BoxRec

pundit wrote:

Taki... wrote: The US government knew about Saddam's use of illegal weapons (chemical and biological) against Iran and his own population, and still provided Iraq with money and equipment (including helicopters with 'crop spraying' apparatus). This kind of thing jars terribly when we hear officials (some of who were involved with selling things to Saddam at the time) using rhetoric about Saddam's 'evil' and his human rights offences.

I'm not denying nor defending this, BUT I believe it is important to emphasize that the US was neither exceptional nor even leading in this effort. As said, France, Russia, Germany gave far more military suppport to Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war than the US. They all did so because they were scared the Iranian Mullah-regime could spread into Iraq (something that -- ironicaly -- is about to happen now).

It's wrong to suggest the only effective means would have been invasion.

I don't think it's wrong. Without ground support there as no way of stopping the revolutionary brigades from smothering the uprising.

the u.s WAS leading the effort mate, the iran situation even brought down a president, the iran situation was definately america`s beef.
in my recollection the iran / iraq war started about 1980 and in those cold war days the u.s and the russians pulled all the strings. if the french sold weapons to anyone it was with the blessing of the u.s. and west germany as it was then was as much of a puppet state to the americans as east germany was to the warsaw pact.
the one and only country that was absolutely livid with the ayatollah was the u.s, who were basically thrown out of iran with their stooge the shah in humilliating circumstances.
then the iranian`s holding the american embassy staff hostage and the subsequent failed u.s commando raid to release the embassy workers just added fuel to the fire.
you make out the americans were on the fringe of the situation and weren`t really affected by events in the middle east, well the iranian situation brought down jimmy carter`s regime, and dont forget the ayatollah was living in paris before the revolution so thats how bothered the french were about him and the spread of radical islam back then. he only flew in at the end of the revolution for the celebrations.
before the revolution the americans armed the iranians (even with F14`s!) and the soviets armed the iraqi`s. once the war kicked off the americans bought saddam and armed him.
so it didnt look like a dodgy u.s revenge job at the u.n with iraqi`s running around the battlefields with M16`s, air `cav` tattoo`s and marlboro cigarette packets / ace of spade cards tucked into their helmets the yanks got their stooges (the brits, french etc) to arm the iraqi`s.
the old - free the world of a dictator - line doesnt wash tbh, during the cold war the west befriended some of the darkest characters in the 20th century but as long as they weren`t a commie the west couldnt give a hoot what they did.

Terence wrote: As for my personal beliefs, work it out. This is the point where you want to me to say I want Israel wiped off the map and that I support Bin Laden and 9/11, you can then portray me as a person with a very narrow grip on reality. It is fine that you are a, conflicted, human rights lover, however what right do you have to demand that I spill my personal politics over this thread? It began about Israel/Lebanon and to my credit I stuck to the ripples of those issues, not Spain or other tangents. You have no right to try and entice me to putting my personal political system across this strand, just as I would have no right pointing out that my only boxing experience of you is your one-track dislike of Joe Calzaghe. However I'm done with you so why not?

This dated, Calzaghe baiting, to his pre-Lacy days and you continue to denigrate a man who has legitimised, to an extent, his title; off-topic, no. It speaks volumes about your myopia on all issues. You lock into something and cannot adapt, it might be due to your nationality (which I haven't checked BTW, personal details are irrelevant to me) I'm not going to give you the opportunity to portray me as an Islamic fundamentalist, you want my personal stance on the world? PM next Feb and I'll send you my dissertation on the truly realisable Islamic State.

Israel is a sin, a blot on the landscape. True Judaism has a home in the East and will settle there with Islam and Arabian Christianity in due course and it won't be thanks to the US or the UK who are temporary fixtures on the world stage.

Thanks Terence for making things reasonably clear. So your starting point is "the truly realisable Islamic state". In this "true Judaism" and Christians have a "home". Well, this "home" will be the discriminatory existence granted to the non-Muslim "people of the book" by "truly realisable Islamic law" (including higher taxation for non-Muslims, exclusion from high office for non-Muslims, prohibition of Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men but permission of Muslim men to marry non-Muslim women as long as the children will be educated as Muslims, and so on).

With this as your starting point, you will of course ignore the stipulations of international law -- as these will be considered as the creation of "temporary fixtures on the world stage". You will also take of course the freedom to define what "true Judaism" is, and impose your interpretation on everyone else -- Jews and other non-Muslims have pre-specified discriminatory existences in a "truly realisable Islamic state" whether they like them or not, but it would be even better is they were happy with them. So, if they are not they are not "true Jews" for Terence.

It's not hard to put the subsequent pieces together: a "truly realisable Islamic state" implies the re-erection of the Caliphate, as well as the "liberation" of all former Muslim lands from the "crusaders" -- which necessarily includes Spainn. Spain can be no different from Israel in your world view. True, I don't know whether you support the violent acts of 9/11 etc. -- perhaps not, as far as I know there is debate within Islamic circles to what extent the killing of 3000 civilians can be jutified by the scriptures. But in the end I'm not really interested in this. What matters for our debate is that you evidenlty share Al-Qaeda's ideological platform.

And this is OF COURSE relevant, and I have every right to investigate these basic views of yours. Because your views imply that there is no room for true debate between us. True debate implies that we can meet in the debate as equals, and your world view prevents you necessarily from considering me an equal.

Cheers, P

PS: as for my "conflicting love for human rights", the "conflict" arises exclusively from your misinterpretation about the nature of human rights. Human rights do not necessarily imply the unconditional prevalence of majority vote. Things aren't that easy. Majorities can use their position to discriminate minorities and withhold elementary human rights from them. As a consequence, majority vote can at best be a procedure to decide about issues of public interest WITHIN the limits implied by human rights and hence by the rule of law. If population groups are too heterogenous and too antagonistic, the risk is high that majorities won't respect these limits

This is also why a split of an area like 1948 Palestine into two states is not only sensible but perfectly consistent with human rights. Moreover, the split has an impartial claim to legality if is carried out and sanctioned by the body charged with the interpretaion of international law - as it was in 1948.

I know, things are easier in the "truly realisable Islamic state".

Personally I think we would all be a lot happier and safer if all religions were abolished... take a look down history and 99% of wars have been carried out in the name of or for, various religions... its pathetic really that in the year 2006 with all our technology we are still fighting over the basic principles of 'my religion is better than your's' etc... why dont we just get all our leaders one by one and lock them all in a small room for a fight to the finish, ...my guess is that if this was done then peace would break out pretty damn quickly!....

silkov wrote:take a look down history and 99% of wars have been carried out in the name of or for, various religions....

99% is going a bit too far mate. For example the problems in Palestine have more to do with land rather than religion. Some people may perceive it as a religious dispute but the underlying cause is land NOT religion.

Disagreements over land are a major cause in regards to wars. Religion may eventually come into it but it isn't always the trigger.

Terence wrote:Pundit, so you are the type who judges a 15,000-20,000 word dissertation by its title?

I didn't judge your dissertation. It may be a fine dissertation according to the criteria and views of an adherent of political Islam. The issue is that the criteria are discriminatory agasint non-Muslims and necessarily prevent you from having an open debate with me.

Now you have taken to discussing that and given up on addressing points plus taken your ball home with you. You began by addressing me way back when and I immediately put you on the back foot and kept you there with a mere inquiry as your understanding of Judaism (I'm still waiting on those misinterpreted texts Pundit).

I didn't refer to misinterpreted texts -- the interpretation is irrelevant to our debate.

Zakat Pundit. Is it fair that the Muslims should pay Zakat as a pillar of Islam and the lay-person need not do this? No. How do you get around this? Charge them it in taxation and on doing so you are not forcing them to partake in a pillar of Islam and therefore forcing there into the Islamic faith.

I don't want to be obliged by Terence neither by a state of his liking to pay Zakat. Neither do I want to be taxed higher than Terence in the state of his liking. In fact, I don't want to live in a "truly realisable Islamic state" in which Terence sets the rules.

Terence response will necesarily be: too bad for pundit.

As for the marriage situation. Do you know what happens if you want to be married in a Catholic Church? You have to attend. Or have your kid Christened. You attend. You pay the priest, you stop at the little Church shop and buy images of The Christian Prophet pinned to the very item that was used to torture and kill him. Conversation to faith in marriage is not uncommon in any of the faiths. It is merely demonised in Islam. You neglect to mention that Islam allows divorce or that in Islamic law a thief is not put on trial, the socio-economic conditions are judged.

First, I married in a Catholic church and (as a non-catholic) was neither asked to convert nor was I asked to educate my children as Catholics.

Second, had I been requested to do so I would not have married in a Catholic church, and this would ahve been fine.

Third, I abhor all discriminatory pratices that establish rights according to relgious lines.

Which is why I am happy to live in a secular, non-discriminatory state. This means that Catholics can do in their church what they wish, even exclude me from Catholic marriage - as long as they don't insist on excluding me from legal marriage, and instrumentalize the state to that end. But instrumentalizing the state to impose religiously motivated views on others is of course exactly the purpose of a "truly realisbale Islamic state" .

As for the laws of the UN, maybe if they had started off on the right foot they would be worthy of respect. During WWII we saw a battle of ideology between the USA and Germany. On the one hand you had a land where only certain, purely bred people, were truly free, a land where people were herded into appalling living areas and left in poor conditions, where people were routinely murdered and survivors found justice lacking, where freedom was the preserve of a dominant master race and they decided who else had scope to be free and where justice was administered on the basis of race and social standing; on the other hand you had Nazi Germany.

Nice reading of history....

Maybe if one of the earliest acts of importance by the UN was to take the US to task over its civil rights violations it would have held credence. Stealing a land gave it less credence, well it did to people who think of the world in Fox News Vision.

The UN didn't exist in WWII.

And the UN didn't steal land when it devised a partition plan for Paelstine. It devised a partition plan; no more, no less.

I defined True Judaism and based it on the Torah and the Talmud.

You define True Judaism as it fits nicely into your concept of the "truly realisable Islamic state". As you define "human rights" such that it fits nicely into your line or reasoning.

Actually Spain is in the West and by trying to bring it in again you are clutching at straws once again. Careful you don't get pig shit on your hands there but Israel was dumped in the East and hezbollah are yet to attack Spain. They merely want sociable neighbours.

Why don't you just come clean on Spain. Is Spain (the former Al-Andalus) an "illegal state" -

YES

or

NO?

It's an easy question and requires nothing but a straight answer.

I told you that you would try and paint me with Al-Quaeda. You compound your error by doing so.

I don't paint you anything. I just notice that you share the same ideological platform...

Look closely, I advocate Muhammedism or Koranic Islam not a lazy misreading of the scriptures, look at my excellent breakdown of the 'war' Koranic passages earlier in this thread.

.... internal quibbles over the correct exegesis of the scriptures notwithstanding.

Your views are contradictory Pundit and your last post was delivered through gritted teeth.

Neither contradictory nor through gritted teeth. Just an exploration of the concept of human rights and its implications by an advocate of human rights -- rather than by an advocate of the "truly realisable Isamic state", whose interpretation will necessarily be purpose-driven.

A human rights loving guy who pays lip-service to liberalism

No lipservices either.

and doesn't even understand that the Lebanon operates under an overlapping consensus lacking in Conservative Christian America and the UK.

15 years civil war and you speak of "overlapping consensus"? You have chupzah.

Btw, I happen to know quite well commmunities of Arab Christians in Palestine and (not quite as well) in Syria. Every bet they will fiercely reject your idea of an "overlapping consensus".

I knew the 'truly realisable Islamic State' would get your knickers in a twist and you've judge my thesis without even reading it. That is not wise. You seem a nice guy though and think like a typical Westener, you can't see the dichotomy that is tearing the West apart. Fine, not many can.

Presumably because the dichotomy is a purpose-driven construct on your behalf needed for the sake of your world view.

Have a nice day because I'm done and dusted here.

Have a nice day too.

Ultimately all wars are over resources, religion is just often a way of justifying the war and providing what seem like genuine grounds for conflict.

Hence western democracies identifying the problem as being to do with Islam as if Islam were the root of the problem. In order to wage a war you need to identify your enemies clearly, and the easiest way to do that is to focus on one particular group or association to which they belong that is easy to make appear abberant to the concensus of the population. The west is largely christian, and certainly the power brokers ascribe to christianity (whether they really are believers or not is another matter) and it is therefore easy to identify Islam as an invasive and creeping doom which is trying to annexe the world insidiously and by stealth. It helps that there are many dark skinned muslims, as these are easily identified by your average thick as pigshit bigot who will lend his support to a war to 'protect' us from the enemy within and without.

It's all about maintaining a culture of fear, because Capitalism needs an enemy to prosper and to allow for the exploitation of resources. In order to get your hands on valuabl resources you need to go to war, in order to go to war, you need to justify the concomitant inevitable loss of life on both sides.

Global leaders are by nature pragmatists, they see the world in terms of power and demographic shifts, the details of war are an inconvenience to be glossed over. It has always been thus.

It's unfortunate that greed is so strongly ingrained in our species, that the aquisition of material wealth is so important to us. As long as that remains so governments will always be looking to build and maintain empires to keep us in luxuries we don't need and we will periodically go to war to do so.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Ultimately all wars are over resources, religion is just often a way of justifying the war and providing what seem like genuine grounds for conflict.

Hence western democracies identifying the problem as being to do with Islam as if Islam were the root of the problem. In order to wage a war you need to identify your enemies clearly, and the easiest way to do that is to focus on one particular group or association to which they belong that is easy to make appear abberant to the concensus of the population. The west is largely christian, and certainly the power brokers ascribe to christianity (whether they really are believers or not is another matter) and it is therefore easy to identify Islam as an invasive and creeping doom which is trying to annexe the world insidiously and by stealth. It helps that there are many dark skinned muslims, as these are easily identified by your average thick as pigshit bigot who will lend his support to a war to 'protect' us from the enemy within and without.

It's all about maintaining a culture of fear, because Capitalism needs an enemy to prosper and to allow for the exploitation of resources. In order to get your hands on valuabl resources you need to go to war, in order to go to war, you need to justify the concomitant inevitable loss of life on both sides.

Global leaders are by nature pragmatists, they see the world in terms of power and demographic shifts, the details of war are an inconvenience to be glossed over. It has always been thus.

It's unfortunate that greed is so strongly ingrained in our species, that the aquisition of material wealth is so important to us. As long as that remains so governments will always be looking to build and maintain empires to keep us in luxuries we don't need and we will periodically go to war to do so.

May I ask you what exactly is supposed to follow from this.
Cheers, P

I have to say, I don't wish to live in a religious state of any kind.

However, would we say that the US is a religious state, or is becoming one. The supposed personal religious views of George Bush, or at least views pertaining to those who are the backbone of his support seem to be encroaching on the legislature and the historical buffer betwixt state and church seems to be becoming ever thinner.

Religious fundamentalism is certainly not confined to Islam, and I wonder whether this is symptomatic of the changes required to justify war.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I have to say, I don't wish to live in a religious state of any kind.

However, would we say that the US is a religious state, or is becoming one. The supposed personal religious views of George Bush, or at least views pertaining to those who are the backbone of his support seem to be encroaching on the legislature and the historical buffer betwixt state and church seems to be becoming ever thinner.

Religious fundamentalism is certainly not confined to Islam, and I wonder whether this is symptomatic of the changes required to justify war.

You are of course right that religious fundamentalism is not confined to Islam. At the same time, it would mean closing ones' eyes to ignore that political Islam is anti-secular movement on a roll.

As for the US, well, I happen to live here -- and as much as I dislike the religious right and its influence on the current administration, thus far noone has tried to enforce a "truly realizable Christian state" or anything similar on me. And I am sure noone will do so in the foreseeable future -- after all this would be unconstitutional.

More generally, I wonder about the -- slightly obsessive -- tendency to turn every debate, no matter what it is on, immediately into an argument against the US. In this specific case, Terence and I were discussing the virtues of religiously motivated political concepts and their consistency with liberalism and human rights. Your ONLY contribution seems to be "but there is a religious right in the US" . So what? What does this add to the debat; and what do you expect to gain from this?

Cheers, P

pundit wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I have to say, I don't wish to live in a religious state of any kind.

However, would we say that the US is a religious state, or is becoming one. The supposed personal religious views of George Bush, or at least views pertaining to those who are the backbone of his support seem to be encroaching on the legislature and the historical buffer betwixt state and church seems to be becoming ever thinner.

Religious fundamentalism is certainly not confined to Islam, and I wonder whether this is symptomatic of the changes required to justify war.

You are of course right that religious fundamentalism is not confined to Islam. At the same time, it would mean closing ones' eyes to ignore that political Islam is anti-secular movement on a roll.

As for the US, well, I happen to live here -- and as much as I dislike the religious right and its influence on the current administration, thus far noone has tried to enforce a "truly realizable Christian state" or anything similar on me. And I am sure noone will do so in the foreseeable future -- after all this would be unconstitutional.

More generally, I wonder about the -- slightly obsessive -- tendency to turn every debate, no matter what it is on, immediately into an argument against the US. In this specific case, Terence and I were discussing the virtues of religiously motivated political concepts and their consistency with liberalism and human rights. Your ONLY contribution seems to be "but there is a religious right in the US" . So what? What does this add to the debat; and what do you expect to gain from this?

Cheers, P

The fact is that the behaviour of the US in recent years has played right into the hands of the very fundermentalists and Terrorists that Bush is supposed to be fighting against... Bush has been a marvelous recruiter of extremists world wide... I'm not anti American at all but anti Bush and believe that his short sighted behaviour has done untold damage to world wide relations and made the world a far more dangerous and desperate place.... to say otherwise is to simply ignore the facts!...

pundit wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Ultimately all wars are over resources, religion is just often a way of justifying the war and providing what seem like genuine grounds for conflict.

Hence western democracies identifying the problem as being to do with Islam as if Islam were the root of the problem. In order to wage a war you need to identify your enemies clearly, and the easiest way to do that is to focus on one particular group or association to which they belong that is easy to make appear abberant to the concensus of the population. The west is largely christian, and certainly the power brokers ascribe to christianity (whether they really are believers or not is another matter) and it is therefore easy to identify Islam as an invasive and creeping doom which is trying to annexe the world insidiously and by stealth. It helps that there are many dark skinned muslims, as these are easily identified by your average thick as pigshit bigot who will lend his support to a war to 'protect' us from the enemy within and without.

It's all about maintaining a culture of fear, because Capitalism needs an enemy to prosper and to allow for the exploitation of resources. In order to get your hands on valuabl resources you need to go to war, in order to go to war, you need to justify the concomitant inevitable loss of life on both sides.

Global leaders are by nature pragmatists, they see the world in terms of power and demographic shifts, the details of war are an inconvenience to be glossed over. It has always been thus.

It's unfortunate that greed is so strongly ingrained in our species, that the aquisition of material wealth is so important to us. As long as that remains so governments will always be looking to build and maintain empires to keep us in luxuries we don't need and we will periodically go to war to do so.

May I ask you what exactly is supposed to follow from this.
Cheers, P

In what sense exactly. I am merely saying that war seems to be as inevitable as death and taxes. What I find offensive about war is the attempt to gloss over the factors that determine when, why, and against whom our governments go to war. It's obscene.

pundit wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I have to say, I don't wish to live in a religious state of any kind.

However, would we say that the US is a religious state, or is becoming one. The supposed personal religious views of George Bush, or at least views pertaining to those who are the backbone of his support seem to be encroaching on the legislature and the historical buffer betwixt state and church seems to be becoming ever thinner.

Religious fundamentalism is certainly not confined to Islam, and I wonder whether this is symptomatic of the changes required to justify war.

You are of course right that religious fundamentalism is not confined to Islam. At the same time, it would mean closing ones' eyes to ignore that political Islam is anti-secular movement on a roll.

As for the US, well, I happen to live here -- and as much as I dislike the religious right and its influence on the current administration, thus far noone has tried to enforce a "truly realizable Christian state" or anything similar on me. And I am sure noone will do so in the foreseeable future -- after all this would be unconstitutional.

More generally, I wonder about the -- slightly obsessive -- tendency to turn every debate, no matter what it is on, immediately into an argument against the US. In this specific case, Terence and I were discussing the virtues of religiously motivated political concepts and their consistency with liberalism and human rights. Your ONLY contribution seems to be "but there is a religious right in the US" . So what? What does this add to the debat; and what do you expect to gain from this?

Cheers, P

This wasn't an attack on the US. It was an attack on the current administration and the way it is panedering to the religious zealots who seem to have become the power brokers in recent times. I was also actually asking a question. As someone who lives there, do you find that the religious right are encroaching on policy making is it affecting your life.

My concern is that what we have massing are two supposedly opposing ideologies between the christian west and the Muslim east. It does seem that religious fervour has grown quite rapidly in the states over the last 10-15 , and that during this same period conflict with the middle eastern governments, and their supposedly associated offshoots such as Al Quaida, Hezbolla, Hamas etc etc seems to be on the increase.

It does seem almost as if people were being groomed for a coming conflict. I hope I am wrong, but there does seem to be more of a tendency for politicians to espouse strong religious feelings. Personally, I would be happy if it were forbidden for political leaders to even mention their personal beliefs either in private interviews or on the political platform.

silkov wrote:

pundit wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I have to say, I don't wish to live in a religious state of any kind.

However, would we say that the US is a religious state, or is becoming one. The supposed personal religious views of George Bush, or at least views pertaining to those who are the backbone of his support seem to be encroaching on the legislature and the historical buffer betwixt state and church seems to be becoming ever thinner.

Religious fundamentalism is certainly not confined to Islam, and I wonder whether this is symptomatic of the changes required to justify war.

You are of course right that religious fundamentalism is not confined to Islam. At the same time, it would mean closing ones' eyes to ignore that political Islam is anti-secular movement on a roll.

As for the US, well, I happen to live here -- and as much as I dislike the religious right and its influence on the current administration, thus far noone has tried to enforce a "truly realizable Christian state" or anything similar on me. And I am sure noone will do so in the foreseeable future -- after all this would be unconstitutional.

More generally, I wonder about the -- slightly obsessive -- tendency to turn every debate, no matter what it is on, immediately into an argument against the US. In this specific case, Terence and I were discussing the virtues of religiously motivated political concepts and their consistency with liberalism and human rights. Your ONLY contribution seems to be "but there is a religious right in the US" . So what? What does this add to the debat; and what do you expect to gain from this?

Cheers, P

The fact is that the behaviour of the US in recent years has played right into the hands of the very fundermentalists and Terrorists that Bush is supposed to be fighting against... Bush has been a marvelous recruiter of extremists world wide... I'm not anti American at all but anti Bush and believe that his short sighted behaviour has done untold damage to world wide relations and made the world a far more dangerous and desperate place.... to say otherwise is to simply ignore the facts!...

You know what? I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Cheers, P

Terence wrote:Pundit, you are insatiable, plus a bit naughtly. I know that the UN was set-up due in part to WWII and not before it. I assumed some prior knowledge here and you willfully threw it back at me. Nice one

I will respond in full once I've transcribed 3+ hours of interviews, you can stand on that

Also I decided "fook it!" and will give, if I can even begin it, a brief backdrop of my political views, this is off-topic afterall. I've even be likened to a 'Through a Glass Darkly' version of George Dubya but I prefer to think of my politics as owing more to the genius that is Tony Soprano

It would be interesting if you could sketch some of your views. I'm also prepared though to let the discussion stand where it is, as it is unfortuantely unlikley that we - given our fundamentally different starting points - can make much progress on the subject.

Cheers, P

jamesmcdonnell wrote: This wasn't an attack on the US.

OK, perhaps I'm a bit oversensitive here.

It was an attack on the current administration and the way it is panedering to the religious zealots who seem to have become the power brokers in recent times. I was also actually asking a question. As someone who lives there, do you find that the religious right are encroaching on policy making is it affecting your life.

Well, that's a difficult one. I don't think that the religous right is running the country, no. It surely supports this administration and has some influence on it, especially in moral questions (abortion, gay marriage); but except for the supreme court nomination of judge Alito the religious right has actually achieved rather little. There is no important proponent of the religious right in this government, the only one was Ashcroft but he's gone.

My impression is that the adminstration is using the religious right more than the religious right is using the administration -- I would agree though that this is a dangerous game.

My concern is that what we have massing are two supposedly opposing ideologies between the christian west and the Muslim east. It does seem that religious fervour has grown quite rapidly in the states over the last 10-15 , and that during this same period conflict with the middle eastern governments, and their supposedly associated offshoots such as Al Quaida, Hezbolla, Hamas etc etc seems to be on the increase.

Well, there are still the old-fashioned proponents of secular liberalism like you and me, who think religion should be a largely private issue. I am pretty confident that this view will prevail. Fundamentalism (religious or other) is a fine, easy thing as long as you are in opposition. When you're supposed to govern, however, adherence to fundamentalist views necessarily requires an element of dictatorship, exercised by people who are as fallible as all human beings tend to be. Fallible dictatorship will make the governed unhappy and poor, and they won't put up with it.

I believe in fact that it is likely that in the coming decades fundamentalist Islamic movements will take over the governments of a few more countries -- reflecting the failure of the current governments to provide better perspectives for their populations, and occupying the vacuum that failed movements such as Pan-Arabism etc. have left.

But I also believe that this will the beginning of the end of political Islam, or at least of the more radical strings.

It does seem almost as if people were being groomed for a coming conflict. I hope I am wrong, but there does seem to be more of a tendency for politicians to espouse strong religious feelings. Personally, I would be happy if it were forbidden for political leaders to even mention their personal beliefs either in private interviews or on the political platform.

I wouldn't forbid it, as I value freedom os speech. But otherwise I sympasize with your views.

livingstone cole wrote:Pundit, I hear a lot about freedom of speech and you sound like the kind of guy that could clear up a little problem for me.
What exactly does freedom of speech mean? Surely in essence it translates to something along the lines of the ability to voive your opinion, whatever that opinion may be. But as we all know such a thing doessn't exist anywhere in the world. Hardline opinions voiced by those such as Abu Hamza are deemed to glorify and inspire terrorism, yet as a British citizen, has he not the right to speak out and question government tactics and policy? Hamza has been detained for the bad things he's said. Dubya Bush (don't take that as an attack on American politics - it's just a fitting example) claims he speaks to God who told him to spread democracy thus justifying military conflict in the Middle East. On one hand we have a man who has let a religious obsession cloud his judgement to the point where he makes remarks that could be seen to inspire young, often ill educated youngsters with little prospects to do his bidding, and on the other we have a bloke with hooks for hands.

I'm sure you've heard of the political party in Europe that was formed by paedophiles, I believe their manifesto contained prospective legislation of reducing the legal age of consent to 12. (Interestingly enough, only a year younger than Iran) That's what happens when we have no boundaries on freedom of speech. So I'm sure you'll agree, limits need to be set. The point is, how do we decide which individual sets these boundaries of freedom of speech? Abu, Dubya or the European paedophilles?

Good question and I don't pretend to have a simple answer to that. In general I would advocate to draw boundaries to freedom of speech as wide as possible. Yes, if a person of influence asks his followers to commit severe and clear-cut criminal acts, and if there is a high chance that these acts would indeed occur, I may agree that limiting freedom of speech makes sense in this case -- but still reluctantly.

pundit wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote: This wasn't an attack on the US.

OK, perhaps I'm a bit oversensitive here.

It was an attack on the current administration and the way it is panedering to the religious zealots who seem to have become the power brokers in recent times. I was also actually asking a question. As someone who lives there, do you find that the religious right are encroaching on policy making is it affecting your life.

Well, that's a difficult one. I don't think that the religous right is running the country, no. It surely supports this administration and has some influence on it, especially in moral questions (abortion, gay marriage); but except for the supreme court nomination of judge Alito the religious right has actually achieved rather little. There is no important proponent of the religious right in this government, the only one was Ashcroft but he's gone.

My impression is that the adminstration is using the religious right more than the religious right is using the administration -- I would agree though that this is a dangerous game.

My concern is that what we have massing are two supposedly opposing ideologies between the christian west and the Muslim east. It does seem that religious fervour has grown quite rapidly in the states over the last 10-15 , and that during this same period conflict with the middle eastern governments, and their supposedly associated offshoots such as Al Quaida, Hezbolla, Hamas etc etc seems to be on the increase.

Well, there are still the old-fashioned proponents of secular liberalism like you and me, who think religion should be a largely private issue. I am pretty confident that this view will prevail. Fundamentalism (religious or other) is a fine, easy thing as long as you are in opposition. When you're supposed to govern, however, adherence to fundamentalist views necessarily requires an element of dictatorship, exercised by people who are as fallible as all human beings tend to be. Fallible dictatorship will make the governed unhappy and poor, and they won't put up with it.

I believe in fact that it is likely that in the coming decades fundamentalist Islamic movements will take over the governments of a few more countries -- reflecting the failure of the current governments to provide better perspectives for their populations, and occupying the vacuum that failed movements such as Pan-Arabism etc. have left.

But I also believe that this will the beginning of the end of political Islam, or at least of the more radical strings.

It does seem almost as if people were being groomed for a coming conflict. I hope I am wrong, but there does seem to be more of a tendency for politicians to espouse strong religious feelings. Personally, I would be happy if it were forbidden for political leaders to even mention their personal beliefs either in private interviews or on the political platform.

I wouldn't forbid it, as I value freedom os speech. But otherwise I sympasize with your views.

In relation to what I said about politicians I think there's a case to be made for not being able to talk about religion. After all, we place restrictions on politicians and civil servants with regard to information they may divulge, so wny not restrict their freedom to discuss matters of religious belief.

There can be no total freedom of speech, because the freedom of speech also allows people to stir up unrest and cause problems for the political establishment. Thus governments in times of national security will restrict what may or may not be said, and in the current climate the views of certain religious radicals and other political extremists on the far right have been restricted by the legislature.

The major problem with running any state along religious grounds is that it imposes what is essentially a belief system on an entire population, leaving them no choice but to follow the tenets of a system they may or may not believe in. Religions are also notoriously rigin imposing belief systems which were designed for the time in whichi the prophets and their adherents lived in.

If the current conflagration can be contained long enough then I think we will see uprisings in the more affluent muslim states. Educated affluent nations usually end up becoming secular, as religion tends to be the manna of the impoverished and a form of social control that keeps the ignorant in their place.

The best thing that the Western world can do is to trade with the middle east and make them wealthy, if they want peace that is. My guess is they would rather have war and make themselves wealthy.

We are liviing in extremely turbulent times, there is a great race for diminishing resources, oil and water chiefly, and there is going to be great conflict in the coming decades.

Hi guys. I am a former Muslim. Former meaning I left Islam, because I no longer believe in it and its message. Like many Arabs I believe Islam is holding the Arab world shackled to outdated views and types of behaviour.

As you know, leaving Islam means the death penalty in any Islamic country. Therefore I and thousands of ex-Muslims have to hide the fact that we left Islam. Far from being the religion of peace, Islam decrees discrimination against women, non-Arabs, and especially against non-Muslims. The worst hatred however is reserved for ex-Muslims.

If you should want to find more about ex-Muslims and about real Islam, exposed by ex-Muslims, visit: http://www.faithfreedom.org/

Peace to you all.

Karim

PS: there are indeed many ex-Muslims among the intellectuals and humanists in the Islamic World.

exmuslim wrote:Hi guys. I am a former Muslim. Former meaning I left Islam, because I no longer believe in it and its message. Like many Arabs I believe Islam is holding the Arab world shackled to outdated views and types of behaviour.

As you know, leaving Islam means the death penalty in any Islamic country. Therefore I and thousands of ex-Muslims have to hide the fact that we left Islam. Far from being the religion of peace, Islam decrees discrimination against women, non-Arabs, and especially against non-Muslims. The worst hatred however is reserved for ex-Muslims.

If you should want to find more about ex-Muslims and about real Islam, exposed by ex-Muslims, visit: http://www.faithfreedom.org/

Peace to you all.

Karim

PS: there are indeed many ex-Muslims among the intellectuals and humanists in the Islamic World.

What? Leaving Islam mean's the death penalty, first I've heard of that.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

exmuslim wrote:Hi guys. I am a former Muslim. Former meaning I left Islam, because I no longer believe in it and its message. Like many Arabs I believe Islam is holding the Arab world shackled to outdated views and types of behaviour.

As you know, leaving Islam means the death penalty in any Islamic country. Therefore I and thousands of ex-Muslims have to hide the fact that we left Islam. Far from being the religion of peace, Islam decrees discrimination against women, non-Arabs, and especially against non-Muslims. The worst hatred however is reserved for ex-Muslims.

If you should want to find more about ex-Muslims and about real Islam, exposed by ex-Muslims, visit: http://www.faithfreedom.org/

Peace to you all.

Karim

PS: there are indeed many ex-Muslims among the intellectuals and humanists in the Islamic World.

What? Leaving Islam means the death penalty, first I've heard of that.

Then you haven't heard too much - under sharia law, apostasy or conversion out of Islam is a serious offense, punishable by whipping, fines, imprisonment and – in the most extreme application – death.

I must admit to not being an expert in such matters, but I would assume that the application of the death penalty would be an extremely rare occurance.

I have heard however of instances where local religious police in countries such as Oman have drowned a man's daughter in a swimming pool for associating with foriegn men at the bidding of the girls father. I don't know whether this was a case of law being incorrectly or overzelously applied I do not know.

All religious states to me are onerous ideas, the idea that faith can be used to govern mankind is nonsense and is dangerous, and that goes for any regligion.

Yes, James,

according to Sharia the one who leaves Islam (Murtad) is condemned to death. Not to canning, fines, prison, whiping or banishment, but death. It is considered the greatest crime in Islam. You can be a rapist or a killer and still get away with your life (after physical punishment) but to leave Islam means certain death if the Muslims find out and get a hold of you.

I dont know about the Omani girl you talk of, but if she had sex outside marriage and they found out, then the punishment is death.

exmuslim wrote:Far from being the religion of peace, Islam decrees discrimination against women, non-Arabs, and especially against non-Muslims. The worst hatred however is reserved for ex-Muslims.

I'm sorry to tell you but Islam doesn't decree discrimination against non-muslims, infact muslims are even allowed to marry Christians and Jews. Yes ex-muslim males are punished in quite a few muslim countries, this law isn't Quranic though.

The Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) lived in peace with non-muslims, yes he defended his people if they were attacked but he never discriminated against anyone (he did punish deserters though, as most leaders would, remember it was a time of war!). He taught us to live in peace with non-muslims, you should read all the 'Hadith' of the prophet Mohammed.

He also taught us to obey the law of the land if we lived in a non-muslim state. For example if we kill an innocent non-muslim in the UK (e.g. like the 7/7 bombings) we "will not smell the fragrance of paradise" (Stated by the Prophet peace be upon him).

Don't confuse Islam with the idiots who misinterpret Islam and practice it in an incorrect manner. I can't think of one Islamic state that practises Islam correctly. The leaders are at fault NOT the religion, don't confuse the two.

One more thing, the Quran can only be properly understood in Arabic thus there are many distortions when it is interpreted in English (or any other language) which also leads to a lot of confusion. The religion is of peace but some idiotic radicals misinterpret it.

If all the 3 main religions were followed word for word then we would be living in peace, end of story.

exmuslim wrote:Yes, James,

according to Sharia the one who leaves Islam (Murtad) is condemned to death. Not to canning, fines, prison, whiping or banishment, but death. It is considered the greatest crime in Islam. You can be a rapist or a killer and still get away with your life (after physical punishment) but to leave Islam means certain death if the Muslims find out and get a hold of you.

I dont know about the Omani girl you talk of, but if she had sex outside marriage and they found out, then the punishment is death.

The greatest crime in Islam is 'shirk' (idol worshipping) and not leaving Islam. No offence but get your facts right.

lawllb wrote:If all the 3 main religions were followed word for word then we would be living in peace, end of story.

Perhaps, one day, God will appear and tell all his followers to do just this.... That would probably help.

If people want to believe in fairy tales, that's their choice. But they shouldn't be having such an influence, and impact, on peoples lives in the 21st century.

I can't believe people can still be so influenced by religion in this day and age. I'm not so arrogant as to believe there is no possibility of a God existing. I just think it's highly fornicating unlikely.