Subject:
|
Re: First entry in "predict the responses!"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 May 2002 22:40:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
335 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > As I am not aware of any genetic study which has proven that ?Arabs?
> > > specifically are incapable of being rational, this initially struck me as a
> > > rather racist statement. However, reading the rest of the text (together
> > > your own analysis), I have come to the conclusion that JB is either ignorant
> > > or is preaching to the converted.
> > >
> > > Scott A
>
> Look at it this way. Perhaps what he is trying to point out is that a
> government based upon a religion *is* irrational. I am all for the separation
> of church and state as I'm sure you are as well-- the Arabs terrorists and Arab
> state sponsored terror are living proof as to why this is a Good Idea®.
John--which Arab governments are based on religion? In fact the
most secular government in the region is Saddam Hussein's Iraq--
which is why he was our proxy against the Islamic theocratic
Republic of Iran. Now, that *is* a religious state--but it became
one because of the Pahlevis' excesses and Western influence, and
now that Khomeini is dead it's been slowly but surely liberalizing
and recovering. If we don't bomb the living hell out of it, I
think the Iranians will end up being A-OK, having seen the down-
sides of shari'a (Quranic law code) and negotiated their own
solutions.
Islamic theocracies are actually on a grey scale, from the most
extreme (remaining) in northern Nigeria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia,
to the totally secular Iraq and Egypt (the latter of which has
been fighting skirmishes against the illegal Ikhwan for many,
many decades).
> Islam as a religion (and culture) has yet to enter its own Age of
> Enlightenment-- in fact, the fundamentalist extremists consciously want to
> *avoid* such an evolution, which they equate with western culture and all of
> its evils-- neverminding the fact that they are merely trading one evil for
> another (assuming that Western Culture is evil).
Islamic culture had its Age of Enlightenment, while Europe was
busy dying of plagues and trying to relearn how to write. Islamic
religion and the culture derailed around 1700, when the power
relationship between the Islamic and Christian worlds inverted
and they lost their central position in commerce and scholarship.
I blame the Ottoman Empire for much of it; if anyone cares, I'll
tell them why, but I"ll leave it at that for now.
(If you look at modern Islamic thought, look at European religious
thought of the Crusades and the Inquisition period--it's remarkably
similar, and it's remarkably desperate at times. It's born of a
feeling of powerlessness. Children's Crusade, anyone? Now THAT'S
desperate!)
> When saddled with Islam as a form of government, I would say that the Arabs are
> indeed incapable of rationality.
I'm 100% in agreement. The problem is that they haven't been
able to negotiate the relationship between Islam and the state
fairly, in part because the West continues to be an onerous
presence (and it shall remain so, because Israel isn't going
anywhere, and globalization isn't likely to stop). Most Muslims
throw their support behind shari'a law and Islamic theocracy
because they see it as a radical way of eliminating this influence
that has defied all efforts at incorporation.
(It's a phenomenon called millenarianism; my advisor has written
one of the major books on the subject. If you want to look at it,
it's M. Adas, _Prophets of Rebellion._)
> I suggest that you read the entire article (if you haven't already-- I'd *hope*
> you'd have read it all before concluding that he is ignorant), because he makes
> a lot of good points. The most convincing to me is that there are a whole lot
> more problems in greater magnitude in this world; so why is the world so
> riveted to the fate of a few Palestinians (by comparison)? The scrutiny
> doesn't merit the situation, and leads one to look elsewhere for explanations
> for it (read: anti-semitism).
It's only a tiny problem if you forget the centrality of the
region as a sacred one to all three of the major monotheistic
religions. You could argue the same point for giving up on
Israel, for ending aid and attempts at engagement in the region
as a whole, et cetera. But that's not the solution either.
I think the situation does merit the scrutiny--it's the inequity
from which stems Islamic perceptions of US unfairness. It would
be like the Taliban screaming "Why are you fixated on the destruction
of two towers? That's only 3,000 people, it does not warrant
the scrutiny the world gives it!" The symbol is more important
than the raw numbers or any scientific reduction--because we all
have irrational angles and ideals of *some* kind, and this one
is particularly resonant with over 40% of the world's population.
best
LFB
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: First entry in "predict the responses!"
|
| (...) I agree that both Iraq and Iran have been very influenced by the West and could evolve into productive states on this planet, but of course that very westernization is what is driving the Islamic fundamentalists in those countries in the first (...) (22 years ago, 23-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: First entry in "predict the responses!"
|
| (...) Look at it this way. Perhaps what he is trying to point out is that a government based upon a religion *is* irrational. I am all for the separation of church and state as I'm sure you are as well-- the Arabs terrorists and Arab state (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
