There seems to be one thing that humans have in unlimited supply: the ability to evade reality and insist that their whims, feelings, and fantasies create existence. Their words are not tools of thought and communication. They are shields intended to protect themselves from the reality they so ardently avoid.
Except in extraordinary circumstances, each chooses his own path in life. Our challenge is to avoid having to pay the price for the choices of others. The consequences of our own choices are costly enough.
-sounds to me like she would not oppose a clitorectomy either
the "religion of peace" is almost always understood. What *they* mean by it is that you will be harassed mercilessly until you convert to Islam - and demonstrate your conversion blatantly enough to satisfy them. Then, and only then, will you be allowed to live in peace. Outside Islam, you can have only war. Only in Islam, can you have peace.
That's what the muslims mean by "religion of peace". Hint: they also refer to Islam as "the religion of dominance". Guess what that means!
As the doctor suggests, it take a real modern-day feminist to truly appreciate Islam and shill for it. Ridley has made her preferences known. If she hadn't converted to Islam nobody would listen to anything she says. Conversion has been her ticket to attention and glory.
OK, but... there is a certain disingenuousness to asserting that beauty pageants are a great blow for women's freedom and dignity.
Ditto the flood of media messages encouraging women to view/value themselves primarily as "eye candy".
In this generation those messages of glamour are no longer balanced by assertions of the value of marriage and the dignity/social status of women as wives and mothers.
Modern feminism successfully gutted the "patriarchical" and "chauvinist" values that they claimed were holding women down - but it is bitterly ironic that without those values, dating has been reduced to the meat rack and younger women are dressing and presenting themselves in self-debasing ways that their "oppressed" mothers never would have.
Is the current hypersexed, hyperexternalized, hyperconsumerist environment REALLY better for women (and men)?
The six-year old wearing ass-crack jeans while she plays with her slutty BRATZ doll - really better off, broader prospects, better self-image?
The 30-something professional woman who may feel she has to dress and act like a Bratz doll - or go under the surgeon's knife - to get... what? An unstable simulacrum of their parents' marriage bond, easily dissolved when either partner gets bored?
THIS is liberation?
Nope - not for men OR women.
Ben-David,
In America, you get to decide YOUR moral standards but you don't get to decide for others. You also have a right to YOUR life, property, and freedom but you DO NOT have a right to the life, property, and freedom of others.
In Islam you don't get decide your moral standards, they were decided for you over a 1000 years ago. You also don't have a right to your life, property, or freedom. They belong to its non-existent god and to whatever gang of thugs who happened to be pretending to be his spokesman at the moment.
The first supports the production of wealth that sustains and advances life. The second produces only stagnation and death.
Worship the way of death if you like but make sure its only your own death that you produce.
Good thinking, Ben David.
I have this theory that Muslim men want their women to wear veils and be covered, so they don'y have to look them in they eye as they beat the hell out of them, or have to see the damage they have inflicted after they have beaten them.
Sounds to me to be exactly the phenomenon described by Eric Hoffer in The True Believer: exchanging one brand of radical ideology for the exact opposite radical ideology. What matters is not the content of the ideology but rather the new hope for salvation whatever radical identity tales.
should read:
rather the new hope for salvation whatever radical identity promises.
*Ooops*
>>THIS is liberation?>>
I'm frequently appalled at what passes for women's "lib" these days. Certainly when the movement started, one of the goals was to be valued as being worth more than just a sex object or brood mare. When I see the sexual content aimed at youngsters today, I despair. On the other hand...
>>In America, you get to decide YOUR moral standards but you don't get to decide for others.>>
This is also true. But whatever are parents thinking who allow their young girls to dress/behave like sluts? or the young women who thing that being called sluts/whores is a compliment? So...I agree with both of you. I deplore the state of morals in this country, but I also think it's up to us to pull ourselves up - not the law. I strongly believe that we need two codes of conduct to govern our behavior - one religious, which calls us to an ideal, and one legal, that defines the minimal behavior our society will tolerate. To combine both as one standard invites an unacceptable tyranny.
Doc, Islam originated in Arab tribal culture and is optimized for Arab tribal culture. This might be a result of "a fish not knowing it's wet", but the result is that Islam locked in ALL the aspects of Arab tribal culture -- the good, the bad, and the ugly -- for all eternity by Divine Fiat.
As for "Islam as practiced in the 1400s", at that time (the peak of Islamic civilization, before the Mongols smashed through) Islamic medicine was among the most advanced in the world. Today, Islamic medicine has become divination and exorcism of the Jinn that's possessing the patient. (Doesn't say whether the exorcism is done by reciting the holy books to the "possessed" or more "physical" means...)
I usually don't agree with you on much, but I definitely agree with you on this. 100%. I fail to see how feminism can excuse Islamic fundamentalism in any way. Being a feminist myself, I KNOW that ALL feminists are not apologists for Muslim misogyny. However, the idea that even ONE feminist would open her mouth to defend such vile religous practices, while with the same breath will slam some right-winger like Phyllis Schlafly for advocating that women stay home and cook. Look, I think Schafly is an idiot, however, she does not advocate for women to be set on fire or stoned to death if they DONT stay in the kitchen. And I have yet to hear any right-wing "traditional values" blowhard advocate for the removal of the clitoris. I am simply flummoxed by the blind spot that there seems to be with progressives and Islamic culture.
In the U.S. everyone has the right to be a fool, or not, and to be judged accordingly. This right is a derivitive of the free-thought capacity, and its right to exist, imo.
The free thought capacity has/wants to accord to anyone its same right, and the presumption that this capacity exists within everyone - at least up to a certain limit, a point defined by the necessities of and right to the preservation of free thought itself.
Within the Islamic-Islamofascist system there are no such rights, only the pathologic, sadomasochistic drive that everyone be the same, or else, make the same noises, etc.: in other words thought control institutionalized.
[Sounds a lot like Faux Liberalism, to me.]
So Ridley is a fool who has actually *chosen* to have no rights, were her chosen groupist, anti-free thought racist Religion to prevail.
Ridley is also an oppressor, a willing Dhimmi enabler or oppressors, as Dr. S. has shown my her excellent analogy, and since Ridley has essentially declared war on free thought completely of her own free will.
Ridley is either very frightened of the free-thought capacity she has, or else she doesn't even have it.
Then she wonders why people look at her funny, and even fear her?
Do any of these anti-free thought racist Nazis even have a free thought capacity?
More Feminazi-ism, anyone? And Islam is a Religion of Peace? Fool me once...
suek,
Its OK for you to choose religion as your moral guide. Just don't try to force ancient mythology on me or anyone else. There is no god up there nor out there nor anywhere to kiss our booboos to make them all better and to read us night-night stories as we fall asleep.
In my very carefully considered judgment we are on our own in this universe. We must discover our nature and our proper relationship to reality and to others by and for ourselves. We must even discover how to do this by and for ourselves.
Relying on ancient mythologies, old wives tales, and the dictates of tired, frightened old men (dead or alive) is the surest way of getting it wrong. Getting it right is truly a matter of life or death.
"I am simply flummoxed by the blind spot that there seems to be with progressives and Islamic culture."
Lisa
Wellcome to the club, Lisa. I was flummoxed until about 10 years ago, when I began to realize that current Liberals are not Classical Liberals anymore, but the opposite, having deviously kept the term "Liberal" for themselves.
This is actually a well-known tactic of propagandist controllists: seize a term, then change its meaning.
Thus the Faux Liberals, or "Fliberals", of today are, quite simply, anti-free thought racists/bigots, whose ultimate goal is the dominance or elimination of rational free-thought itself. They don't merely have "blind spots".
If you don't start to see this - or the same thing in some other form - you will be continually flummoxed by the total thought and policy chaos demonstrated by today's "Liberals", "Progressives", or any thing else they try to call themselves - terms which parasitically sound good, but will always turn out to be the antithesis of what these fakes then bring the specific term or name to mean in actual practice.
I'm no longer flummoxed, but I continue to be astounded. And what these anti-free thought controllist bigots want to do is gigantic.
They already control the Democrat Party.
I'm confused--is her statement an excerpt of a larger quote? In a larger piece does she defend all Islamic practices? It seems kind of a jump to say that because she likes wearing a headscarf she also wouldn't object to gential mutilation...And it's a point well taken that women in the West--pressured to be hyper-sexualized, often the object of sexual harrassment/assault--are hardly in a great position...and to blame the victim by saying one is a willing accomplice in her own murder is f****ed up--the only person responsible for murder is the murderer...and I see a tendency to lump all Muslims into one stereotyped group--this is why it would be good for more Americans to spend time out of their own country, to see that, for example, Muslims in parts of India are much closer to the rest of their local populations that they are to some notion of "world-wide Islam"--too many in the US only hear about the extreme groups of jihadists--there are lots of Muslims who aren't much like them. Don't forget that you're the target of ideologues that have to see everything in terms of good/evil--much like during the Cold War.
I can't see why so many non-Muslims defend Islam when the actual wearing of the veils in their many forms underlines the belief that men are incapable of self-control, a cornerstone of civilized society from back in the days of the earliest Chinese writings 4,000 yrs ago.
In the Ridley story, there's also a Stockholm syndrome component. I also wonder, does Ridley live with a practicing Muslim man?
Really, everyone should look at Islamic fundamentalism and see a lesson:
For those of us on the left, we should take heed that multiculturalism cannot include every vile cultural practice. There MUST be some assimilation, because we are still a country based on some pretty decent ideals - secularism being the best ideal anyone ever came up with. Respecting culture - but drawing the line where that culture craps on other human beings, is what binds us together as Americans.
Those on the right who are obsessed with "traditional values" and converting this country into a theocratic nation based on biblical precepts should see from the Islamic fundies how horrible a culture can become if religion becomes the law.
Lisa,
Do you have any proof of this statement "and converting this country into a theocratic nation based on biblical precepts"? Or did you just read your daily dose of Dem talking points?
Bill:
I emailed you some quotes. I did not want to get too far off topic on this message board. The host and regulars have been extremely gracious in engaging me on this issue and I dont want to abuse it by posting trollish stuff that has nothing to do with the topic. The fact is that religion and public policy can make a shitty cocktail. I understand that you cant take it completely out of the public sphere, as most men and women are motivated by their ethics, which are drawn from their various faiths. But to actually take your religious text and try to legislate law based on it will net you a bunch of idiotic nations like the ones you have in the Middle East. That was my point. No democratic talking points or any other stuff designed to make that trick knee of your jerk spasmodically.
Bill, the operative word in Lisa's comment is "obsessed." There are those on the right -- not all, but some -- who want a theocratic nation, whether you like that statement or not. Do you have proof that the left -- all, not some -- is without virtue or merit? Proof, Bill, not Repub talking points.
Good response, Lisa.
Oh, and I did not mean to imply that "everyone on the right is a theocrat". Certainly not.
I've never even heard a religious person 'on the right' use the term 'theocracy'.
I assume by 'theocracy' you mean 'outlawing abortion'....
In the Islamic theocracies, abortion is allowed--primarily on female foeti. Is it still a 'progressive society' that allows abortion--to kill girls?
Ben-David:
Is the current hypersexed, hyperexternalized, hyperconsumerist environment REALLY better for women (and men)?
Better than being raped to death by thugs because you defy society by showing a bit of leg or dating or speaking out against your oppression?
Sure.
Mike:
Do you remember the Cold War? At all? Do you harbor the belief that the West and the Soviet Block were somehow just morally equivalent competitors?
What is with the obsession with trying to change the subject to moderate Muslims whenever the radicals are discussed? Can we talk about that tomorrow and this today, or does every discussion have to be about what you want it to be about?
Lisa and Athenawise:
I'm an agnostic. I've acted and spoken out against making any religion "official" in school or in state. That's just to give a little perspective.
There are a handful of Christians who want some sort of theocratic government. They don't have any real political power, and most of their bretheren oppose them. They certainly aren't making any headway in the school system. This is separate from the larger group that simply sees their political beliefs as flowing from their religious beliefs.
On the other hand, there are vast numbers of Muslims who want a theocratic state, and probably 500 million of them who already have one - and these states engage regularly in what you should identify as oppression and abuse.
Yet you can't stand the latter being discussed without bringing up the former as some sort of equivalent.
So, who's obsessed? Please think about it.
Y'all are kind've sounding like "Who cares about the Grizzly Bear, we have a mouse problem!!!"
I have to face this attitude all the time, my Dad's side of the family all have CDS.
Yvonne Ridley was captured and held by the taliban. A case of Stockhausen's Syndrome I guess.
We are at war! The Muslims use all of our Constitutional Amendments to their advantage as it is; what would stop a he/she dressed in a burkha from entering a bank, with robbery as the intent; then when confronted claim that their freedom of religion was violated? I see lawyers swimming about; "CUSTOMERS MUST SHOW FACES" signs are Islamophobic-racist-etc. Of course, from a male Muslim's point of view; think of all the money you save not buying clothes for your wives, just underwear and bangles, and if she complains her stuff isn't as good as her sister's, whack her with a stick! We put alot of effort to leave the dark ages, and a clown like Ridley SAYS she wants us to return.
Merovign--The reason I asked if this was an excerpt from a larger statement is precisely because it doesn't seem that radical to me--she's talking about head scarves but everyone is piling on her like she thinks radical Islam is great--so who here is "obsessed" with changing the subject? If she's radical, where is that in what's posted here? Did I miss something? Some people seem incapable of thinking about Muslims in any other way than that they're "all terrorists"--which simply isn't true.
As for the morality of capitalism--I guess you're going to overlook how workers are exploited, environments polluted, jobs shipped overseas, people in democratically elected (and overthrown)governments (Chile, Guatemala) murdered for being leftists--all so multinational capitalist corps could flourish--my point is, demonizing others is an inherently false perspective--not all communists were/are EVIL and not all Westerners are angelic...
As for the morality of capitalism--I guess you're going to overlook how workers are exploited, environments polluted, jobs shipped overseas, people in democratically elected (and overthrown)governments (Chile, Guatemala) murdered for being leftists--all so multinational capitalist corps could flourish--my point is, demonizing others is an inherently false perspective--not all communists were/are EVIL and not all Westerners are angelic..."
Hmmm ... you are misguided. Capitalism is simply an economic system. Any morality or immorality that may be assigned to it are false. You may however label individuals as moral or immoral. Capitalism, in a free society leaves the responsibility for ones success or failure in ones own hands. If you don't like what you're doing or what you're making find another job, move, get more education ... whatever it is to get you what you desire. You are free to either do it or stay where you are.
Communism on the other hand, instead of proliferating ambition, incentive and innovation ... robs it. Since no matter what one does one cannot reap the rewards, only the state does, it (communism) can certainly be labeled immoral as well it should. People are meant to be free, not slaves to a totalitarian elite.
All communists may not have been evil, but communism is. Some capitalists may be evil, but capitalism is not. The one caveat with capitalism is our justice system deals with the capitalist who is injust, there is no justice for the evil communist.
In addition you seem to forget that in any system, whether it be capitalism or communism, goods and food must be produced. Communism is much more prone to exploiting it’s workers, polluting the environment and disregarding the laws of human decency simply because the state works for itself and has no master, no one to answer to.
I’m not sure if you remember how after the Berlin wall came down, people who went into East Germany were shocked at the disregard for the environment and the vast amount of industrial pollution that had laid waste to a significant part of the country.
Capitalism can and does police itself in a free society. Can you say the same for communism?
Gray: Of course you haven't heard a theocrat use the word theocracy. No fundamentalist calls themself a fundamentalist. They call themselves right.
Merovign: I did not mean to get anyone on the defensive. I meant to make an observation that ANY religion, made into the law of the land, will turn the country into a pile of crap. I am not knocking anyone's religious beliefs or equating them to the Middle East. Merely pointing out that were we to abandon our secular government, it would not take us long to devolve into something really unpleasant.
Mike, I am not some reactionary nut who hates Muslims, but her article was disturbing. While the article was mainly concerned with the veil, it kind of arrogantly and even stupidly says: This is the religion of peace, why are you guys so nervous that I have shrouded my face in black gauze? You must be bigots or idiots! She conveniently ignores a HOST of things.
1. While in Middle Eastern countries where this is the norm Western women cover their heads and wear the appropriate garb that will not piss anyone off. Maybe she should consider not walking around in a Western country with black gauze wrapped around her face. That makes US as nervous as a little ankle would make a Saudi.
2. Religion of peace my ass.
3. She says that back when Suliman the Great was alive, Islamic women were totally Gloria Steinem. And they have had 1400 years of womens liberation. Soooooo, you are telling me that the Taliban is really just the Muslim equivalent of Alan Alda and Phil Donahue? We just dont get how sensitive they are. Riiiiight.
Anyway...
This is a pretty cool forum, I got here via Salon.com. Thanks for the stimulating conversation. Today was fun. It was like back in the day when we Jerry Brown libs and the Reagan conservs used to have a good time arguing over a few beers. And no one questioned anyones loyalty to the US (okay well we questioned each others sanity quite often).
See ya.
This poor woman has to be nuts to convert to Islam. It's one thing to be born and thus trapped into it, but to consciously forsake her Western heritage for the backwardness of Islam indicates serious problems.
This business of hiding the face -- and hence the individuality -- of the Muslim woman is meant to dehumanize. Face-hiding tells the world that the Muslim woman has no more importance than what the male might allow. It says "I have no right to question or to think. I have no free will. I am a non-entity."
Fausta (above 1:35 PM) made another great point -- that face-hiding reflects the inability of Muslim men to cope with sexuality in a healthy way.
Mike:
That pretty much answers my question. You named some of the most glaring features of communist regimes as the "sins" of capitalism. Of course, they don't need to ship jobs overseas, because their people are effectively slaves.
Exploit the frickin' workers? I bet you have a closet full of Che t-shirts, freak-boy.
You, my child, are in desparate need of a reality bath to wash of that nasty fantasy. Why not spend a year or two in North Korea, watching the poor citizens starve to death? Maybe a little environmental cleanup in Russia, hmmm? Do a little spotting duty for Chinese soldiers hunting Tibetan pilgrims?
Calling planet Berkeley, calling planet Berkely...
Lisa:
Perhaps for your own reasons unrelated to the general trend, you came down on a side we have seen far too often and are a little tired of - the "moral equivalency" crowd.
No one is perfect, and no one is likely ever to be. But let's face it, it was Christians who questioned their church, developed systems of tolerance and multi-ethnic and multi-cultural states (in modern times), and built the secular society you're so (justifiably) proud of - and they did it largely to protect themselves, so most of them aren't keen on undoing it!
So when droves of Presbyterians march into kindergartens, Starbucks, and police stations and shout "Praise Jesus!" just before they set off the Semtex they've got hidden in their three-piece, AND they're lionized by millions of their fellows, THEN we can have a chat about how awful Christians are.
Until then, please forgive me if I think your point is a tad bogus.
That being said, you've not followed the Troll Way just yet, so while I certainly don't have the authority to permit or deny anyone around here, as far as I'm concerned you can hang around and wave your beer at me. 
I don't know if politics was ever nice, but there did seem to be a time (lo these many years ago) when it wasn't quite so desperately angry.
Then again, I was a babe in arms at the end of our involvement in Vietnam, and I'm told it was pretty damned contentious then as well.
Lisa:
Another point occurred to me wherein you may not be aware of quite how you've given offense:
When someone says "IF CHristians had power they WOULD be just as bad as the Taleban," you may, in your mind, be stating a hypothetical, but in the mind of a Christian, you just made a horrible accusation of ill intent.
You may as well have accused them of being a closet child molester.
Since you certainly don't have any proof (especially since it was mostly Christians who built the secular society), it amounts to a false accusation.
And that REALLY chaps people's hide.
"Gray: Of course you haven't heard a theocrat[Christian] use the word theocracy. No fundamentalist calls themself a fundamentalist. They call themselves right.
Merovign:...[I'm] Merely pointing out that were we to abandon our secular government, it would not take us long to devolve into something really unpleasant."
Lisa
LIsa, I know you have said farewell and so cannot respond, but the above statements do betray a paranoia based upon a vague possibiliy, accompanied by a "begging the question" argument, or at least the statement only of a platitude or tautology.
Christians per se have never tried to take over our Country. Instead, a new secularism has made war on Christians, but not on Muslims, to say nothing of being completely blind to Islamofascists - except for making flippant and fraudulent excuses for them [excuses which, btw, the new secuarlarism would not make for classic male Batterers.]
Thus, I have to say that you are perhaps deep in the throes of psychological denial and displacemnt of the Islamofascist threat, and have also fallen prey to yet another propagandistic word game, this time involving "secularism" instead of "Liberalism" or "Progressivism'.
This is the easy way out, it can't work, and it is also very convenient to Faux Liberal meme-generators and propagandists, who play upon people's weaknesses in order to promote their own myopic controllist agenda, at all other costs.
I am not a Christian and know all the Philosophical arguments against Christian doctrine. But I became very impressed with the Faux Liberal war on Christians - among others - as actually *anti-secular*, according to the previous meaning of that particular word, which at least once connoted tolerance, not instead as it does now = aggressive groupist, stereotyping bigotry and lack of First Amendment rights of free speech and thought.
Secularism now means in practice, Relativism, Randomism, Determinism, Post-Modernism, Groupism, Anti-Capitalism, etc., and, contradictorily, the Idealism of mere self-assertion: "What I say is correct because it is I who say it. I channel the Ideal"; and a virulent Theocratism itself: "My or my group's thoughts are the only true ones. We alone commune with Truth, and thus must necessarily rule."
And, of course, the new secularism now necessarily includes at its base Anti-Free Thought Racism: all values must now be destroyed by secularism in service of naked control, including the values of individualism and our own thought capacities which embody and produce, or at least recognize, values to begin with.
So, in effect, the new secularism is now governed only by an operative meta-ethic of death worship, and even a death wish: control for control's sake [as in "winning"] can really have no other end or outcome except destruction.
Or see such other deviant and controllist Faux Liberal death worshipping justifications as, "the death or enslavement of others ennobles me if I do not commit violence to defend them"; and, "I must tolerate those who obviously want to kill me."
I used to be able to call myself a "secularist", too. I'm kind of p.o.'d about it, but those days are obviously over.
Time to see what's really going on and move on to confront real problems and real enemies instead of escaping into the world of denial and facile paranoid displacement at the behest of cynical controllists.
> rather than rescue them because they were not fully clothed.
That's not a fair statement, Doc.
They let them die because they weren't wearing their hijabs.
It's not even a matter of nakedness, or even being "scantily clad" (horror of horrors!)... they just didn't have their headscarves and robes on on.
"When I converted to Islam and began wearing a headscarf, the repercussions were enormous. All I did was cover my head and hair -- but I instantly became a second-class citizen."
Ridley, a poor downtrodden victim
Yeah, like you would if you wore a stocking mask.
Muslims will only reap what they sow. So far they are very far in the red. But Ridley certainly knows where to go when victimhood is the currency.
Where can I git me some Nazi Swastika tatoos?
> Is the current hypersexed, hyperexternalized, hyperconsumerist environment REALLY better for women (and men)?
By all means, no -- but the alternative of the opposite extreme is not appropriate, either -- as either a response or a solution.
> They belong to its non-existent god and to whatever gang of thugs who happened to be pretending to be his spokesman at the moment.
One thing should be grasped -- The Muslim Allah is not theoretically different from the Christian God. So when you suggest that Allah is nonexistent, you suggest that God is nonexistent. Islam nominally recognizes Christ. It should be taken as a seriously twisted cult, not as something distinct from and inherently inimical to Christianity.
I don't say we may not need to deal with them as abject enemies -- just that this realization may, at some point, offer a solution which everyone can live with. That's not an apologetic for them -- just a call for recognition of the actual nature of things.
"And, especially among converts to the faith like me, the attention of men who confront women with inappropriate, *leering behavior* is not tolerable."
Ridley, the omnipotent
Well, from what I hear, the Mexicans are then going to be in deep shit, not to mention Alec Baldwin and Bill Clinton.
"And, *especially* among converts to the faith like *me*, the attention of men who confront women with inappropriate, leering behavior is not tolerable."
Ridley, the especially valued
Only a bag over her head will do.
"The Muslim Allah is not theoretically different from the Christian God."
I totally agree. They are one and the same. There is no difference between a zero and a zero. That the dogmas differ is irrelevant. There is no object for the subject.
"So when you suggest that Allah is nonexistent, you suggest that God is nonexistent."
I not only suggest it, I will say it loud and clear: GOD DOES NOT EXIST AND RELIGION IS NOISE! There is no reality behind the screen. Its all a fraud and has been since the first god was invented hundreds of thousands of years ago.
Have I made myself clear?
"And, especially among converts to the faith like me, *the attention of men* who confront women with inappropriate, leering behavior *is not tolerable*."
Ridley, the barren Feminazi, the Unanothing
A Rational Human, agreed:
"For after all the great religions have been preached and expounded, or have been revealed by brilliant scholars, or have been written in fine books and embellished in fine language with finer covers, man -- all man -- is still confronted with the Great Mystery" - Chief Luther Standing Bear, Ota Kte, Oglala Sioux.
But God was invented for another reason also, to note the Great Mystery and our capacities for wondering about it at all. Imho.
J. Peden wrote
"But God was invented for another reason also, to note the Great Mystery and our capacities for wondering about it at all."
The primary consequence of the invention of god was to stop thought about and stop investigation into that so called great mystery. It was important that the mystery remain a mystery. Otherwise it was not possible to control the masses and to extort unearned wealth and obedience from them.
The use of god as an explanation is a denial of the mind and a confession on the part of its user of his willful intent to destroy the mind. Uncounted millions have died because of it. The user of god and religion for any purpose cannot be innocent.
This just in:
Pat Tillman's Brother Slams US Government
http://www.truthdig.com/report/i..._pats_birthday/
Yes, A Rational Human Human, I agree with you, mostly.
But we must confront the most immediate threat you postulate and note, the Islamofascists, and the Muslims, sub rosa, in effect. They are the ones who epitomize what you speak of, right now and for real.
I would focus upon the Muslims. They've had enough slack cut to them, and they have not responded in a favorable way.
"Pat Tillman's Brother Slams US Government
http://www.truthdig.com/report/i...ats_birthday/\"
Michael Andreyakovich
I don't really care what Pat Tillman's brother says. Why do you?
Pat Tillman said something himself.
"When Islam offers women so much, why are Western men so obsessed with Muslim women's attire?"
Ridley wishes
I'm more obsessed with purple fingers.
J. Peden; Amen, brother, here's to free Women!
Im an agnostic that thinks you should be allowed to open up a nude bar in your community if you so please. Having said that, im deeply troubled by the level of censorship applied to religious folk in the name of "seperation of church and state". Are we that paranoid of religion that a child mentioning their religion in school has to be squashed? That a President mentioning his faith has to be ridiculed? Are we the wise ones that see the need to crush religious peoples liberty on a scale that our founding fathers simply missed?
We have finally got religion in check by stomping all over religious peoples constitutional rights. Under the guise of protecting the constitution!
If we change the word "religion" to a more simple term like "world view", we begin to see that all of our liberties are threatened by the current trend.
There's an article on Salon's website today that describes a town in Idaho where Mormon women are pretty much required to wear shapeless dresses to hide whatever attractiveness they may possess--is this really so different from what people assume is the motivation for Muslim women wearing the veil? I came across an interesting documentary made in the late 1970s--Muslim women were interviewed about wearing the veil/headscarf or not--many of them talked about how they did it as a religious discipline...yes, they may have been brainwashed into thinking this but one doesn't really know, right? Why not bash the Mormons for being so "uptight" about sexuality? Or better still, why not refrain from bashing anyone?
And as for the remarks about Communism, the trouble I have with people like Merovign is that they immediately jump to the worst case scenario (North Korea etc)and ignore examples that might refute their hysterical defense of all things capitalist. There have been plenty of places (especially in Latin America)where socialism is a form that works for countries with a large perecentage of uneducated agricultural workers--and when people elect a gov that reflects that, they should be allowed to keep it, not have it overturned with the help of the CIA. And then we have to listen to Republican blather about "deomocracy"! And he seems to be ignoring the fact that capitalists are often in bed with the government-how is this self policing? Look at the present day state of our gov, with politicians providing legislation in return for money. Jack Abramoff, the pharmecutical industry, the energy companies...the list goes on and on...And there are many red staters who are angry about losing their jobs in the midwest so some CEO can build his third vacation house...it's not just us "berkeley" types who are complaining...While you're ranting about the evils of communism, you need to educate yourself about some of the atrocities committed by and on behalf of US companies like United Fruit in Guatemala or the Catholic church in Latin America and the Carribean or Christian missionaries and the "civilizing" British in India. I wouldn't necessarily choose to live in a Muslim country or a communist one--I just get fed up with all the demonizing, extreme responses and knee-jerk defenses of things that need to be looked at more carefully. If we had a president who wasn't so ignorant that he didn't even know there were Sunni Muslims and Shi'ite Muslims (with all this entails)maybe we wouldn't be faced with the problem of Iraq. And Bush is a perfect example of the downside of a "free" capitalist system--he couldn't even get into the U of Texas on his own--his Ivy League education is the result of his family's money and pull--he and Jeb and Neil Bush have all used the government to make their fortunes--Neil Bush drove two S&Ls into the ground using taxpayer money--I didn't notice that he received any jail time for this fraud...where is the self-policing here?
That's a very good point SteveH.
A.RH, While I definitely believe in a God like higher power, I've got a good freind that doesn't believe in God in the least. That's fine by me, no skin off my ass. I can respect his point of view with no problem and he mine; we're still very good friends. Know why? Because we respect each others belief's and never try to jam them down each others throat. Ya dig? Other than that, keep on keeping on my sane and lucid fellow traveler.
Jeez Mike, I totaly get where your coming from. I recall the good old days when I allowed myself such luxuries as good rant with the kitchen sink thrown in for good measure. Aaah, just thinking about it makes me giddy.
My mom used to love this show with this old guy that drove this Jaguar. Remember that? "The Equalizer". That old dude kicked some serious ass!
That's all good fantasy but in the real world it just doesn't fly man.
Mormons vs. Muslims? Communism vs. Better and worse forms? Don't forget the good old Bush vs. Intelligence eh? What's a good lefty rant with out tossing that one in.
"a president who wasn't so ignorant that he didn't even know there were Sunni Muslims and Shi'ite Muslims (with all this entails)..." As if you did eh Mike? Highly effin' doubtful.
It's kind of amusing though, how you try and equate there something being sinister or somehow nefarious with capitalism being in bed with government. Any government worth it's salt would not only "be in bed with capitalists" it would be making mad passionate love with it too!
Other than that, enjoy the sagging hooters at your next Berkely for a Day parade! Yeeeehaw!!
Mike Filancia, what is the name of that "town in Idaho"? Why don't *you* name it? Is it even named in the Salon article? Why should I have to go to Salon to find out the name of that "town in Idaho"?
p.s., I don't care if some Mormons never change their underwear - did you know? I do care about Islamics wearing masks. What is the name of that town?
Pat Tillman said something himself.
Yes, and which do you think people are going to remember? The words of a brave man who died five years ago, or his own brother's attempt to negate those words?
Call me a cynic, but I know which of those statements has more publicity - the one that was quoted on CNN and Fox News last night.
"Are we that paranoid of religion that a child mentioning their religion in school has to be squashed? That a President mentioning his faith has to be ridiculed?"
SteveH
Right, imo.
1] Religious speech is also *free speech*. The Bible is also a *book*. And, to be repetitive, why is the Koran and Islamism taught in public school [see Nyssa, Oregon, for example], while the Bible, crosses, etc., are banned?
2] I caught part of "Meet The Press" last Sunday on radio - KBOI, Boise, Id.: Lo-and-behold, new Fliberal darling had written a book, of all things. He reported that Bush sometimes adopts, lo-and-behold, a "Messianic" look, implying the usual charge of Religious Zealotry, then denying it[!] by claiming, lo-and-behold x 3, that Bush merely does not open his mind to enough inputs, which, 4, the Flib darling did not enumerate, oddly enough. Right.
The Flib wants to sell a book, Russert wants to appease/keep an audience and only repeat Fliberal Dogma on Sunday. They both want to have Bush do what they want, not merely listen to "diverse" inputs.
For them, Bush not doing what they want is equivalent to being "Messianic" and not listening to their Fliberal fliberalating fauxmential speech and books.
Watching Fliberals is like observing Psychotics in the Park or on the Street. Although it's always the same, it's always amazing.
Somebody should write a book. Oh wait, "Liberalism is a Mental Disease" - Michael Savage. I haven't read it. But why would I need to?
Ghost of Josey Wales,
No, I don't respect your belief. Believing in non-existent beings is as respectable as believing 2+2 = 5. Its just as dumb and can be even more risky. However, you are welcome to your belief. Just don't expect me to have warm and fuzzy feelings about it or to pay for your disasters that befall you as a consequence of your beliefs.
"'Pat Tillman said something himself.'
Yes, and which do you think people are going to remember?"
Michael Andreyakovich
Well, I'm going to remember both, the Heroes and the Harpies.
How are you going to vote, Michael A.?
My apologies, Michael A.. I see you have already answered that on the latest blog topic. Sometimes I am confused by you - mea culpa.
What is the point of bringing up mooselm women covering from head to toe to baggy-dressed Mormon women?
Did those Mormons put knifes onto your neck to make you convert? This is the left's way of equating two totally different things (in this case, two different religions) as if there is no difference between the two.
By the same reasoning, should we worry about the attires of Bhudist monks next?
J. Peden--You are truly pathetic--that's your "defense" ? needling me because I didn't name the town?--go to the article doofus--it's right there at the beginning--are you lazy? or maybe you can't read? And again, explain to me how the Mormon attitude towards women's bodies is different from that of some Muslims? This post is full of ranting about Islamic oppression of women esp. in regard to their manner of dress--how are Mormons different when it comes to attitudes about women's bodies and women's dress? It seems you righties can't answer anything in a straightforward manner--just spew more venom, ignorance and hatred--And Ghost of Josie Wales--actually I did know there was a Sunni-Shi'ite split and have known for a long time--I guess you're just more comfortable with having a "leader" who is as ignorant and narrow-minded as you are--and what a great job he's done!--just ask most of the American people!
Dr. Sanity is a bigot and a racist. She is a total piece of garbage.
That piece of human trash needs to be reined in, lest she poisons young minds.
"However, you are welcome to your belief. Just don't expect me to have warm and fuzzy feelings about it or to pay for your disasters that befall you as a consequence of your beliefs." WTF?
Christ on a pogo! Warm and fuzzy feelings? What if I told you that not believing is as strange to me as 6+6=7. What the fuck does that mean? And what does it matter to you anyway? Are you Spock or something? Listen I guess being a. rational human doesn't necessarily mean your a. civil human eh? I mean what, do you have some kind of problem where you live in fear of a bunch of religious jeebus-freaks always trying to convert your ass or something? You sure sound worried about it. And do you really think that believing in an higher power makes me some kinda freak? And do tell what exact disaster is going to befall me and for what exact consequence that I have incurred? That's just effin' weird man. Am I going to get torched by the pyrotechnics at my next Metallica tribute concert? Will I not get laid? Will the guitarists' wig fall off during his solo? What?
I think you have me confused with someone else. But see, I can respect your point of view with no problem. You can't mine because it makes you feel superior I guess. What ev man.
~~~
Mike - Good on ya man and big whoop-de-doo. You must have gotten an A in Poli-sci. Congrats. You're still grasping though. You take one small Idaho faction of *strange* orthodox Mormons - who still make their women wear those old pioneer dresses like they were stand-ins for Little House or something - and compare to ALL of Islam where it is a commandment that the ENTIRETY of muslim women MUST wear that lovely lovely "Freedom Bag" over their bodies...or....die a....slow....painful....humiliating....death. Haven't heard anyone dying that way in Idaho (or Texas for that matter) since Reno was running DoJ.
You would have done better to compare to the Amish dress code imo.
Ghost of Josey Wales--I didn't compare the town in this article to Islam, let alone all of Islam, I simply asked a question, which apparently you can't answer. Here's a simper one. Question: How many Muslims do you personally know? I've spent years working in India (one of the largest Muslim populations in the world) and I know plenty of Muslim women who DON'T wear head scarves, let alone face "slow humiliating deaths" because of their wardrobe -- you ought to sit on a Gulf Air or Kuwait Airlines or a Qutar Airways plane headed towards London and watch all the Arab women head towards the restrooms in their rhinestone-edged burkas and come out in tight jeans, full makeup and big hair...certainly there are extreme factions of Muslims that treat women horribly, no denying...what gets me are the hateful steroetypes of insular people who have probably never left their own county or state, let alone the US. Having traveled a lot, I KNOW that these sweeping stereotypes are false...but there is a stereotype, sadly borne out here, of Americans as ignorant and arrogant, pushing other people around because they think they're "better", when in reality they refuse to face what their government often does in the name of democracy and freedom--many people in other countries are well aware of the facts and marvel at how so many Americans hide their heads in the sand and refuse to face reality. So, I still ask the question: how is the Mormon practice of pressuring women to hide their bodies different from some Muslims demanding women wear the burka? Or--how is the right-wing hatred towards and ignorance of different groups of Muslims any different from the hatred and ignorance of jihadists towards Americans?
Thanks to the internet, I can bypass the cost - and not just in dollars - of going to the middle east. I did a little checking and found this interesting article.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Articl...61006/20061006/
And believe me Mike, I'm neither ignorant, arrogant, islamophobic, nor consider myself "better". And neither do the vast majority of people here.
As to your question, however irrelevant it may be, my answer is thus: maybe there isn't a difference in the reasons. Other than something in a Stephen King novel, I don't see what your point is.
"So, I still ask the question: how is the Mormon practice of pressuring women to hide their bodies different from some Muslims demanding women wear the burka?" - Mike
Asked and answered.
"So, I still ask the question: how is the Mormon practice of pressuring women to hide their bodies different from some Muslims demanding women wear the burka?"
Shall I go on you leftist tool?
Mike,
As someone raised in a Mormon household, there is no "Mormon" practice of making women wear shapeless dresses to hide their bodies. It wasn't going on 35 years ago when short skirts where in, so I doubt it is going on now. This is likely one of the small splinter groups that are not considered Mormon, such as those on the Arizona Strip.
Which is why your comparison, in terms of degree, is a false one. The hiding dress of Islam is much more common. But Iranian young women do go wild under those robes.
"Dr. Sanity is a bigot and a racist. She is a total piece of garbage."
Please address her opinions and not her person. Feel free to attack her with facts, not with tiresome, overused words which mean nothing.
>>So, I still ask the question: how is the Mormon practice of pressuring women to hide their bodies different from some Muslims demanding women wear the burka?>>
Pressuring vs. demanding.
"Wear your burqa or get raped. Get raped and you will be killed because you have dishonored your family"
Oh yeah. Real big difference there...
http://www.sweetness-light.com/a...for-sex-
attacks
or http://tinyurl.com/y4cgo7
as-salamu alaykum warehmatulahi wabrakatuhu i.e. may peace, blessings and mercy of Allah(swt) be on all of you,
The comments posted above by the people are just the result of ignorance. After reading all the comments one comes to know that these people have written without any little knowledge of Islam. What they have written is not directly from QURAAN and authentic HADITHS but their experiences. They have failed to understand the true picture of Islam because of their ignorance. Same mistake has been done by Dr. SANITY and he seems to be biased against ISLAM. Women subjugation has nothing to do with Islam but the culture as agreed upon by YVONNE RIDLEY too. Islam has teachings which is best for both men as well as women but most of the people fail to understand because of this wordly life they want to achieve by any means and obviously due to their ignorance. After reading the QURAAN, YVONNE RIDLEY reverted to ISLAAM because she understood it in true means. No wonder there are many Muslims who write against Islam and obviously there are hypocrites in the Muslim community who have betrayed Islam. I request to all the commentators above to hear Dr. ZAKIR NAIK from INDIA to have easy grasping of Islam and please, if want to comment on ISLAM then do it on the basis of QURAAN and authentic HADITHS and not by your personal experiences or looking at any culture. If some culture is againt women then teach them Islam and try to get them on true path rather writing fruitless comments as above. For the people who have true knowledge of Islam will never acknowledge above writings to have anything to do with ISLAM. May ALLAH give guidance to all of the people of this world so that they can come on the true path and may ALLAH help sister YVONNE RIDLEY and make her inspiration for other non-muslim as well as muslim men and women so that they can learn and understand ISLAM and make this world a better place to live in.
AMEEN.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
