In the larger context of history, the fallacy of this statement shows through. The problem is not Islam itself, nor Islamic societies, but that God sets different priorities for Muslims.At some point, the observer is entitled to wonder if Islam is behind the problems of Islamic countries.
I love Locke's point 4: Muslim societies are backwards because nobody likes them. I mean, come on ... this is the height of stupidity. It's not helpful, it's not insightful, it's racist, it's hateful, and it is so factually narrow as to constitute a lie in and of itself.
It's merely a matter of priorities. In the United States, if something is amiss, people will say, "It costs too much to worry about it."
The disregard the author shows history in general is so unprofessional that I'm left to conclude that it is deliberate or else the result of stupidity. The problem there is that I try not to presume people outright stupid, though I admit the degree of racism apparent in the article verges on the ridiculous.How in the hell do you construe that article as being racist? What, because it was written from the perspective of a westerner?
Is it the Muslims that people wish to avoid, or the grinding poverty being enforced by Western interests? Strangely, for all the bad things I hear about Muslims, when I meet a Muslim, that person is generally easier to get along with than most Christians or atheists I meet. In the meantime, what can I put up for substance? Locke needs to demonstrate that assertion with something a little less than modern bigotry.You put nothing of substance to prop up your contention regarding Locke's comment: ": Muslim societies are backwards because nobody likes them." Nobody does like them. People don't want to live there if given a choice or opportunity to leave for Europe or N. America.
Well, why don't you read the article. It relies on the notion that since nobody likes the Muslim societies, there must be something wrong with Muslims. Does that mean that when nobody liked blacks in this country, it was the Niggers' faults? That so many Muslims are mad at Israel? Is that somehow the fault of the Jews?What's racist about the facts? Do you see hordes of people trying immigrate to even more or less civilized Islamic countries like Turkey or Saudi Arabia- let alone some of the more primitive ones like Yemen or Algeria? Of course not.
It's a tough call for the AIDS money. I had been ignoring an editorial about "AIDS Money for AIDS Patients, not US Corporations", but now that you've given me a reason to go read it, I can't find it.Is that why Bush just pledge billions to fight AIDS in Africa? Sheesh, speaking of dysfunctional outlooks, yours is based solely on political ideologies.
Well America has alot of problems but pointing out a few problems somewhere else doesn't make someone a racist!- If I start with the presumption that the difficulties in Muslim nations must necessarily have something to do with the wrongness of Islam, then yes the article makes perfect sense.
But that's all there is to it. There's no real evidence that Locke has anything else on his mind than condemning Islam, and that's just rabidly ethnocentric.
I would be interested in reading more of this assessment. Upon what do you base it?The author is only condemning a particular interpretation
And this, absolutely precious ...Christianity teaches that one should render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. This enables Christians to make a clear distinction between the goods of this earth, which an intelligent atheist can discern and figure out how to obtain, and the metaphysical good of salvation, which is made known to us by revelation. The culmination of the pursuit of goods of the first kind is politics, of the second, religion. Reasoning about these two goods can go on independently because they are by nature different in kind. But when religion and politics are conflated, we run the risk of policy being made on a basis of dogma and of faith becoming an object of coercion.
:m:,There are also disturbing aspects about Islam purely as a religion, independent of any social consequences. For example, its conception of paradise with the 70 virgins, et cetera, is, to be quite blunt, repulsively crude and I do not think this is just a Western bias. Everything I have gathered in conversation with representatives of other traditions suggests to me that a serious Buddhist, Hindu or Chinaman finds this equally unattractive. The ultimate end of man should not be a teenage fantasy. It is, of course, a wonderful myth for motivating young men to become killers.
Yes not even in the Qur'an.And this, absolutely precious ...
His quote about Turkey not following Islamic law. You can say for example that Islam is a defective civilization but not a defective religion. Imagine if we take Jesus too literally and don't judge anyone and try to base a goverment system out of it. Total failure. So even Christianity cannot be used for a complete goverment.I would be interested in reading more of this assessment. Upon what do you base it?
And? Point being?Yes not even in the Qur'an.
Well, I should mention, though you may have noticed elsewhere, that my sentiments lie with those who would say that about pretty much any major religion. I mean, the Buddhists are great, but they're not leading the industrialized world. The industrialists are pretty cool, but they're snuffing the human spark.You can say for example that Islam is a defective civilization but not a defective religion.
What's odd is that, while I do agree entirely that Christianity is subject to the same difficulties I noted about "any society", I'm left to accuse you of a minor lack of vision, but that's still too harsh because it's something that just about everybody overlooks, Muslims included.Imagine if we take Jesus too literally and don't judge anyone and try to base a goverment system out of it. Total failure. So even Christianity cannot be used for a complete goverment.
Originally posted by tiassa
Justice, as interpreted by Muslims, is a huge factor. In Islam, Justice is very, very important. In Christianity, it is not so important because God will avenge the suffering. This is why Christians are told to "turn the other cheek" when someone strikes them. Yet you'll notice that most Americans would rather be Muslims in one sense: when offended, Muslims are told to strike back until aggression ceases. I find it odd that Westerners pick on the Islamic call to fight for justice, since most Americans prefer that method despite specific instructions otherwise in the Bible.
Originally posted by tiassa
I love Locke's point 4: Muslim societies are backwards because nobody likes them.
Originally posted by tiassa
I mean, come on ... this is the height of stupidity. It's not helpful, it's not insightful, it's racist, it's hateful, and it is so factually narrow as to constitute a lie in and of itself.
Originally posted by tiassa
However, I will not exonerate Islam completely. Religious societies are indeed problematic in fairly unique ways. However, Islam is 600 years younger than Chrisitanity in terms of social development; they'll catch up if you allow them.
Originally posted by tiassa
Locke's ethnocentric chest-beating may do him some good, but he's the only one. I hope he feels better after writing that article. After all, it's not often that one gets to pretend to be self-righteous while contributing to the problem at hand.
Hmm ... maybe it occurs because Christian nations pay mere lip service to principles, much as they do to God.Or maybe this occurs because predominantly Christian nations aren't theocracies and therefore the domestic and foreign policy don't necessarily reflect - or even attempt to reflect - Christian values.
If I disregard history entirely, yes I can see how you might come to think that.Islamic societies aren't backwards because nobody likes them.
Many people dislike Islamic societies because they are backwards.
It's racist. Islam is part of the Abramic tradition, and Americans don't give Muslims the same respect as they do Jews, though in the U.S. Jews are often considered to be "white".It's not racist, since Islam is a religion rather than a race
Facts are not facts when they are manipulated and presented incompletely.It's not hateful, since facts are values and emotion-neutral things.
If they did that, they would be Muslims ....It's not even "factually narrow". Where in the world do you see mass numbers of non-Muslims working to make their society mirror Islamic nations? Do non-Muslim women in Western nations tend to wear burkas? Do the men wear turbans? How many non-Muslims to you know fast between dawn and dusk for Ramadan and make a pilgrimage to Mecca?
Um ... when you have to invoke Scientology (The Church of Scientology, Incorporated - a for-profit enterprise) and the Latter Day Saints (who have a plethora of internal problems which, of late, include factual undermining of the sacred text by a scholar within the organization) to justify one's distaste for Islam, well ... thank you for the chuckle.I will not exonerate your excuse completely. There are also religions newer than Islam that don't attempt to conquer lands inhabited by those who practice other religions. It was the Muslims who invaded Spain and France, not Scientologists and Latter Day Saints.
Limiting the facts in order to present a lie as truth helps nobody ever, under any circumstances.Pointing out politically incorrect facts doesn't contribute to the problem at hand unless the problem at hand is pointing out politically incorrect facts.
Originally posted by tiassa
Hmm ... maybe it occurs because Christian nations pay mere lip service to principles, much as they do to God.
Originally posted by tiassa
- Censorship in the 1980s
- "Clothing optional" zones
In the 1980s, the PMRC brought the Christian conscience all the way to Congress, when Senator Gore asked Dee Snider of Twisted Sister about the SMF fan club. Snider responded that "SMF" stood for "Sick Mother Fuckers" or "Sick Mother Fucking fans of Twisted Sister". Gore shot back, "Is that a Christian youth group?"
What sensibilities were being violated? Who was complaining? It was always the Christians. Even in the 1990s, Marilyn Manson has seen its shows cancelled by local authorities for Christian-values concerns.
Originally posted by tiassa
And what of legislation written in various localities throughout the United States granting permission to people to walk down the street in various states of undress? In the United States, the presumption that people must wear clothes is inherently Judeo-Christian.
Originally posted by tiassa
If I disregard history entirely, yes I can see how you might come to think that.
Originally posted by tiassa
It's racist. Islam is part of the Abramic tradition, and Americans don't give Muslims the same respect as they do Jews, though in the U.S. Jews are often considered to be "white".
Originally posted by tiassa
Facts are not facts when they are manipulated and presented incompletely.
Originally posted by tiassa
If they did that, they would be Muslims ....
Originally posted by tiassa
In the meantime, problems in Muslim nations are related to economy and education, two things which took major hits as the Ottoman empire came apart and Muslims found themselves under the thumb of greedy European and eventually American Christians who played an unconscionable game of "What's mine is mine" across the face of the globe.
Originally posted by tiassa
If we eliminate history from consideration entirely, and eliminate economy and finance entirely, then of course we're left with Islam being the only other problem. But we cannot cast aside history, economy, and other factors so casually as the article author has.
Originally posted by tiassa
It is irresponsible to do so and assert any sense of a conclusion, which leads me wondering why the author does so. Given the aim to hurt Islam, I conclude that the author suffers a particularly overt case of ethnocentrism.
Originally posted by tiassa
Consider this: Joe shot Jim.
That's a fact. Let's go get Joe and haul him to trial.
What happens though if we don't look so narrowly at the facts? Joe shot Jim because Jim assaulted Joe's daughter.
Now we want to deal with Jim.
But Jim did not assault Joe's daughter as thought; Joe's daughter was trying to deliberately tempt Jim.
So when the police, the DA's, and the psychs are all done, we're left with a factual situation: Joe came home, walked in, found Jim on top of Jill, and figured that Jim was assaulting her. So he shot Jim without asking any questions, despite the fact that Jill was of consenting age and had given consent.
And yet all this author is telling me is the narrow version: Joe shot Jim.
Originally posted by tiassa
Um ... when you have to invoke Scientology (The Church of Scientology, Incorporated - a for-profit enterprise) and the Latter Day Saints (who have a plethora of internal problems which, of late, include factual undermining of the sacred text by a scholar within the organization) to justify one's distaste for Islam, well ... thank you for the chuckle.
Originally posted by tiassa
In the meantime, Galt, you're welcome to show how Islam wrecks those countries. While I disagree with turbans and burkas, I see no law of nature which precludes such conditions from existing as part of a prosperous society.
Originally posted by tiassa
For the time being, it is inadequate to simply state that on the one hand are difficulties in Muslim societies, while on the other there is something--Islam--which one does not understand, and that the other must necessarily cause the one.
I do understand the point. I'm telling you the "theocracy" is sublimated.You don't seem to understand the point. A secular nation shouldn't and wouldn't implement religious principles into law. Granted, not all Christians believe in a secular government, but most do or else all of North America and almost all of Europe would be run by Christian theocracies.
That the "theocracy" is sublimated.What's your point?
No, but it's pretty common in the third world, the poor sinners ....Can you walk naked through the streets of Saudi Arabia or the People's Republic of China?
True, although I do think of an Iranian immigrant to New York who was busted in the early 1990s after he took (decent and artful) photos of his nude daughter. I would ask you to trust me that the extenuating circumstances showed that never was the girl's health, safety, or overall condition in question, and never was her willingness to be photographed (she suggested, he didn't ask), and that his arrest was about a knee-jerk reaction to a man seeing his daughter naked and taking a picture. The arrest and resulting process is more likely to damage the girl than the photographs.The idea of expecting people to be clothed in public is not specific to any one religion.
Which point overlooks that Christianity overcame stiff dogmatic resistance to change. What did it? Sin. Money, leisure, luxury. If Americans were, by and large, as poor as Iranians or some-such, religion would be even more apparent than it is. Sure, there would be less of a televangelism industry, but the people wouldn't need to pay someone to scare them. Under such conditions, they can scare themselves easily enough.In the article Locke specifically mentions that Islamic societies of 1000 years ago or so were more enlightened than their Christian neighbors simply due to Islamic dogma, but since dogma is resistant to change the societies found it difficult to progress beyond that stage.
In greed and selfishness we found our reasons to overcome theocratic fetters. But we've merely traded one tyranny for another. The author can have his way. Islam is a defective culture, religion, and general idea. But I don't see how that sets Islam apart from anything else.Nowhere in the article did he say that predominantly Christian nations were better than predominantly Muslim nations because Christianity is a better religion or results in a better culture per se. The argument was the predominantly Christian nations were better because Christians in general have been able to separate religion from government and predominantly Muslim nations haven't, as well as the fact that nutty Christians have far less influence in the average Western nation than nutty Muslims do in the average Islamic nation.
I'm running out of better excuses to make for people.How "factually narrow" of you to assume that a difference in attitudes towards Muslims and Jews has anything to do with perceived racial or ethnic identity.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike anybody.There are plenty of reasons to dislike Islamic countries, the least of which having nothing to do with race. Almost all are lacking in respect for basic individual rights. Many sponsor terrorism. A few even allow the enslavement of non-Muslims.
Would it actually do any good for me to restate that?What was manipulated or presented in completely?
Seems to be a useless point.Which proves what Locke said about Islamic culture not being admired by outsiders.
Yep. And how many Europeans went after that oil? The British in Iraq? The Americans in Saudi Arabia? The British, Americans, and Soviets all vying for Iran?The economies of Muslim nations tend to suck because they are usually based on one thing: oil.
Nope. The U.S. only raised them to power. That was our contribution.It wasn't Western "exploitation" that caused the Taliban to prohibit girls from attending schools, was it?
What historical facts has he ignored? [/font]He has selected facts for an editorial, not for an informative article. Much of what he writes off simplistically to "backward" Islam is actually symptomatic. Wahabbi, for instance, appears in Islam during a period of decline, when many Muslims felt oppressed and downtrodden ... in other words, Wahabbi appeared on the scene to fill a void.Wow. Just like the Jews with the Amalekites ... wait four centuries and then get your revenge ...the Crusades likely wouldn't have happened had Muslims not invaded and conquered Christian lands.
Looks like the Muslims have another ... three-hundred fifty years or so ... to take back the Palestine before they should give up the quest.
Even I have to admit that the Intifada wouldn't be taking place if the UN and the eventual state of Israel hadn't stolen the land.
Facts on PalestineSo how do the heights of Islam figure in there? Preserving and advancing astronomy and other sciences; universities receiving the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars annually?The faults of Islam as a system of government are entirely based on Islam and have nothing to do with economics or even history. The Koran is as old as Islam and existed long before the West "exploited" the Middle East and even before the Middle East "exploited" the West. Therefore the problems associated with using the Koran as the rulebook for government has nothing to do with anything other than the Koran itself.
Something about ignoring historical facts ought to go here, but I doubt that one more repetition will make the point any more clear to you.And yet he aims to hurt Islam by isolating his examination in a narrow moment in history, without consideration of valid factual counterpoints. The rest of the racism, I admit, might be yours.I don't think the aim was to hurt Islam, but to discredit it as a form of government and its fanatical elements as a desireable culture - and rightly so.[/font]
Oh, excuse me, let me split a hair for you: the rest of the ethnocentric crap is all your own.And if that's your understanding of the point, there's not much I can do to help you except recommend severe self-inflicted head trauma. I mean, you're getting so shallow there that you're scraping your chin.Nations run by fanatical Muslims don't suck because Joe shot Jim.
And yes, that sarcasm is a little unnecessary, but ... wait a minute, if that's all you're getting out of that point, then no, that sarcasm is not unnecessary.Nope, but petrol and other policies of Western nations contributes hugely to the interruption of the social evolution. People eventually adapt, but the West just doesn't stop demanding. Maybe Christian nations in history should have been more Christian in their dealings with other people.And when you have to ignore the fact that Islam's relative "youth" when compared to Christianity doesn't explain away its problems...well...thank you for the chuckle.And history shows that this is not a final condition. But Locke didn't seem to care about those parts of history, did he?Essentially, the point is that Muslim countries suck due to the oppression that is inherent to forcing a religious views on the peoples of a nation, as well as the fanatical Muslims' obsession with selective elements of history (such as the Crusade) which causes hatred towards those perceived to be responsible for those selective elements.True, Americans do have the luxury of stealing for greed instead of stealing for necessity.The difference is that while all nations are predominantly Muslim, the best and most free nation of the bunch is the one that isn't run or heavily influenced by fanatical Muslims.
Try some human sympathy sometime, Galt. It won't kill you.
:m:,
Tiassa
The disregard the author shows history in general is so unprofessional that I'm left to conclude that it is deliberate or else the result of stupidity. The problem there is that I try not to presume people outright stupid, though I admit the degree of racism apparent in the article verges on the ridiculous.
It's racist. Islam is part of the Abramic tradition, and Americans don't give Muslims the same respect as they do Jews, though in the U.S. Jews are often considered to be "white".
Thankfully, your literacy is not my responsibility.Congratulations Tiassa, you've written some excellent filibusters as replies but you avoided directly answering the question of HOW Locke's commentary could be considered racist.
Yes, unfortunately it is because you are too stupid. I was trying not to say anything about that, but since you bring it up ....Perhaps I'm stupid too but in either case you never cited anything Locke said even though you make it seem so unequivocal.
Anti-semitism is anti-semitism. Locke is irrational in his selective disregard for history; one must wonder why. While you seem to want examples of what Locke said, much of the problem is in what Locke didn't say. But like I said, we can do it the long way.Your second try after Galt blew shotgun sized holes through the rest of your argument:
Galt: >>"It's not racist, since Islam is a religion rather than a race"<<
You're almost funny. Do I have to get out a dictionary and cite the definition of the word often, or did you ignore it just to make a silly point?Nice try. Let me guess, you never heard of Sammy Davis Jr. right?
Do you think Sammy Davis Jr. got more crap in his day for being Jewish or for being black?Technically speaking Jews are African-Americans. Technically, if evolution is correct, we all are. But I'd still like to see your reasoning for calling Locke's remark racist. Care to try once more?
2. Economics: The Muslim world is impoverished and backward economically if one ignores oil, a windfall that it did not itself create. Worse still, even the oil states can’t produce their own oil but rely on foreign expertise and labor.
How beautifull , exact the same reason as the previous one , something he seems to deny completely . This way of thinking is so disgusting , its like the slavemaster kicking his slave because he cant read , while his ancestors are the ones why the slavedriver isnt stuck in a cave like his grand-papa .
4. Culture: The culture of the Muslim world is not admired by outsiders, either in its high or popular versions. Foreign students do not flock to its universities. Its ideals do not resonate for others. No-one dreams of being like them.
Tiassa has said more than enough for this one , this is just too stupid .
- If I start with the presumption that the difficulties in Muslim nations must necessarily have something to do with the wrongness of Islam, then yes the article makes perfect sense.
But that's all there is to it. There's no real evidence that Locke has anything else on his mind than condemning Islam, and that's just rabidly ethnocentric.
Very simply, Locke has no intention of increasing understanding, but rather aims to condemn a culture he obviously does not understand. It reeks of ethnocentrism, it bleeds ethnocentrism.