User Tag List

First 891011 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 105

  1. #91
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    Does this mean that the "West" is loosing the war form military and political perspective?
    Is losing? When was it winning? [it was a stalemate well before it really started]

  2. #92
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    And, of course, you ask this of Orthodox Islam. That's like asking an orange to be a bird and wondering why an orange can't be a bird, thus, there must be something wrong with the orange. Well, Islam being a religion and all, I don't really understand how, EVER, we can get a support for secularism. A lot of these are inherently limited due to the fact that it's a religion that's also a political system - Orthodox Islam. It won't make sense for it to be many of the things you're wanting 'proof' from me whether it is or isn't. Of course it isn't. It's inherently assumed when we say, Orthodox Islam. But, that doesn't mean that it doesn't practice some form of democratic systems [maybe not the ones you specify because it's the golden standard of USA]

    If you can give me an answer of how you ask a religion to be secular (:rolli, I will understand why you think it is a very logical request (demand?) to ask the Middle-East to be in line with the UDHR. I think there's issues with the way UDHR is framed, and, that there's a baseline assumption of a certain political system a country must adopt/be in order for UDHR to work in the first place, that, asking nations that don't have these political systems to follow the UDHR is again, like asking the orange to be the bird. And, then reaffirming your superior moral ground when the orange can't become that bird. Quite circular. All it amounts to is intellectual masturbation sparked by self-affirmation.
    I'm glad you are FINALLY acknowledging that orthodox Islam is incompatible with the UDHR, thus implicitly acknowledging that the OIC's rejection of the UDHR is based on the demands of their belief system and associated international agenda, rather than a protest against Western hypocrisy or (material) hegemony. That was kinda my point in the first place. As for the rest...

    Islam ultimately means whatever its adherents think it means-if orthodox interpretations are antithetical to the most BASIC human rights (those rights I mentioned were actually a minimalist threshold, not maximalist demands), then I hold muslims accountable for not adopting more liberal religious interpretations.

    Several religions have already made acceptance of "secular" government and BASIC individual rights the orthodox standard (in some cases, its actually considered a religious requirement), in some cases after centuries or more of blatant hostility and opposition to these same ideas. The characteristics of Islam make this more difficult than was/is the case for several other religions, but its not impossible-its just very difficult and will take a very long time (and will primarily depend on Muslim reformers themselves). In the meantime, the illiberal aspects of Islamic orthodoxy must constantly be challenged in order to raise cognitive dissonance amongst muslims and thereby provide incentive for orthodox Muslims to reexamine their beliefs.

  3. #93
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    168

    Default

    There’s a kind of appeasement, a cowing to religious fanatics, in pretending that most of the Muslim world is moderate. Depends how you define “moderate”. For example, does our supposed ally Saudi Arabia, which executes gays and doesn’t allow women to drive, fit your definition? Did the “moderate” Islamic world protest the psychotic reaction of many Muslims over the political cartoons in European newspapers?

    If I’m not mistaken, several years in Saudi Arabia one of the princes suggested changing the law so that women could drive, and there were widespread protests, proving that it’s not a problem of repressive monarchies holding the people hostage. The populations in Islamic theocracies are if anything more fundamentalist than the rulers.
    i believe that i am in hell, therefore i am there.
    –arthur rimbaud

  4. #94
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    I'm glad you are FINALLY acknowledging that orthodox Islam is incompatible with the UDHR, thus implicitly acknowledging that the OIC's rejection of the UDHR is based on the demands of their belief system and associated international agenda, rather than a protest against Western hypocrisy or (material) hegemony. That was kinda my point in the first place.
    Made by us, for us AND you. [have I said anything different all along?]
    In the beginning when you said the exact words (bolded) my response was that Orthodox Islam has not always been so radical in how they practice it. So, I asked what has changed? And, given the recent political history between the nations, my response was: the reactionary movement towards resisting what they see as "Westernization", hence they've become more radical in how steadfast/literal they hold to their "Islamic" notions. I still stand by that. You didn't disprove this as you just simply brushed aside that Orthodox Islam hasn't always been this radical when I gave evidence of it's more 'humanitarian' side through history, by saying, well, yes, there's been periods of laxity, but, it's still the same. You downplayed the movements of change within the history of Orthodox Islam.

    And, thus, the only other conclusion, obviously, would be that Orthodox Islam is incompatiple with UDHR.

    For example:
    Islam ultimately means whatever its adherents think it means-if orthodox interpretations are antithetical to the most BASIC human rights (those rights I mentioned were actually a minimalist threshold, not maximalist demands), then I hold muslims accountable for not adopting more liberal religious interpretations.

    Several religions have already made acceptance of "secular" government and BASIC individual rights the orthodox standard (in some cases, its actually considered a religious requirement), in some cases after centuries or more of blatant hostility and opposition to these same ideas. The characteristics of Islam make this more difficult than was/is the case for several other religions, but its not impossible-its just very difficult and will take a very long time (and will primarily depend on Muslim reformers themselves). In the meantime, the illiberal aspects of Islamic orthodoxy must constantly be challenged in order to raise cognitive dissonance amongst muslims and thereby provide incentive for orthodox Muslims to reexamine their beliefs.
    This is the perfect example to ask, WHY are the Islamists holding so fervently to this radical point of view?

    My answer, as it has always been, is that it is a reactionary opposition to the Westernization.

    What's your answer to the WHY that is raised in your second quote? (as you've given WHAT it/Islam can do - i.e., what it thinks is Orthodox, how it interprets its religious teachings, just like Old Testement is hella dark, and a literal translation would mean the dark ages for us...and, in modern times, it has moved away from this, so, why isn't Islam moving away, esp. during modern times?)....

    What's your answer to this?

  5. #95
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    [I]This is the perfect example to ask, WHY are the Islamists holding so fervently to this radical point of view?

    My answer, as it has always been, is that it is a reactionary opposition to the Westernization.

    What's your answer to the WHY that is raised in your second quote? (as you've given WHAT it/Islam can do - i.e., what it thinks is Orthodox, how it interprets its religious teachings, just like Old Testement is hella dark, and a literal translation would mean the dark ages for us...and, in modern times, it has moved away from this, so, why isn't Islam moving away, esp. during modern times?)....

    What's your answer to this?
    I already answered your question by referring to the explicit and long-established interpretation methodology of all major schools of Islamic law, which is combined with the actual content of the Koran and various hadiths to make reform efforts extremely difficult. To put it succinctly, the most BASIC and NECESSARY rights and principles for a free and pluralistic society are the same things which are most taboo within the orthodox Islamic framework. And yes, perceptions that Islamic civilization is weak and in decline exacerbate pre-existing tendencies...but are not the cause of them, and to suggest otherwise is highly disengenuous.

  6. #96
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    But one question...

    Who is Mysterio??
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #97
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    I already answered your question by referring to the explicit and long-established interpretation methodology of all major schools of Islamic law, which is combined with the actual content of the Koran and various hadiths to make reform efforts extremely difficult.
    Can you expound on this a bit more? I know you said before, an example of how the old verses versus new ones means that the older takes precedence, but, can you be a bit more specific [refer me to some sources] of where you're getting how most scholars in Islam interpret the Koran, etc?

  8. #98
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    But one question...

    Who is Mysterio??
    Spiderman, duh!



    Not very mysterious as he's got a Wiki page (while I don't)...pssht, talk about false representation.

  9. #99
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Is losing? When was it winning? [it was a stalemate well before it really started]
    It was a sarcasm.
    Since it is looks that "The West" is losing this war from the start.

  10. #100
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    It was a sarcasm.
    Since it is looks that "The West" is losing this war from the start.
    I got yours was sarcasm, thus, so was my response, hence the wink at the end.

Similar Threads

  1. New UK law on cross-examination for rape victims.
    By Cellmold in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-21-2017, 09:33 PM
  2. Does USA needs new election laws/rules ?
    By Virtual ghost in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-21-2016, 06:57 PM
  3. Jim Carrey Rails Against California's New Strict Vaccination Law
    By Xann in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 08-12-2015, 10:28 AM
  4. Law School/A Career in the Legal Sector.
    By LastTangoThenParis in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-07-2011, 07:23 AM
  5. New to the Mirror Universe
    By outmywindow in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-24-2007, 02:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO