and they have no affinity for Darwin's theory or Darwin's cousin Galton's theory of Eugenics, both theories being central planks of NAZISM.

However, anti-Semitism is a Christian tradition as old as the Gospel of Matthew, where Pontius Pilate bows to the pressure of the Jewish authorities and a lynch mob. A mob which says "May his blood be upon us and on our children", which is not what a self-respecting lynch mob would say. A real lynch mob would say "Death to Jesus!!!"

This was followed in later centuries with such things as the Blood Libel, that Jews killed non-Jewish babies and used their blood in Matzohs. The Inquisition's main "mission" was to hunt down hidden Jews, and Martin Luther wrote a book called "The Jews and their Lies".

As to Muslim anti-Semitism, the rise of present-day Israel has provoked lots of it, like approving distribution of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

Darwin's theory was published in 1859 as "Origin of Species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life". ...

It's clear that dk has not read that book. I have, and it's NOT about might-makes-right ideology -- it's about biology. And you can read in it what Darwin meant by "favored races".

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by dk
Ok, then NC deserves a measured response to his questions... I'd like to hear...What gives the West the right to tell Muslims how to live a good life?

With respect to dress codes.

What gives anyone the right to tell anyone else how to live a good life?

The answer is "nothing." No one has the right to force or tell anyone else how to live. No one has the right to tell Muslims how to dress, and no one here is claiming that they do. If one wants to wear a burqa, go right ahead and wear it, but do not force a style of dress on anyone, especially under penalty of death.

People should be free to do what they want as long as they don't impinge on another person's right to do what they want to do; that is the essence of liberalism. The only limits to freedom should be those that are necessary to maximize freedom for all. That's why it's okay to dress as you want to but not okay to kill someone for not dressing they way you want her to. The latter scenario impinges upon another person's freedom, but the former does not.

[dk]

(snip)

contracycle: What fiction does it perpetrate, and why would it be undercut by citing the whole title?
dk: Teaching Darwinism absent the racial and anthropological undercurrents belays the atrocities committed in the name of science, against morality.


dk: I think there is a particular nontrivial reason and its called indoctrination. Liberals use science to indoctrinate kids because they lack moral integrity. The end.
contracycle: Ah, down to the bald statements. No, the mythical "liberals" do not "use science" to "indoctrinate"; they explore reality and discuss - I'll even allow propogate - their understanding of the world. This is by contrast to theistic propaganda that only certain and specific sources of data are valid, and that certain observable information must be ignored.
dk: I’m not sure what selected cuts from a theory have to do with discussion. Clearly, if the subtitle were included it would generate a great deal of worthwhile discussion.

contracycle: Please note I have avoided any moral claims or claims to moral society. Indeed, this moralism, I charge, is a leftover from theism. What people do with the tools that science and technology provide is up to them. However, I think that while such tools may be abused in a non-theistic context, the reliance on the supernatural and the secret in theism makes it much less competent and much more likely to rationalise atrocity.
dk: According to whom, the US secular public education system in crisis or University Campuses where 1/4 women claims to be the victim of a sexual assault, and 1/10 men are accused of perpetrating sexual assault. Is this why Muslim’s should dress like us?

[contracycle]

Originally posted by dk
Teaching Darwinism absent the racial and anthropological undercurrents belays the atrocities committed in the name of science, against morality.

IMO, the West could do with more acknowledgement of its bloody past, yes. And yes, I agree (as I have done already) that the West rather easily excuses itself of this past in a manner which it does not apply to others.

But the presumption that this would make much of a difference is wrong, IMO. After all, the BOOK is still there to read. Makes no sense to expect that only editing the title will make much difference.

dk: I’m not sure what selected cuts from a theory have to do with discussion. Clearly, if the subtitle were included it would generate a great deal of worthwhile discussion.

If you are arguing that the THEORY has been cut, do you have any evidence for your claim? All I see is your observation that the title has been "cut", and even there I suggest and entirely plausible alternative.

dk: According to whom, the US secular public education system in crisis or University Campuses where 1/4 women claims to be the victim of a sexual assault, and 1/10 men are accused of perpetrating sexual assault. Is this why Muslim’s should dress like us? [/B]

No. But then again, I also agree that the west has a massively inflated sense of its progress toward womens liberation. Just as it has a grossly inflated self-perception of its progress on racism (as a number of posters on these boards demonstrate so well).

All of this may yet be true without any assertion of conspiracy or distortion. And I most certainly do not support the use of force to threaten other countries to become more like the West.

None of this has much to do with "idolatry of the mind"... especially if one recognises that, due to its materialsit origins, not claim to ineraancy or morality per se is advanced. You objection seems a straw man to me.

[Soundsurfr]

I(man) think(intellect, reason, mind), therefore, I am. Descartes was arguing for the superiority of man and reason over the Abrahamic God and religious tradition. If that isn't the case, then why didn't he begin by proving the existence of God FIRST?

He did. He began with the only axiomatic piece of information he had that he couldn't rationally dispute (I think therefore I am), then went on to prove (at least to himself) that God existed.

If he had started with the PREMISE that God existed and went on from there (as you seem to be advocating), that would have been an example of assuming what you set out to prove.

[dk]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
What gives anyone the right to tell anyone else how to live a good life?

The answer is "nothing." No one has the right to force or tell anyone else how to live. No one has the right to tell Muslims how to dress, and no one here is claiming that they do. If one wants to wear a burqa, go right ahead and wear it, but do not force a style of dress on anyone, especially under penalty of death.

(snip) We've been thru this Rick, and France has told Muslim women how to dress. Do you think we need to invade France?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
People should be free to do what they want as long as they don't impinge on another person's right to do what they want to do; that is the essence of liberalism.

It was the liberal west that invaded and colonized North Africa, Egypt, etc. It was the liberal west that invaded Iraq in the name of "Operation Iraqi Freedom". It was the liberal west that helped create the problems that we now have in the Middle East today. The liberal west talks about liberalism and freedom, while at the same time it colonizes Muslims and imposes their ideas upon them. Where have the Muslims invaded the west to impose their ideas upon non-Muslim people in the west?

You keep talking about Muslims imposing their agenda upon others, but I don't see evidence of that. Muslim people enforcing an Islamic dress code upon Muslim men and women doesn't constitute imposing an agenda upon non-Muslims. Where is the evidence that Muslims are imposing an agenda upon non-Muslims? There is a plethora of evidence that non-Muslim liberal Westerners have been, and still are, imposing a Western agenda upon Muslims. The hypocrisy is blatant.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by dk
We've been thru this Rick, and France has told Muslim women how to dress. Do you think we need to invade France?

No, France should stop telling Muslims how to dress.

Originally posted by NonContradiction
It was the liberal west that invaded and colonized North Africa, Egypt, etc. It was the liberal west that invaded Iraq in the name of "Operation Iraqi Freedom"....

Another of NC's mindless rants; even he must know that those invasions weren't over a dress code. Western forces invaded the ME, but they weren't motivated by either fashion or liberalism.

There is a plethora of evidence that non-Muslim liberal Westerners have been, and still are, imposing a Western agenda upon Muslims. The hypocrisy is blatant.

NC has yet to produce any evidence that liberals are imposing anything on Muslims other than demanding that they not impose themselves on anyone else, unless your definition of a liberal is the idiosyncratic one he has consistently employed to mean "anyone that is not a Muslim."

The idiocy of his over-generalizations and misrepresentations is blatant

[dk]

Originally posted by contracycle
IMO, the West could do with more acknowledgement of its bloody past, yes. And yes, I agree (as I have done already) that the West rather easily excuses itself of this past in a manner which it does not apply to others.
(snip)
I appreciate your insights, and my point stands. It is reasonable for Muslims to expect a explanation from Western reformers. The onus is on the reformers to pursuade Muslims, and to the extent the West uses subterfuge Muslims have reason to feel threatened. Western interests run way past dress codes, and I personally think dress codes are a front for a much more expansive and aggressive cultural agenda.

[Soundsurfr]

NC: As I have pointed out before, it's a fallacy to think that modern is better than ancient simply because it's modern.

I don't. I just think it's funny that someone would appeal to the wisdom of the middle ages. Perhaps I'm generalizing, but the Middle Ages struck me as a particularly brutal and closed-minded time in history.

NC. I will take the wisdom of the ancient world over what liberals in the modern world advocate as rational any day of the week.

I'd be interested in hearing some of that wisdom, as opposed to just random trashing of Western secularism, which is really all we've gotten from you so far. Some ancient wisdom would be refreshing, in fact.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Soundsurfr
(snip NC's personal summation of Western philosophy)
NC: It's no wonder that philosophy is often called idolatry of the mind.

Soundsurfr: And it's no wonder religion is often called the opiate of the masses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NC: Why did you snip my summation of Western philosophy?

Because it was a ranting and raving jumble of biased personal opinion that I was having trouble correlating with any sort of meaningful point other than "Western secular philosphy sucks and is perpetrated by a bunch of morons". We already know your opinion of Western ideology and liberals, and you didn't advance any new information.

NC: You didn't even address any of the points that I made in the summation. What does religion being the opiate of the masses have to do with philosophy being idolatry of the mind? You did NOT address the post.

Post something worth addressing, i.e. something that is not an insult to or vitriolic opinion of secular thought and I'll be happy to address the post.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Soundsurfr
NC: Instead of correcting what was wrong with religion and the idea of God in Europe, the liberals decided to abandon it all together.

Soundsurfr: So all liberals are atheists? That's a new one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NC: I never said that all liberals were atheists. Some liberals were deists.

And no liberals are/were Christians?

[dk]

Originally posted by lpetrich
dk:
NC has a point everyone has neglected to address. Blind faith in progress lead to the USSR’s gulag, Germany’s death factories, Chinese Great Leap Forward and Pol Pots killing fields.

The Great Leap Forward was a colossal blunder, a Great Leap Backward. The others were exterminations of supposed undesirables. Which makes me wonder what dk and NonContradiction would think about someone who proposed the mass extermination of supposed threats to True Religion and Family Values.

Like homosexuals and anyone who seems the least bit different from rigid gender stereotypes. lpetrich, try to remember a liberal's claim to fame is reason. If the West can't articulate a compelling case then liberalism fails on its own terms.

[Fluffy]

NC, how disingenuous, ask any non-Muslim woman traveling in most Muslim country it she can go jogging with the shorts and t-shirt on or, for that matter, any Muslim woman who does not which to cover herself up or even be Muslim for that matter.

[Soundsurfr]

NC: It was the liberal west that invaded and colonized North Africa, Egypt, etc.

True. And now that the West has withdrawn, the Muslims have begun their own colonization in Algeria, Sudan and elsewhere.

NC: It was the liberal west that invaded Iraq in the name of "Operation Iraqi Freedom". It was the liberal west that helped create the problems that we now have in the Middle East today.

Sure, blame the liberal West for everything. That's not myopic. That's not prejudiced. How about Wahhabists? If I recall correctly, they have been carrying out violent attacks against innocent civilians in the West and elsewhere on a regular basis and continue to do so. Or did I get that wrong?

NC: The liberal west talks about liberalism and freedom, while at the same time it colonizes Muslims and imposes their ideas upon them. Where have the Muslims invaded the west to impose their ideas upon non-Muslim people in the west?

In Spain in 711 AD, when Muslims brought the whole Southern coast of the Mediterranean under their control, then pressed their invasion northward until they were stopped by the French king Charles Martel in 732. If Martel had not succeeded, we'd be having a much different discussion today.

[dk]

Originally posted by lpetrich
dk:
NC has a point everyone has neglected to address. Blind faith in progress lead to the USSR’s gulag, Germany’s death factories, Chinese Great Leap Forward and Pol Pots killing fields.

The Great Leap Forward was a colossal blunder, a Great Leap Backward. The others were exterminations of supposed undesirables. Which makes me wonder what dk and NonContradiction would think about someone who proposed the mass extermination of supposed threats to True Religion and Family Values.

Like homosexuals and anyone who seems the least bit different from rigid gender stereotypes. There it is, an expansive cultural agenda. Liberals Dress codes, feminism and human rights are suckers bate for homosexuality, gay marriage, gay adoption...etc... If I were a Muslim by I'd say, settle your own cultural war before trying export Western style subterfuge, economic blackmail, dependency and boots.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Fluffy
NC, how disingenuous, ask any non-Muslim woman traveling in most Muslim country it she can go jogging with the shorts and t-shirt on or, for that matter, any Muslim woman who does not which to cover herself up or even be Muslim for that matter.

There is a point that you and practically everybody else here is ignoring. If Muslims come to America, they are expected to show respect for the American authorities. If non-Muslim Americans go to a Muslim country, then it's not unreasonable to request the same from them. If you don't feel that you can do that, then don't go to a Muslim country. Similarly, if Muslims don't feel that they can respect the American authorities, then they should come here.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
There is a point that you and practically everybody else here is ignoring. If Muslims come to America, they are expected to show respect for the American authorities. If non-Muslim Americans go to a Muslim country, then it's not unreasonable to request the same from them. If you don't feel that you can do that, then don't go to a Muslim country. Similarly, if Muslims don't feel that they can respect the American authorities, then they should come here.

False analogy.

A true analogy would be one in which Muslim women who come to America were forced to wear bikinis and not allowed to wear burqas

In America a woman, Muslim or not, may wear a burqa or a bikini; it is her choice.

[Fluffy]

But NC, that’s a religious requirement - why force non-Muslim women to abide by Muslim law when non- Muslim men are forbidden to dress like Muslim men.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Soundsurfr
NC: As I have pointed out before, it's a fallacy to think that modern is better than ancient simply because it's modern.

Soundsurfr: I don't. I just think it's funny that someone would appeal to the wisdom of the middle ages. Perhaps I'm generalizing, but the Middle Ages struck me as a particularly brutal and closed-minded time in history.

Perhaps, you are the one who is being closed-minded to the wisdom of ancient people. Speaking of brutal, you should take a look at the bloodshed in the last 100 years in the modern world.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by NC
There is a point that you and practically everybody else here is ignoring. If Muslims come to America, they are expected to show respect for the American authorities. If non-Muslim Americans go to a Muslim country, then it's not unreasonable to request the same from them. If you don't feel that you can do that, then don't go to a Muslim country. Similarly, if Muslims don't feel that they can respect the American authorities, then they should come here.

Originally posted by Dr. Rick
False analogy.

A true analogy would be one in which Muslim women who come to America were forced to wear bikinis and not allowed to wear burqas

In America a woman, Muslim or not, may wear a burqa or a bikini; it is her choice.

It's not a false analogy. Actually your analogy of the bikini and burqa is a false analogy. Something more analogous would be polygamy. There are laws in the US against polygamy, so if a Muslim comes to America, then he can't complain if he gets arrested for practising polygamy, having full knowledge that that is what the law was before he immigrated.

[NonContradiction]

NC: It was the liberal west that invaded Iraq in the name of "Operation Iraqi Freedom". It was the liberal west that helped create the problems that we now have in the Middle East today.

SoundSurfr: Sure, blame the liberal West for everything. That's not myopic. That's not prejudiced. How about Wahhabists? If I recall correctly, they have been carrying out violent attacks against innocent civilians in the West and elsewhere on a regular basis and continue to do so. Or did I get that wrong?

The difference is terrorists don't invade a country, like the US did, topple a government, and then set up a government to implement an approved agenda of the US. Have the Muslims done that anywhere in the West?


NC: The liberal west talks about liberalism and freedom, while at the same time it colonizes Muslims and imposes their ideas upon them. Where have the Muslims invaded the west to impose their ideas upon non-Muslim people in the west?

Soundsurfr: In Spain in 711 AD, when Muslims brought the whole Southern coast of the Mediterranean under their control, then pressed their invasion northward until they were stopped by the French king Charles Martel in 732. If Martel had not succeeded, we'd be having a much different discussion today.

It's interesting to note that you had to go all the way back to the ancient world, the Age of Empires, to find an example. Back in those days, if one didn't conquer his neighbor, one would be conquered. Would you mind finding an example in the modern world of Muslims invading a Western country and imposing their agenda upon non-Muslims? There are numerous examples of LIBERAL Western democracies invading Muslim countries and imposing their agenda upon them. Oh the irony of it all!

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
It's not a false analogy. Actually your analogy of the bikini and burqa is a false analogy. Something more analogous would be polygamy. There are laws in the US against polygamy, so if a Muslim comes to America, then he can't complain if he gets arrested for practising polygamy, having full knowledge that that is what the law was before he immigrated.

Noticeably absent from his post is any explanation as to why the bikini/burqa analogy would be false; NC just states it, but to borrow and slightly modify a phrase from him; " you may repeat it all you want, but that won't make it false."

NC does make a valid point with his polygamy analogy, which is true just as the bikini/burqa one is. The liberal solution is to legalize polygamy; as long as no one is forced to practice polygamy, there is no reason that it shouldn't be legal in the US, just as wearing either a bikini or burqa should be legal in Iran.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
No one is denying that Descartes attempted to prove the existence of God by using a variation of St. Anslem's argument. You are right, he didn't just "borrow" an argument for the existence of God.

Well, then, why did you suggest that he did?

He created his own variation of the ontological argument. However, be that as it may, it doesn't change the thrust of my argument. It simply corrects a detail.

Yes, he did...as part of a larger case for proving the existence of God.

The main thrust of your argument is that Descartes wasn't trying to prove the existence of God. Then you suggested that there was a problem with Descartes because you think that if Descartes was trying to prove God's existence, then he should have started with this. The assumption that someone argue for something only by starting arguing for that thing is a faulty assumption.

Alvin Plantinga, for instance, starts with epistemology in general, and then goes on to deal with religious epistemology. Just because he doesn't start with religious epistemology, doesn't mean that it isn't one of his primary goals. Because, as we all know, Plantinga - like Descartes - thinks that God grounds, or provides foundation to epistemology.

I have demonstrated that Descartes was indeed aiming to demonstrate God's existence. The Cogito is part of a much more complex epistemological project. Descartes's epistemology was not an atheistic epistemology; it is foundationalist, and ultimately relies on belief in a non-deceiving God in order to get beyond the minimal knowledge of one's own existence (which is the Cogito). If we want to get outside of the so-called 'brain in a vat' hypothesis (skepticism), the Cogito is not enough; we need God, and a non-deceiving one at that.

The point that I was making, and I am repeating myself here, is that the existence of God doesn't form the basis of his philosophy.

Goodness. Please see Descartes's letter to the Sorbonne for evidence of the fact that he viewed God as the basis for his epistemology. I've posted it twice.

The basis of Descartes' philosophy is man and reason, NOT God and religious tradition. I(man) think(intellect, reason, mind), therefore, I am. Descartes was arguing for the superiority of man and reason over the Abrahamic God and religious tradition. If that isn't the case, then why didn't he begin by proving the existence of God FIRST? I am not going to argue the point any further because to do so would be pointless.

Please see above.

Descartes was well aware of what happened to Galileo and was fearful that he might meet the same fate, so he had to be careful.

And this suggests what, exactly?

[Soundsurfr]

NC has a point everyone has neglected to address. >>>>Blind faith in progress lead to the USSR’s gulag, Germany’s death factories, Chinese Great Leap Forward and Pol Pots killing fields. <<<<

It's not that simple. You may attribute such attrocities to "blind faith in progress" or the extension of Western ideas while others would attribute them to the inevitable abuse of power by totalitarian states. Such abuse of power is not an axiomatic outcropping of Western rational thought, as you and NC would like to portray it for the sake of convenience and as a means to counter with your own neo-Islamic, patriarchal philosophies. There are half a billion people living in the West, many of them liberals, many of whom fought and died to protect themselves from the governments your are citing. What Western philosophical group rallied in favor of Pol Pot's campaigns or Stalin's paranoid murders?

dk: A reasonable person in the face of such brutal and systematic slaughter needs to question blind faith in progress.

A reasonable person needs to take a less biased and superficial look at the root causes of those atrocities. Especially knowing that they were the result of warped bastardizations of Western concepts, indeed if they had anything to do with Western ideologies at all. Pol Pot and Mau were anything but Westerners. Stalin was a megalomaniac and just recently we saw similar behavior at the hands of Sadaam Hussein.

dk: You do need to distinguish modern liberalism from the atrocities committed in the name of Reason in the 20th Century before telling Muslims how to live a good life. Anything less presumes upon reason.

I would say that YOU need to distinguish modern liberalism from those atrocities, since you arbitrarily assign them the blame. And no one is presuming to tell Muslims how to live a good life. I haven't heard anyone here say that Muslims should not participate in any form of lifestyle they choose.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Luiseach
The main thrust of your argument is that Descartes wasn't trying to prove the existence of God.

No, the main thrust of my argument is that Descartes was attempting to establish a new foundation for all of knowledge to rest upon. "I think, therefore, I am." Where is there any mention of God in that statement?

[Soundsurfr]

NC: The difference is terrorists don't invade a country, like the US did, topple a government, and then set up a government to implement an approved agenda of the US.

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps it's better to murder innocent people at random than to try to unseat a manic Stalinist dictator.

NC: Have the Muslims done that anywhere in the West?

They don't have the military power. And I for one am not interested in finding out if they would, because I think I already know the answer. When they thought they had the firepower to win, they didn't hesitate to launch an uprovoked attack against Israel.

NC: It's interesting to note that you had to go all the way back to the ancient world, the Age of Empires, to find an example.

You asked for an example, you got one. I knew you wouldn't like it and I figured you wouldn't acknowledge it. You are very predictable.

NC: Back in those days, if one didn't conquer his neighbor, one would be conquered.

When Muslims go out on an imperialistic rampage, you defend them. When Christians do it, you cry foul. You should try a little harder to couch your prejudices if you want to be taken seriously.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
No, the main thrust of my argument is that Descartes was attempting to establish a new foundation for all of knowledge to rest upon. "I think, therefore, I am." Where is there any mention of God in that statement?

Goodness. Descartes's epistemological foundation was God, NC.

Descartes's thinking doesn't stop with the Cogito.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Soundsurfr
NC has a point everyone has neglected to address. >>>>Blind faith in progress lead to the USSR’s gulag, Germany’s death factories, Chinese Great Leap Forward and Pol Pots killing fields. <<<<

It's not that simple. You may attribute such attrocities to "blind faith in progress" or the extension of Western ideas while others would attribute them to the inevitable abuse of power by totalitarian states. Such abuse of power is not an axiomatic outcropping of Western rational thought, as you and NC would like to portray it for the sake of convenience and as a means to counter with your own neo-Islamic, patriarchal philosophies. There are half a billion people living in the West, many of them liberals, many of whom fought and died to protect themselves from the governments your are citing. What Western philosophical group rallied in favor of Pol Pot's campaigns or Stalin's paranoid murders?

Who said that Western thought was monolithic? We almost had a world-wide nuclear holocaust because of the conflicting ideologies of the west and the east. The truth is that all of these conflicting ideologies originated out of western thought. Eastern philosophy had NOTHING to do with it. It was WESTERN philosophy that had the whole world on the brink of destruction.

[Soundsurfr]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
No, the main thrust of my argument is that Descartes was attempting to establish a new foundation for all of knowledge to rest upon. "I think, therefore, I am." Where is there any mention of God in that statement?

If your point is that Western philosophy and epistemology doesn't start with the blind assertion that there is a God, then I agree. But for that matter, neither does Eastern philosophy.

[Soundsurfr]

NC: The truth is that all of these conflicting ideologies originated out of western thought.

What I'm thankful for, NC, is that I long ago learned to distinguish MY OPINION from THE TRUTH. Let's hope someday you will do the same.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Soundsurfr
If your point is that Western philosophy and epistemology doesn't start with the blind assertion that there is a God, then I agree. But for that matter, neither does Eastern philosophy.

Good point.

Also, we need to remember that modern Islamic philosophy doesn't proceed on the basis of blind faith either.

Indeed, non-Islamic ideas have been incorporated into modern Islamic philosophical thought.

[Soundsurfr]

NC: We almost had a world-wide nuclear holocaust because of the conflicting ideologies of the west and the east. The truth is that all of these conflicting ideologies originated out of western thought.

So your point is that Western thought has created conflicting ideologies, and for this you condemn all of Western thought. Is it your contention that Islamic thought has not created conflicting ideologies? Is there no bloodshed associated with any intra-Islamic ideological conflict?

Go back to the beginning of Islam and trace your way to today. There was never a time where different Islamic ideologies existed in harmony with each other, beginning with Muhammed's direct descendants.

For this it is not appropriate to simply write off Islamic ideology as bankrupt. Perhaps it's not even appropriate to speak of Islamic ideology as a homogeneous item. The same is true for Western ideology.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Soundsurfr
NC: The truth is that all of these conflicting ideologies originated out of western thought.

What I'm thankful for, NC, is that I long ago learned to distinguish MY OPINION from THE TRUTH. Let's hope someday you will do the same.

It's not my opinion that these conflicting ideologies originated out of western thought. It's a fact. I have no idea why you made this comment.

[dk]

dk: NC has a point everyone has neglected to address. >>>>Blind faith in progress lead to the USSR’s gulag, Germany’s death factories, Chinese Great Leap Forward and Pol Pots killing fields. <<<<
Soundsurfr: It's not that simple. You may attribute such attrocities to "blind faith in progress" or the extension of Western ideas while others would attribute them to the inevitable abuse of power by totalitarian states. Such abuse of power is not an axiomatic outcropping of Western rational thought, as you and NC would like to portray it for the sake of convenience and as a means to counter with your own neo-Islamic, patriarchal philosophies. There are half a billion people living in the West, many of them liberals, many of whom fought and died to protect themselves from the governments your are citing. What Western philosophical group rallied in favor of Pol Pot's campaigns or Stalin's paranoid murders?
dk: I didn’t say it was simple, but nations grow and prosper by solving problems time presents with life affirming solutions.


dk: A reasonable person in the face of such brutal and systematic slaughter needs to question blind faith in progress.
Soundsurfr: A reasonable person needs to take a less biased and superficial look at the root causes of those atrocities. Especially knowing that they were the result of warped bastardizations of Western concepts, indeed if they had anything to do with Western ideologies at all. Pol Pot and Mau were anything but Westerners. Stalin was a megalomaniac and just recently we saw similar behavior at the hands of Sadaam Hussein.
dk: Except for the first sentence I agree, and I could easily write the first sentence off to unintended animosity. .


dk: You do need to distinguish modern liberalism from the atrocities committed in the name of Reason in the 20th Century before telling Muslims how to live a good life. Anything less presumes upon reason.
Soundsurfr: I would say that YOU need to distinguish modern liberalism from those atrocities, since you arbitrarily assign them the blame. And no one is presuming to tell Muslims how to live a good life. I haven't heard anyone here say that Muslims should not participate in any form of lifestyle they choose.
dk: I see differences, and I see a reoccurring theme that reinvents itself but never changes. Absent God, sooner or later, in one form or another governments realize that killing people should solves all their problems.

[Soundsurfr]

DK:

I see differences, and I see a reoccurring theme that reinvents itself but never changes. Absent God, sooner or later, in one form or another governments realize that killing people should solves all their problems.

I see the same thing, but I don't see that governments who align themselves with God behave any differently.

As an aside, the Tibetans worship no God, and have never resorted to killing people to solve their problems. Even in the face of complete assimilation to the point of genocide on the part of the Chinese, their leader calls for compassion and non-violence as the answer to their oppression. That impresses me.

[Soundsurfr]

dk: I didn’t say it was simple, but nations grow and prosper by solving problems time presents with life affirming solutions.

Some examples?

[NonContradiction]

NC: We almost had a world-wide nuclear holocaust because of the conflicting ideologies of the west and the east. The truth is that all of these conflicting ideologies originated out of western thought.

Soundsurfr: So your point is that Western thought has created conflicting ideologies, and for this you condemn all of Western thought. Is it your contention that Islamic thought has not created conflicting ideologies?

Islam hasn't created competing foundationalist ideologies as Western philosophy has done. The vast majority, if not all, of the bloodshed among Muslims has been because of political, not theological, differences. The Sunni/Shiite distinction is a case in point. In other words, since we, as Muslims, all share the same foundation, that eliminates much of the conflict and bloodshed resulting from competing ideologies that has occured in the west.

Soundsurfr: Is there no bloodshed associated with any intra-Islamic ideological conflict?

Of course, there is. Human beings being what they are will always run into conflicts. However, the bloodshed among Muslims over the last 1400 years isn't anywhere near the amount of bloodshed in the West over the last 100 years because of conflicting ideologies. Over 180 million people have died because of ideological conflicts in the West over the last 100 years. Think about that number...

Facism, Nazism, Communism, and Zionism didn't come out of the Middle East. They all came out of the West. As a matter of fact, the people who have been the most ruthless and brutal in the whole history of Islam, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Hafiz Assad of Syria, and Gamal Abdul-Nasir of Egypt were all indoctrinated in socialism/communism/Marxism. May Allah have mercy upon the Muslims.

Soundsurfr: Go back to the beginning of Islam and trace your way to today. There was never a time where different Islamic ideologies existed in harmony with each other, beginning with Muhammed's direct descendants.

See above post. It's true that there was a civil war among Muslims shortly after the assassination of Uthman. However, that civil war had nothing to do with ideological conflicts.

[dk]

dk: I see differences, and I see a reoccurring theme that reinvents itself but never changes. Absent God, sooner or later, in one form or another governments realize that killing people should solves all their problems.
Soundsurfr: I see the same thing, but I don't see that governments who align themselves with God behave any differently.
As an aside, the Tibetans worship no God, and have never resorted to killing people to solve their problems. Even in the face of complete assimilation to the point of genocide on the part of the Chinese, their leader calls for compassion and non-violence as the answer to their oppression. That impresses me.
dk: I read somewhere that half the population of Tibet was Buddhist monks and their unique geography provides isolation and autonomy. Western Civilization proceeds from 1,400 years of steady progress dating back to the Dark Ages.


dk: I didn’t say it was simple, but nations grow and prosper by solving problems time presents with life affirming solutions.
Soundsurfr: Some examples?
dk: I’m not sure what you’re asking, the 19th and 20th Centuries have been fraught with problems stemming from colonialism, industrialization and democratization. Hundreds if not thousands of nations have popped into and out of existence.

[lpetrich]

dk:
I’m not sure what you’re asking, the 19th and 20th Centuries have been fraught with problems stemming from colonialism, industrialization and democratization. Hundreds if not thousands of nations have popped into and out of existence.

While previous centuries had been an earthly paradise, right? (sarcasm)

[lpetrich]

NonContradiction:
Islam hasn't created competing foundationalist ideologies as Western philosophy has done. The vast majority, if not all, of the bloodshed among Muslims has been because of political, not theological, differences. The Sunni/Shiite distinction is a case in point. In other words, since we, as Muslims, all share the same foundation, that eliminates much of the conflict and bloodshed resulting from competing ideologies that has occured in the west.

Pure whitewash. The Sunni/Shiite split has been both religious and political -- Islam has traditionally not drawn a sharp line between religion and politics. Especially not the sort of line that NC draws out of expediency.

However, the bloodshed among Muslims over the last 1400 years isn't anywhere near the amount of bloodshed in the West over the last 100 years because of conflicting ideologies. ...

Which is because there were simply fewer people available for killing, a point that dk also fails to see.

[dk]

NonContradiction:
However, the bloodshed among Muslims over the last 1400 years isn't anywhere near the amount of bloodshed in the West over the last 100 years because of conflicting ideologies. ...

lpetrich Which is because there were simply fewer people available for killing, a point that dk also fails to see. The political bloodshed of the 19th & 20th Centuries likely eclipsed all of human history.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by lpetrich
While previous centuries had been an earthly paradise, right? (sarcasm) [/B]

None. But, I fail to see how that excuses modern genocides and the massive extension of warfare into whole-state affairs. You have overextended the claim for rhetorical effect.

Which is because there were simply fewer people available for killing, a point that dk also fails to see.

Thats a nonsensical claim. That is basically to say that stepping up the killing is inconsequential. It also applies to both groups. This is spurious.

[NonContradiction]

NonContradiction: Islam hasn't created competing foundationalist ideologies as Western philosophy has done. The vast majority, if not all, of the bloodshed among Muslims has been because of political, not theological, differences. The Sunni/Shiite distinction is a case in point. In other words, since we, as Muslims, all share the same foundation, that eliminates much of the conflict and bloodshed resulting from competing ideologies that has occured in the west.

lpetrich: Pure whitewash. The Sunni/Shiite split has been both religious and political -- Islam has traditionally not drawn a sharp line between religion and politics. Especially not the sort of line that NC draws out of expediency.

You can call it pure whitewash all you want, but supporting your claim is going to be difficult. I never said that Islam draws a sharp line between religion and politics. To make such a statement would undermine the point that I am making.

Allah is "The Absolute" in religion and politics, which prevents bloody ideological conflicts that demonize whole categories of people. All Muslims, whether they are Sunni or Shiite, accept that Allah is The Absolute. He is at the head of the Muslim society and the sole author of the criteria to distinguish between right and wrong.

The Shiite believe that Ali should have been the first successor after Muhammad instead of Abu Bakr. This is a political difference, revolving around who should have been the leader first, and not an ideological conflict.

NonContradiction: However, the bloodshed among Muslims over the last 1400 years isn't anywhere near the amount of bloodshed in the West over the last 100 years because of conflicting ideologies. ...

lpetrich: Which is because there were simply fewer people available for killing, a point that dk also fails to see.

The main reason why the number is so great is because of the ideological conflicts that have arisen out of Western thought. Hegel's absolute spirit became an absolute nightmare for over 100 million people living under Marxism/Leninism.

[Soundsurfr]

dk: I didn’t say it was simple, but nations grow and prosper by solving problems time presents with life affirming solutions.
Soundsurfr: Some examples?
dk: I’m not sure what you’re asking, the 19th and 20th Centuries have been fraught with problems stemming from colonialism, industrialization and democratization. Hundreds if not thousands of nations have popped into and out of existence.

You said that nations grow and prosper by solving problems with life affirming solutions. What I'm asking is for you to give us some examples of nations growing and prospering by solving problems with life affirming solutions.

[Soundsurfr]

NonContradiction: Islam hasn't created competing foundationalist ideologies as Western philosophy has done.

That's an imaginary distinction. Competing ideologies resulting in conflict can be foundationally similar or foundationally different - they're still conflicts and they're still violent. Islamic political AND ideological conflicts exist and continue to grow. Witness the bombing of Mosques in Iraq and government institutions in Saudi Arabia. Witness the Muslim government's need for crackdowns on Islamic madrassah's in Pakistan, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. The only reason the numbers of deaths are low compared to the West is because the antagonists don't have the power or the resources to inflict mass casualties. Yet.

NC: The vast majority, if not all, of the bloodshed among Muslims has been because of political, not theological, differences.

I would say the same is true outside of the Middle east, but to say there are no theological differences among Muslims is disengenuous at best. All Muslims believe that Allah is God, but the differences start pretty soon after that.

NC: The Sunni/Shiite distinction is a case in point. In other words, since we, as Muslims, all share the same foundation, that eliminates much of the conflict and bloodshed resulting from competing ideologies that has occured in the west.

LOL. From the day Muhammed died, Muslims have fallen into internal conflict that continues to this day. The fact that they had the same *foundation* didn't stop them from assassinating each other for political gain, inciting civil wars or organizing bloodthirsty rebellious groups like the Khawarij. I notice you avoid mentioning the Sunni-Shiite/Wahhabi distinction which has recently resulted in bloodshed and will result in much more, I predict, as time goes on. We in the West have no monopoly over violence, conflict or aggression, NC.

NC: You can call it pure whitewash all you want, but supporting your claim is going to be difficult.

It is whitewash, and supporting the claim is as simple as pulling out any book on Islamic history.

NC: I never said that Islam draws a sharp line between religion and politics. To make such a statement would undermine the point that I am making.

Now you're contradicting yourself. You said Islamic conflicts are the result of politics, not theology. Either we draw a distinction between the two, or your comment is meaningless. But then, you agree that in Islam, there is no clear distinction between the two?

NC: The Shiite believe that Ali should have been the first successor after Muhammad instead of Abu Bakr. This is a political difference, revolving around who should have been the leader first, and not an ideological conflict.

If that were all it entailed, not many people would care about who should have been the first successor, because a thousand years later, the point would be moot. But the fact that there are two different factions in tension to this day springs from the significant differences in ideology arising from Bakr's succession prior to Ali. Then later, when Ali did finally take over, how did he die? He was assassinated by an ideological opponent.

Yeah, Islam enjoys a peaceful, harmonious history, free of ideological conflict. Give us some more revisionist history.

NC: The main reason why the number is so great is because of the ideological conflicts that have arisen out of Western thought.

The number is great because of the power and resources that were available to the totalitarians when the conflicts arose. To imply that Muslim conflicts are less violent or bloodthirsty than Western or Eastern conflicts is ludicrous. Violence is violence, hatred is hatred, and there are a million factors aside from ideology that contribute to the number of people who are murdered.

NC: Hegel's absolute spirit became an absolute nightmare for over 100 million people living under Marxism/Leninism.

For the last time, we all agree with you that Marxism/Lennism is an ideological anathema. None of us support it and none of us are defending it!!! Why do you debate with us as if we stand in favor of it?

What we are defending is the absurd notion that because the twisted application of Marxism/Leninism in Russia and the Far East was a disaster, then all Western Ideology stands condemned. That's ridiculous.

[dk]

Originally posted by Soundsurfr
dk: I didn’t say it was simple, but nations grow and prosper by solving problems time presents with life affirming solutions.
Soundsurfr: Some examples?
dk: I’m not sure what you’re asking, the 19th and 20th Centuries have been fraught with problems stemming from colonialism, industrialization and democratization. Hundreds if not thousands of nations have popped into and out of existence.

You said that nations grow and prosper by solving problems with life affirming solutions. What I'm asking is for you to give us some examples of nations growing and prospering by solving problems with life affirming solutions.

Ok, the USSR(1992), China(1949), NAZI Germany(1945), and Japan(1945) come to mind.

[dk]

NonContradiction: Islam hasn't created competing foundationalist ideologies as Western philosophy has done.
Soundsurfr: That's an imaginary distinction. Competing ideologies resulting in conflict can be foundationally similar or foundationally different - they're still conflicts and they're still violent. Islamic political AND ideological conflicts exist and continue to grow. Witness the bombing of Mosques in Iraq and government institutions in Saudi Arabia. Witness the Muslim government's need for crackdowns on Islamic madrassah's in Pakistan, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. The only reason the numbers of deaths are low compared to the West is because the antagonists don't have the power or the resources to inflict mass casualties. Yet.
dk: Soundsurfr, I have to take your side here. I don’t think the carnage of the 20th Century can be chalked up to competing ideologies anymore the infighting between Muslim sects(tribes) can be chalked up to Allah and his Prophets. What we project upon ideologies and religion is our own human propensities to make us feel safe and justified.
As for the “power or the resources to inflict mass casualties”, I think the Mongol and Turkish invasion of Islam, the sac of Rome, the migrating barbarians (Visigoths, Goths, Huns,,, etc.) from the western steps of Asia tells another story. Its what followed these atrocities that should be the focus of history. The invading Barbarians in a savage victory were themselves converted by Moslems and Christians. There is no parallel in modern history, and that’s what distinguishes the Middle Ages from Modern Ages.

NonContradiction:: The Sunni/Shiite distinction is a case in point. In other words, since we, as Muslims, all share the same foundation, that eliminates much of the conflict and bloodshed resulting from competing ideologies that has occured in the west.
Soundsurfr: LOL. From the day Muhammed died, Muslims have fallen into internal conflict that continues to this day. The fact that they had the same *foundation* didn't stop them from assassinating each other for political gain, inciting civil wars or organizing bloodthirsty rebellious groups like the Khawarij. I notice you avoid mentioning the Sunni-Shiite/Wahhabi distinction which has recently resulted in bloodshed and will result in much more, I predict, as time goes on. We in the West have no monopoly over violence, conflict or aggression, NC.
dk: Soundsurfr I think you’re projecting human propensities upon the Nations of Islam. Once established in power the victors always turn upon themselves and thus infighting destroys most political movements. This is hardly a property of Islam, Christianity or Secular Nations but a common cause all share. Stalin denigrated Lenin just as Stalin’s successors denigrated him. Let me say this, Napoleon build his empire on democratic principles that assumed to the state the right of military subscription and the power to commandeer the industrial complex in times of war. In other words what made democracy irresistible across Western Europe was total warfare. NC I think you make an excellent point.

NonContradiction: The main reason why the number is so great is because of the ideological conflicts that have arisen out of Western thought.
Soundsurfr: The number is great because of the power and resources that were available to the totalitarians when the conflicts arose. To imply that Muslim conflicts are less violent or bloodthirsty than Western or Eastern conflicts is ludicrous. Violence is violence, hatred is hatred, and there are a million factors aside from ideology that contribute to the number of people who are murdered.
dk: You might want check out the Punic Wars between the early Roman Empire and Carthage Soundsurfr, the Roman legions leveled Carthage as completely as if they had a Atom Bomb.

Carthage, demanded that the Carthaginians abandon their city and move inland into North Africa. The Carthaginians, who were a commercial people that depended on sea trade, refused. The Roman Senate declared war, and Rome attacked the city itself. After a seige, the Romans stormed the town and the army went from house to house slaughtering the inhabitants in what is perhaps the greatest systematic execution of non-combatants before World War II. ----www.wsu.edu (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ROME/PUNICWAR.HTM)

NonContradiction:: Hegel's absolute spirit became an absolute nightmare for over 100 million people living under Marxism/Leninism.
Soundsurfr: For the last time, we all agree with you that Marxism/Lennism is an ideological anathema. None of us support it and none of us are defending it!!! Why do you debate with us as if we stand in favor of it?
What we are defending is the absurd notion that because the twisted application of Marxism/Leninism in Russia and the Far East was a disaster, then all Western Ideology stands condemned. That's ridiculous.
dk: I think NC has a point, his assertion certainly resonates with the history of popular social movements in the 20th Century.

[NonContradiction]

NonContradiction:
Islam hasn't created competing foundationalist ideologies as Western philosophy has done.

Soundsurfr: That's an imaginary distinction. Competing ideologies resulting in conflict can be foundationally similar or foundationally different - they're still conflicts and they're still violent.

I would prefer to use the term "conflicting ideologies" rather than competing ideologies. There is no doubt that conflicting ideologies must be different. Second, I don't think that it's an imaginary distinction. I make a distinction between internal political conflicts and ideological conflicts. Ideological conflicts threaten a nation from without, whereas internal politcal conflicts threaten a nation from within. By far, ideological conflicts pose the greatest threat to any nation because any nation in such a circumstance is fighting for its very survival. For this reason, it's not uncommon to find people in their respective nations, under threat from an ideological foe, to put their political differences aside to unify themselves against the greater threat to all.

The Muslim people have always had internal political problems and the associated bloodshed that often accompanies such scenarios. However, they never had an ideological opponent with his foot on their heads as has been the case for the last 100 years. I can assure you that if the Muslims didn't feel threatened and abused by the West, there probably would have never been a 9/11. Again, I repeat myself, it IS the ideological conflicts in the world that pose the greatest threat to world peace and have created the most bloodshed.

Soundsurfr: Islamic political AND ideological conflicts exist and continue to grow. Witness the bombing of Mosques in Iraq and government institutions in Saudi Arabia. Witness the Muslim government's need for crackdowns on Islamic madrassah's in Pakistan, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia.

Again, you are confusing internal political conflicts and ideological conflicts. Saudia Arabia is seen by many Muslims as having allied itself with an ideological opponent of Islam. This is what has prompted the violence by some Muslims. You are supporting my argument that most violence in the world results from ideological conflicts rather than internal political conflicts.

You bring Iraq as an example of an Islamic political and ideological conflict among Muslims. Hogwash...The war in Iraq had nothing to do with Islam or Muslims. Saddam Hussein was a member of the socialist Baath party.

You mention Mosques being blown up by Muslims in Iraq. What about all of the other Mosques that were destroyed by American bombing? If you want to compare the amount of violence among Muslims in Iraq, compared to the violence due to the ideological conflict between George Bush and Saddam Hussein, I don't think that there is any comparison. Again, you are making my point that most bloodshed occurs because of ideological conflicts.


Soundsurfr: The only reason the numbers of deaths are low compared to the West is because the antagonists don't have the power or the resources to inflict mass casualties. Yet.

Now how do you know that? You make it sound like there is a holocaust just waiting to come to fruition if the right opportunity presents itself. Where is your evidence that mass casualities would ensue? People like you were saying the same thing when Iran had its Islamic revolution. If anything, as time has gone by, Iran is far more moderate than it ever was before under the Ayatollah. You are engaging in hyperbole.

Soundsurfr: LOL. From the day Muhammed died, Muslims have fallen into internal conflict that continues to this day. The fact that they had the same *foundation* didn't stop them from assassinating each other for political gain, inciting civil wars or organizing bloodthirsty rebellious groups like the Khawarij.

No one has ever denied that there has been bloodshed because of internal political conflicts among Muslims. Would you care to show me any civilization that has been without any violence whatsoever? I am talking about comparing the violence of the Islamic civilization with Western civilization. Which one is greater?

Soundsurfr: I notice you avoid mentioning the Sunni-Shiite/Wahhabi distinction which has recently resulted in bloodshed and will result in much more, I predict, as time goes on.

I didn't know that there was such a thing as a "Sunni-Shiite/Wahhabi distinction. Sunni/Shiite is one distinction and Wahhabi/Sufi is a completely different distinction. You are mixing up groups of Muslims. The Sufis, the mystics of Islam, are way to the Left of the Wahhabis. A Jewish liberal, Steven Shwatrz, a convert to Sufism, wrote a book called, "The Two Faces of Islam" concerning the Wahhabi/Sufi distinction. The Wahhabi/Sufi distinction lends itself quite well to describing the political spectrum of Muslims today. I describe myself as being somewhere between the Wahhabis and the Sufis.

Soundsurfr: We in the West have no monopoly over violence, conflict or aggression, NC.

No, you don't have a monopoly over violence, conflict or aggression. What you do have is the distinction of being known as a far more violent and aggressive civilization than the Islamic civilization ever was. Compare all of the violence in Western civilization and compare it with the violence in the Islamic civilization.


NC: Hegel's absolute spirit became an absolute nightmare for over 100 million people living under Marxism/Leninism.

Soundsurfr: For the last time, we all agree with you that Marxism/Lennism is an ideological anathema. None of us support it and none of us are defending it!!! Why do you debate with us as if we stand in favor of it?

What we are defending is the absurd notion that because the twisted application of Marxism/Leninism in Russia and the Far East was a disaster, then all Western Ideology stands condemned. That's ridiculous.

Western Marxism is different from Marxism/Leninism. Cultural Marxism has played a pivotal role in the counter-culture movement in the West over the last 40 years, whether you want to admit it or not. Actually, the second wave feminist movement of the 60's originated out of Marxist-feminism. It's obvious which side most of the people here are on in the cultural war in the West, so let's stop playing games, shall we?

Second, it's amazing how people here advocate "free-thinking", but when free-thinking goes terribly wrong, as it did with Hegel and Karl Marx, nobody wants to accept any responsibility.

[Soundsurfr]

NC: I make a distinction between internal political conflicts and ideological conflicts.

Sound:Internal to where? What nations are the internal political conflicts among Muslims confined to?

NC: Ideological conflicts threaten a nation from without, whereas internal politcal conflicts threaten a nation from within.

Sound: That's more than an imaginary distinction, it's an inapplicable distinction, especially in this case. Ideologies don't conform to national borders and "the Muslims" are not a nation to be confronted from within or without. The existing conflicts among various Islamic factions have nothing to do with the internal politics of any given nation-state.

NC: By far, ideological conflicts pose the greatest threat to any nation because any nation in such a circumstance is fighting for its very survival.

Nations in political conflict are fighting for their survival as well. Conflict is conflict. Was the Iran/Iraq war political or ideological? How about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?

NC: For this reason, it's not uncommon to find people in their respective nations, under threat from an ideological foe, to put their political differences aside to unify themselves against the greater threat to all.

To me, it all has to do with power and control. Whatever poses the greatest threat to the people in power and control will be rallied against. Whether the foe is ideological or political is a non-distinction, especially when discussing Islam where politics and ideology are one and the same. If power and control is better maintained by siding with the external opponent against the *internal* opponent, then that is what will happen. The internal opponent then becomes the greater, more dangerous foe. You can watch it happening in the House of Saud as they threaten to arrest Wahhabi clerics who preach jihad against the West.

NC: The Muslim people have always had internal political problems and the associated bloodshed that often accompanies such scenarios. However, they never had an ideological opponent with his foot on their heads as has been the case for the last 100 years. I can assure you that if the Muslims didn't feel threatened and abused by the West, there probably would have never been a 9/11.

I don't think you can assure me of that when speaking of a culture that views any ideology that does not actively promote Islam as being the enemy of Islam. Or an ideological society that refers to non-adherents as "the infidels", "the unclean" or "the descendents of apes and pigs". Yes, Muslims have suffered abuse at the hands of the West. I believe this is the result of bad leadership, bad diplomacy and bad decision-making mostly on the part of Western leaders, as opposed to an outright ideological clash. Some of these bad decisions continue to be made.

But now it has become an ideological clash and there's nothing the West can do that will appease the bloodthirst of the extremists who seek vengeance against it. Withdrawing support and protection for Israel will not do it. Withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia will not do it. Withdrawing from Iraq, or staying in Iraq and attempting to rebuild it as we did Japan after WWII will not do it. Nothing short of the West's total self-destruction will cause the terrorists to back off. So now we in the West are forced to suffer abuse at the hands of the Islamics, which will in turn result in more abuse heaped back again from our side. It's like the Israeli/Palestinian situation, only escalated to a global level. Any suggestions on how we might get this to stop?

[Soundsurfr]

Second, it's amazing how people here advocate "free-thinking", but when free-thinking goes terribly wrong, as it did with Hegel and Karl Marx, nobody wants to accept any responsibility.

Who should accept responsibility and what should they do?

[contracycle]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Second, it's amazing how people here advocate "free-thinking", but when free-thinking goes terribly wrong, as it did with Hegel and Karl Marx, nobody wants to accept any responsibility.

Well thats because neither Marx nor Hegel assert claims to divine inspiration or inerrancy. So the results of any given human action do not have some ontological signifcance that challenges a normative view.

But that apart, I reject the attribution of failure. The Russian Revolution was IMO the high point of human civilisation (and rationality) to date. Encore, encore.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by Soundsurfr
[B]Sound: That's more than an imaginary distinction, it's an inapplicable distinction, especially in this case. Ideologies don't conform to national borders and "the Muslims" are not a nation to be confronted from within or without. The existing conflicts among various Islamic factions have nothing to do with the internal politics of any given nation-state.

I'm afraid this is quite bizarre. In the first instance, ideologies DO accord with the boundaries of nation-states fairly frequently. Is it not remarkable that so many children carry the same beliefes as their parents? I agree though that there is not a direct correspondance. But there is, I think, a difference in the form of conflicts experienced - China does not have too much in the way of ideological conflicts either, in a manner analogous to the claims advanced here about Islam. Yes, groups conflict over who should be in charge backed up by theistic positions and arguments, but prtetty much everyone is aware this is a power struggle. Western theistic conflicts have frequently operated in the mode of killing anyone who thinks differently - "Kill them all and let god sort them out". Where is the Islamic Inquisition?


Nations in political conflict are fighting for their survival as well. Conflict is conflict. Was the Iran/Iraq war political or ideological? How about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?

Both. Becuase conflict needs rationalising if it is to command consent necessary for the conduct of the conflict. Ideology serves this rationalisation.

In this case, Iraq percieved itself to have a legitimate claim to Kuwait as having prevously been its posession, and severed only by British colonial restructuring.


To me, it all has to do with power and control. Whatever poses the greatest threat to the people in power and control will be rallied against. Whether the foe is ideological or political is a non-distinction, especially when discussing Islam where politics and ideology are one and the same.

As in the West - how often are democracy and capitalism confused/conflated in Western ideology? And as for internal opponents, Western militarism against Islam arises in no small part to the influence of Islam in Civil Rights struggles and consequent opposition and demonisation from those opposed to reform.


But now it has become an ideological clash and there's nothing the West can do that will appease the bloodthirst of the extremists who seek vengeance against it.

No that is ridiculous. The problem is that to the West it is in ideological conflict and it makes absolutely no attempt to stop the self-0fulfilling prophecy. Indeed, here you are excusing the West of even having to make any efforts to de-escalate the conflict.


Withdrawing support and protection for Israel will not do it.

It would make a hell of a lot of difference. Becuase at the moment, the West is actively supporting persecution of Muslims. You apparent;ly don;t think that Muslims are capable of being excited by the persecution of their co-religionists: do they not have human feelings too, in your eyes?


Withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia will not do it.

Again, why not? You;ve kniown for years that this caused them major problems, for whatever reason. You studiously ignored those reasons. You then act surprised when they resort to direct confrontation. Again, just more excuses not to take any responsibility.


Withdrawing from Iraq, or staying in Iraq and attempting to rebuild it as we did Japan after WWII will not do it.

Well, failing to do so will definately prove that the West believes Islamic people to be subhuman. If you want to stop an ideological conflict, surely the starting point would be to stop creating tyhe cassus belli?


Nothing short of the West's total self-destruction will cause the terrorists to back off.

And now you have slid from Islam to Terrorists. You are indeed painting all of Islam with the terrorist brush - imposing YOUR ideological view and claiming it is theirs.


So now we in the West are forced to suffer abuse at the hands of the Islamics, which will in turn result in more abuse heaped back again from our side. It's like the Israeli/Palestinian situation, only escalated to a global level. Any suggestions on how we might get this to stop?

Yes. Stop supporting Israeli terrorism. Get out of Saudi Arabia. rebuild Iraq and stop invading countries for their oil. Start playing nice internationally instead of like the schoolyard bully. All of these would help, but you have a priori rejected them.

[Soundsurfr]

Contracycle: Western theistic conflicts have frequently operated in the mode of killing anyone who thinks differently - "Kill them all and let god sort them out". Where is the Islamic Inquisition?

Interesting that you should say that. It appears we are in the midst of it. When Islamic fundamentalists crash 767's into a civilian city center - that's pretty much "kill em all and let god sort them out".

Soundsurfr: Nations in political conflict are fighting for their survival as well. Conflict is conflict. Was the Iran/Iraq war political or ideological? How about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?

Contra: Both. Becuase conflict needs rationalising if it is to command consent necessary for the conduct of the conflict. Ideology serves this rationalisation.

Thank you. That was my point.

Soundsurfr: To me, it all has to do with power and control. Whatever poses the greatest threat to the people in power and control will be rallied against. Whether the foe is ideological or political is a non-distinction, especially when discussing Islam where politics and ideology are one and the same.

Contra: As in the West - how often are democracy and capitalism confused/conflated in Western ideology?

Agreed. Again, my point is that you can't easily separate politics and ideology as NC tries to do. It's a false distinction.

Soundsurfr: But now it has become an ideological clash and there's nothing the West can do that will appease the bloodthirst of the extremists who seek vengeance against it.

Contra: No that is ridiculous. The problem is that to the West it is in ideological conflict and it makes absolutely no attempt to stop the self-0fulfilling prophecy.

No, the problem is that those who organize violence against the West do not identify themselves, do not speak as a unified voice for Islamic people, do not entertain dialogue, and will indiscrimnately kill anyone anywhere who they perceive to be in league with "The West". Adding to the problem is a US president with a cowboy complex who doesn't know what diplomacy is.

Contra: Indeed, here you are excusing the West of even having to make any efforts to de-escalate the conflict.

On the contrary, I think the West is guilty of escalating the conflict through stupidity and bravado. That aside, I believe that even if we had leadership that saw things that way, they would be in a no-win position based on the ideology and the methodology of our opponents. Do you think Al Qaida would even entertain discussion with the West, let alone strike compromises with it?

NC: Withdrawing support and protection for Israel will not do it.

Contra: It would make a hell of a lot of difference.

Yes, beginning with the immediate destruction of Israel at the hands of the Arab nations.

Contra: Becuase at the moment, the West is actively supporting persecution of Muslims. You apparent;ly don;t think that Muslims are capable of being excited by the persecution of their co-religionists: do they not have human feelings too, in your eyes?

No need for this kind of false portrayal. Nothing I've said implies that I don't think Muslims have human feelings. This is the kind of rhetoric that fuels animosity. Hopefully that is not your intention.

But let's put the sticky characterization of the word "persecution" aside for just a moment and take a look at the political duplicity your statement implies. Iraq was actively supporting the persecution of co-religionists in the North. Palestinians did not seek to establish a Palestinian state when living as refugees under the unsympathetic rule of the Jordanians. I agree that Israel is out of line in it's attempts to deal with Palestinian conflict, but I also think that there's a double standard among Arab nations when it comes to dealing with "insiders" or "outsiders".

Soundsurfr: Withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia will not do it.

Contra: Again, why not?

Reasons cited above, having to do with Al Qaida's underground rhetoric, which does not allow provisions for reconcilliation with the West.

Contra: You;ve kniown for years that this caused them major problems, for whatever reason. You studiously ignored those reasons.

It caused them major problems? How about the major problems it avoided that YOU studiously ignore? Specifically, hostile imperialistic invasion from Saudi's not-so-friendly, recently deposed Arab neighbor. Our troops are there with the expressed permission of the Saudi Arabian government, and remain with the expressed permission of same. Now, you say the US should withdraw, not because the Saudi government wants the US to leave, but because a band of fanatical extremists want the unclean infidels off Arab property? Sorry, but that's just not a good reason. If, in a diplomatic forum the Arab nations unilaterally asked us to withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia, that would be a good reason.

Contra: You then act surprised when they resort to direct confrontation.

Direct confrontation? We are not experiencing direct confrontation. We are experiencing cowardly subterfuge - serruptitious confrontation from fanatical maniacs whom you are tacitly allowing to speak on your behalf. And it doesn't surprise me, it disgusts me. I WOULD be quite surprised at a direct confrontation.

Sound: Withdrawing from Iraq, or staying in Iraq and attempting to rebuild it as we did Japan after WWII will not do it.

Contra: Well, failing to do so will definately prove that the West believes Islamic people to be subhuman.

Yeah, that's a fair and accurate assessment. It's really hard to discuss politics with people who speak like this. It's like you WANT us to dislike you and you'll take every opportunity to make sure that we do. The fact is, the US is in a Catch-22 in Iraq, and those of us who were against the war saw this coming before the war even started. If we stay for the years it will take to rebuild Iraq, we'll be criticized and confronted, probably violently and indirectly, as an occupying force. If we leave, even at the request of the Iraqi people, we'll be criticized and confronted for "treating Islamic people as subhuman". What should we do?

Soundsurfr: Nothing short of the West's total self-destruction will cause the terrorists to back off.

Conra: And now you have slid from Islam to Terrorists.

We've been talking about conflicts and confrontation. Should I refrain from using the "T" word?

Contra: You are indeed painting all of Islam with the terrorist brush - imposing YOUR ideological view and claiming it is theirs.

How did I do that? The West is under constant threat of attack from Islamic terrorists. Should I avoid talking about it when discussing Middle East politics? After all, I wouldn't want to insult anyone by suggesting that certain organized factions of Islamic ideologists are behind much of the terrorism.

Soundsurfr: So now we in the West are forced to suffer abuse at the hands of the Islamics, which will in turn result in more abuse heaped back again from our side. It's like the Israeli/Palestinian situation, only escalated to a global level. Any suggestions on how we might get this to stop?

Contra: Yes. Stop supporting Israeli terrorism. Get out of Saudi Arabia. rebuild Iraq and stop invading countries for their oil. Start playing nice internationally instead of like the schoolyard bully. All of these would help, but you have a priori rejected them.

No, I haven't rejected any of them. Personally, I think we should do all of those things. I also think that the terrorism would continue even if we did.

[NonContradiction]

NC: I make a distinction between internal political conflicts and ideological conflicts.

Soundsurfr: Internal to where? What nations are the internal political conflicts among Muslims confined to?

What you are failing to realize is that Islam was once an empire. The West, after having colonized much of the Muslim empire, carved it up into little nation-states. The strategy was simple: The more nation-states they divided the empire up into, the more politcal conflicts that would arise among Muslims, thereby preventing them from ever seriously challenging the West on any ideological level.

NC: Ideological conflicts threaten a nation from without, whereas internal politcal conflicts threaten a nation from within.

Sound: That's more than an imaginary distinction, it's an inapplicable distinction, especially in this case. Ideologies don't conform to national borders and "the Muslims" are not a nation to be confronted from within or without.

It's not an imaginary distinction, nor an inapplicable distinction to Muslims. To not make a distinction between internal and external conflict is ridiculous. See my post above.

Sound: The existing conflicts among various Islamic factions have nothing to do with the internal politics of any given nation-state.

The existing conflicts among various Islamic factions are internal political problems among Muslims. Remember, nation-states among Muslims were created because of the ideological conflct between Islam and the West. The strategy was to divide the Muslim empire up into nation-states to weaken it, while at the same time creating the state of Israel, which represents the ideological conflict between Muslims and the West. Divide and conquer.

Also, as I have said before, many times people will put aside their internal political/religious differences to face an ideological opponent. This is clearly the case with the Shiite Hizb-Allah joining forces with the Sunnis against the Israelis.

NC: By far, ideological conflicts pose the greatest threat to any nation because any nation in such a circumstance is fighting for its very survival.

Sound: Nations in political conflict are fighting for their survival as well. Conflict is conflict. Was the Iran/Iraq war political or ideological? How about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?

Conflict isn't just conflict. It does serve a purpose to distinguish between internal and external conflict. As far as the Iran/Iraq war is concerned, it was an ideological war. As I have said, Saddam Hussein was a member of the socialist Baath party, and we all know that the Ayatollah was Shiite. That sure sounds like an ideological conflct to me, especially with the US supporting Saddam against the Iranians.

NC: The Muslim people have always had internal political problems and the associated bloodshed that often accompanies such scenarios. However, they never had an ideological opponent with his foot on their heads as has been the case for the last 100 years. I can assure you that if the Muslims didn't feel threatened and abused by the West, there probably would have never been a 9/11.

Sound: I don't think you can assure me of that when speaking of a culture that views any ideology that does not actively promote Islam as being the enemy of Islam. Or an ideological society that refers to non-adherents as "the infidels", "the unclean" or "the descendents of apes and pigs".

I am getting real tired of correcting the propaganda that many people here espouse that Islam refers to non-adherents as "infidels", "unclean", or "the descendants of apes and pigs". Islam has always reached out to the Jews and Christians and treated them with nothing but respect. The mushrikeen(polytheists), on the other hand, that persecuted Muhammad and his followers for thirteen years in Mecca and drove them out of their homes simply because they rejected the idols of the Quraish were the ones who were labelled unclean. The Quran never commands to kill ALL non-Muslims, nor does it paint ALL people with the same brush. The Quran makes a clear distinction between the People of the Book and the mushrikeen(polytheists).

Sound: I believe this is the result of bad leadership, bad diplomacy and bad decision-making mostly on the part of Western leaders, as opposed to an outright ideological clash. Some of these bad decisions continue to be made.

Yes, it was bad leadership, bad diplomacy, and bad decision making on the part of the Western leaders. It also WAS, and IS, an outright ideological clash.

Sound: But now it has become an ideological clash and there's nothing the West can do that will appease the bloodthirst of the extremists who seek vengeance against it. Withdrawing support and protection for Israel will not do it. Withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia will not do it. Withdrawing from Iraq, or staying in Iraq and attempting to rebuild it as we did Japan after WWII will not do it. Nothing short of the West's total self-destruction will cause the terrorists to back off. So now we in the West are forced to suffer abuse at the hands of the Islamics, which will in turn result in more abuse heaped back again from our side. It's like the Israeli/Palestinian situation, only escalated to a global level. Any suggestions on how we might get this to stop?

Well, my first suggestion to you would be to stop with the hyperbolic propaganda. Stop demonizing Islam and Muslims as bloodthirsty extremists who seek vengeance. The West divided and conquered the Muslim empire, unjustly, and now some Muslims have lashed out in anger with acts of terrorism because they fell helpless. As I said before, compare the violence of Western civilization with Islamic civilization. Which one is more violent?

[contracycle]

Originally posted by Soundsurfr
[B]Interesting that you should say that. It appears we are in the midst of it. When Islamic fundamentalists crash 767's into a civilian city center - that's pretty much "kill em all and let god sort them out".

But thats NOT an inqisition, ideological homicide between CO- religionists, now is it? The Inquisition was internal secret police, not war.


Contra: Both. Becuase conflict needs rationalising if it is to command consent necessary for the conduct of the conflict. Ideology serves this rationalisation.

Thank you. That was my point.

Not really, as you pointed out above. It totally undemrines your point, and supports NC's position, that their is no equiovalent ideological struggle within Islam.


Agreed. Again, my point is that you can't easily separate politics and ideology as NC tries to do. It's a false distinction.

No - his arguments is that, because of the different relationship between ideology and state forms, persecution for IDEOLOGICAL reasons is rare while persecuton for POLITICAL reasons is not. This is important, becuase your argumnent is that the present conflict is ideological rather than political. In this you are mistaken.


No, the problem is that those who organize violence against the West do not identify themselves, do not speak as a unified voice for Islamic people, do not entertain dialogue, and will indiscrimnately kill anyone anywhere who they perceive to be in league with "The West". Adding to the problem is a US president with a cowboy complex who doesn't know what diplomacy is.

No, that problem with the West is entirely the source of the problem. Of course the antagonists of the West do not speak with a united voice - they are not united, not a homogenous group. Which only reinforces the fact that the present Islamophobia is nothing more than collective punishment and an ideological hostility to anyone other than Us.

As for dialogue, there has been lots and lots of dialogue, Please remember that Osama Bin Laden publicly declared war on the US in 1991. The west has not engaged in dialogue becuiase of its unrelenting commitment to Israel. The hardline fanatics in this conflict live in Washington.

On the contrary, I think the West is guilty of escalating the conflict through stupidity and bravado. That aside, I believe that even if we had leadership that saw things that way, they would be in a no-win position based on the ideology and the methodology of our opponents. Do you think Al Qaida would even entertain discussion with the West, let alone strike compromises with it?

No, I don't think AQ will do so, for its raison d'etre is entirely opposite. But the reaons AQ exists, and the reasons it has legitimacy and popularity, is precisely becuase of the Wests "my way or the highway" approach to "negotiation" in every instance in which it interacts with the Islamic world. If the West had been willing to enagge with Muslim concerns a decade ago (well longer) this need not have happened. If the US had taken seriously the disquiet caused by the permanent stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia, AQ would not have had much public support, the cassus beli woulkd not have existed to be exploited. But what the US decided to do instead was to rely on the House of Saud to rule from the top and crush domestic dissent - hardly consistent with an allegedly liberal Western agenda.


Yes, beginning with the immediate destruction of Israel at the hands of the Arab nations.

Is there a particular reason that Israel has a right to exist? No other state does.


No need for this kind of false portrayal. Nothing I've said implies that I don't think Muslims have human feelings. This is the kind of rhetoric that fuels animosity. Hopefully that is not your intention.

No I really mean it. I think you are excepting Muslims from having normal feelings of outrage and hostility by excusing it all by religion. It seems to me you are painting a one dimensional picture of a person merely becuase they are a Muslim.


But let's put the sticky characterization of the word "persecution" aside for just a moment and take a look at the political duplicity your statement implies. Iraq was actively supporting the persecution of co-religionists in the North. Palestinians did not seek to establish a Palestinian state when living as refugees under the unsympathetic rule of the Jordanians. I agree that Israel is out of line in it's attempts to deal with Palestinian conflict, but I also think that there's a double standard among Arab nations when it comes to dealing with "insiders" or "outsiders".

Of course Iraq did, it was the most secular state in the ME and the co-religionist status of its victims played little part in its deliberations. And besides, it was "fighting terrorism". And we gave it weapons with which to fight that terrorism.

Palestinians may not have sought a state, but this demand is not one which fell from heaven whole; many would still feel they have rightful claim to the land to which they were evicted, and settling for a mere separate state is a substantial compromise. If we are going to talkj about double standards, there is a huge discoiunting of the offersand comrpomises made by the Palestinians.


Reasons cited above, having to do with Al Qaida's underground rhetoric, which does not allow provisions for reconcilliation with the West.

But AQ != Islam. AQ is not also not some sort of super-being mutant conspiracy that has universal contorl of a population of mindless drones. AQ is minority fringe in Islam, and although it will make that argument, there will be others - many many many others - who will oppose them. As I said, you are applying a universal sterotype here and using that top assume your own conclusion and deny responsibility.


Our troops are there with the expressed permission of the Saudi Arabian government, and remain with the expressed permission of same.

But the GOVERNMENT is not the PEOPLE. Saudi is NOT a democracy - there is no particular reason to assume that a decision by its government reflects the will of the people, is there? The fact that the governmenbt gave you permission only indicates that the government gave you permission. This laxity on the ruling houses part is a component of grass roots criticism of the Saudi state.


Now, you say the US should withdraw, not because the Saudi government wants the US to leave, but because a band of fanatical extremists want the unclean infidels off Arab property? Sorry, but that's just not a good reason. If, in a diplomatic forum the Arab nations unilaterally asked us to withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia, that would be a good reason.

Now you are just asserting ideological fanaticism. Regardless of what YOU think of their feelings about their holy places, there is no excuse for the naivite that your actions did not matter. As an atheist, I may not respct the sanctity of communion, but if I were caught pissing in the font of a Catholic church I'd be stupid not to expect a severe beating. It would be no use protesting that the holy font is not holy to ME... I'm going to get thrashed anyway.


Direct confrontation? We are not experiencing direct confrontation. We are experiencing cowardly subterfuge - serruptitious confrontation from fanatical maniacs whom you are tacitly allowing to speak on your behalf. And it doesn't surprise me, it disgusts me. I WOULD be quite surprised at a direct confrontation.

they a) can't afford to fight you on your ground, and b) would be startlingly stupid to do so. They publicly voiced their opposition, burned your flag, your president in effigy. You kept offending them for decades. Eventually, they found a way to hit you back - and who can hold that against them? Is war "fair"? Since when?


Yeah, that's a fair and accurate assessment. It's really hard to discuss politics with people who speak like this. It's like you WANT us to dislike you and you'll take every opportunity to make sure that we do.

No, I just don't care whether you do or not. Please understand, IMO this is entiurely a situation of Americas making - you have only yourselves to blame for Sept 11th. All this bellyaching and special pleading gets right up my nose. Start taking responsibility for your actions and you might become worthy of respect.


The fact is, the US is in a Catch-22 in Iraq, and those of us who were against the war saw this coming before the war even started. If we stay for the years it will take to rebuild Iraq, we'll be criticized and confronted, probably violently and indirectly, as an occupying force. If we leave, even at the request of the Iraqi people, we'll be criticized and confronted for "treating Islamic people as subhuman". What should we do?

I'm afraid I cannot offer much advice - I agree, you're fucked. But it might not be impossible that a really serious reconstruction effort in Iraq qill get you enough public cred to get out of the hole. But then, of course, it will all be for nought if you continue to endorse Israeli terrorism. If you want the problem to go away, you HAVE to start cleaning up your act and practiving the liberal principles you preach.


Soundsurfr: Nothing short of the West's total self-destruction will cause the terrorists to back off.

Conra: And now you have slid from Islam to Terrorists.

We've been talking about conflicts and confrontation. Should I refrain from using the "T" word?

You most definitely should when discussing ISLAM, yes.

Take Timothy McVeigh - good honest christian IIRC. Wouldn't you feel it was just slightly misrepresentative if he was held as the typical christian? If people use McVeigh as a rationale to use Terrorist ands Muslim as if they meant the same thing?

As you should no doubt know, there are many, many, indeed MILLIONS of Muslims who consider that Sept 11th only demonstrated that AQ never understood Islam. Now you and I would probably agree that thats a true Scotsman argument, but nonetheless it is therefore both counterproductive to start pointing the finger at the whole of Islam as if it endorsed terrorism. It most certainly does not.

How did I do that? The West is under constant threat of attack from Islamic terrorists. Should I avoid talking about it when discussing Middle East politics? After all, I wouldn't want to insult anyone by suggesting that certain organized factions of Islamic ideologists are behind much of the terrorism.

Why can't they just be described as terrorists? (ahem - although of course I will object to that too) Why do you have to make this into an ideological struggle?


No, I haven't rejected any of them. Personally, I think we should do all of those things. I also think that the terrorism would continue even if we did.

That may well be true. You may have to do them and keep doing them for 100 years to recover your bona fides. But its either that, or war FOREVER.

[Soundsurfr]

Contra: No, that problem with the West is entirely the source of the problem.

Sound: It's unfortunate that you would feel that way. So many on either side are not capable of seeing two-sided culpability. It's all the other guy's fault, and my side bears no responsibility whatsoever. That kind of attitude a) does not reflect reality and b) only escalates conflicts, never dissipates them.

Contra: Of course the antagonists of the West do not speak with a united voice - they are not united, not a homogenous group.

So then how are we supposed to "listen to them" when they make demands or become unsettled?

Contra: Which only reinforces the fact that the present Islamophobia is nothing more than collective punishment and an ideological hostility to anyone other than Us.

You have just described Al Qaida, which readily admits that collective punishment and ideological hostility to anyone other than "us" is it's creed. Do you believe that such a mindset is good or bad? Do you support or condemn Al Qaida? You can only take one side or the other. There is no nuetral.

If there is Islamophobia in the West, it's because an amorphous group of Islamic people are performing random acts of violence on a massive scale. And then when we turn to Muslim's and say "what's up with that?", they answer - the fault lies entirely with you. In other words, West, you're getting what you deserve.

Contra: As for dialogue, there has been lots and lots of dialogue, Please remember that Osama Bin Laden publicly declared war on the US in 1991.

Oh yeah. That's dialogue. I meant two-way dialogue.

Contra: The west has not engaged in dialogue becuiase of its unrelenting commitment to Israel. The hardline fanatics in this conflict live in Washington.

I see. There are no hard line fanatics in the Middle East. This conversation is getting more and more absurd as we go on.

Contra: But the reaons AQ exists, and the reasons it has legitimacy and popularity, is precisely becuase of the Wests "my way or the highway" approach to "negotiation" in every instance in which it interacts with the Islamic world. If the West had been willing to enagge with Muslim concerns a decade ago (well longer) this need not have happened.

I agree. I also believe that if the people who think AQ has legitimacy had any regard for the sanctity of human life, they would not have anything to do with it.

Contra: If the US had taken seriously the disquiet caused by the permanent stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia, AQ would not have had much public support, the cassus beli woulkd not have existed to be exploited. But what the US decided to do instead was to rely on the House of Saud to rule from the top and crush domestic dissent - hardly consistent with an allegedly liberal Western agenda.

Are you really listening to yourself, Contra? There are only despots in the Arab world. There are no democracies, there never have been. Are you saying we shouldn't recognize or ally with any Arab government leadership because they don't represent the will of the people? Are you suggesting that the President of the United States should instead be corresponding and dealing with the non-homogeneous, non-identifyable groups you mentioned earlier? How exactly would that occur?

Contra: Is there a particular reason that Israel has a right to exist? No other state does.

Nope. I simply would not support the immediate destruction of Israel at the hands of Arab nations because a) it would be another holocaust and b) the political aftermath would make our present situation look like nursery school.

Sound: No need for this kind of false portrayal. Nothing I've said implies that I don't think Muslims have human feelings. This is the kind of rhetoric that fuels animosity. Hopefully that is not your intention.

Contra: No I really mean it. I think you are excepting Muslims from having normal feelings of outrage and hostility by excusing it all by religion.

I think you're wrong. First off, I say nothing about all Muslims. I specifically refer to the extremist groups except when marvelling over Muslim people's seeming propensity to blame the existence of Muslim extremist groups entirely on non-Muslims.

What causes people to commit suicide in an effort to destroy innocent human lives is not, to me, a normal feeling of outrage and hostility. It's abnormal and about the sickest form of violence I've ever seen, heard or read about. I don't attribute this type of behavior to all Muslims. I have trouble understanding why many Muslims don't find it to be as sick and twisted as I do. You don't seem to.

Contra: It seems to me you are painting a one dimensional picture of a person merely becuase they are a Muslim.

I'm sorry it seems that way to you. To me it seems that anyone who has a vocal reaction to the violence of Islamic extremists is "painting a one-dimensional picture of all Muslims". Nowhere did I say that all Muslims are this or that. Nowhere did I even imply it. It seems you hear what you prefer to hear.


Sound: Reasons cited above, having to do with Al Qaida's underground rhetoric, which does not allow provisions for reconcilliation with the West.

contra: But AQ != Islam.

No, I didnt' say that. But AQ is who we are forced to deal with in this situation, aren't they? Whether you want them to speak on behalf of the Islamic world or not, right now they have the microphone. And they DO claim to speak for all of Islam. Like it or not, they are arguably the single most powerful political force in the Islamic world. Are you comfortable with that? Only the Muslim world itself has the power to take AQ's spokesperson status away, and simply pointing fingers at the West won't do it.

Contra: AQ is not also not some sort of super-being mutant conspiracy that has universal contorl of a population of mindless drones. AQ is minority fringe in Islam, and although it will make that argument, there will be others - many many many others - who will oppose them.

I sure hope so, but right now, AQ is calling the shots. They're doing the PR, they're fighting the fight, and until recently they've been operating with relative ease and freedom among the Arab nations. What organized faction in the Islamic world is standing up to say "They don't speak for us. We condemn them." Lots of people are standing up to say - "It's all your fault, Westerners. Whadja expect? They're giving you what you deserve."

Sound: Our troops are there with the expressed permission of the Saudi Arabian government, and remain with the expressed permission of same.

Contra: But the GOVERNMENT is not the PEOPLE.

OK, so who represents the PEOPLE in Saudi Arabia?

Contra: Saudi is NOT a democracy - there is no particular reason to assume that a decision by its government reflects the will of the people, is there?

Nope. There's not even a reason to assume that to be true in a democracy. We elect our leaders but we do not dictate their actions. Moreover, nation-states deal politically and ideologically on a government-to-government basis. The president of the United States must negotiate with the Saudi leaders. He cannot set policy with that country by taking a public opinion poll of the Saudi people. Who should we be dealing with in Saudi Arabia if not the government? Or are you suggesting that the US should diplomatically shun the Saudi government in favor of some other group? Who? Wouldn't you then accuse