Subject:
|
Re: First entry in "predict the responses!"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 May 2002 04:26:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
394 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> 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.
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 place (and using the US and Israel as their scapegoats).
>
> 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,
Yes, which leaves it about 300 years behind the times. It is struggling to
come to terms with the modern world, and for many, the answer is to go back.
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!)
Interesting analogy. The Crusades and Inquisition were, in my mind, just
wrong, as are the Islamic fundamentalists of today. The difference is the
magnitude of the potential destruction Islamic extremists can inflict.
>
> > 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.
Yes. Despite their most vehement attempts, they cannot and will not stop
progress (unless, of course, they somehow draw the world into some nuclear war)
>
> (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.
To be fair, Mecca and Medina are the 2 most holy cities for Islam; Jerusalem
ranks a distant third.
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.
We support Israel because they are a strategic ally in that region, not because
we sympathize with their cause (although we do). If other Arab countries
became free democratic societies, we would support them as well. I don't see
anything unfair in that.
> 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.
Well, now that we are being told that the possibility of a nuclear terror
attack is inevitable, we need to start asking ourselves, "Do we take action
here and now against known terrorists *before* they can unleash weapons of mass
destruction?"
You are correct-- we may well look back and realize how naive we were in
thinking that the WTC attack was monumental when we could very well see an
attack that kills 100,000s and even millions with one strike.
In this modern day and age, do we want to leave our fates in the hands of
crazed fanatics? Too much is potentially at stake here.
-John
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: First entry in "predict the responses!"
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 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
|
|
|
|
