The War on Islam

I expected you guys would reply with South Korea and Japan. Both are extremely weak comparisons to Afghanistan or Iraq.

We gave you what you asked for, Merlin, which specifically was:

What examples can you offer of any liberal constitutional market based democracy that sprang from a rotting cesspool surrounded by dictatorial tyrants?

You did not ask "what examples can you offer of LCMBD's whose names start with I and end with Q springing up from rotting cesspools surrounding Islamic Dictatorial Tyrants after being invaded by a president whose last name was Bush which started in 2003" Any other criteria you want to add?

The point of your original question was to look for a conceptual historical precendant, as such, the particulars such as the nature of that particular shitty dictatorial tyrant, or the geographical area, or the historical era, are irrelevant, history teaches us lessons that transcend mountains of particulars. It's pretty obvious with any fore-thought that the more particular you get about the situation, the less likely there is any matching historical precedence. The people in Korea, after all, spoke Korean, so it's not really applicable to Iraq now is it? That's rediculous. But as far as freedom rising from a sea of tyranny, the example is directly relevant.

Thanks for the attempted history lesson, but I all ready know plenty about Korea, the Korean war, and the subsequent rise of Freedom in South Korea (which is now one of the richest and freest nations on the planet) Sigmen Rhee was a pretty shitty dictator which *we* backed, and it took nearly 3 decades for democracy to take hold in South Korea, and that was with no directed international effort to promulgate it's formation. It certainly did not take 2,000 years though.

Post 141

Friday, February 1, 2008 - 7:10am

"It was hardly a "cesspool" like Iraq or Afghanistan, especially an Islamic one." Merlin J.

You make some reasonable points, but (expanding on M. Dickey's point) you're still being too particular, here.

Is Shintoism significantly better than Islam?

Applying the stink scale to religions that infiltrate politics, it would be difficult to measure a difference so fine. Like Japan for centuries, it is militaristic, collectivistic, and wholly irrational, preaching self-sacrificial duty to the tribe as the highest value.

You're knowledgeable in history. I take it you've seen the short film clips from the period displaying how children were indoctrinated in it for the 20 50 years prior to 1937.

This actually touches on the wider theme discussed at greater length by Tracinski in What Went Right? How do societies that have been awash in such things for centuries evolve to become more like the pre-WWII Democratic Japan you use an example? (And, incidentally, how do you reconcile your assertion that it was democratic when it was the Fascist country shown in those films? Are the films overly selective propaganda, or is the democratic aspect non-essential?)

[Note: The comments here refer to State Shinto. There are other, older, forms that are even more irrational but not so militaristic or oriented toward duty to the tribe, etc.]

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 2/01, 9:23am)

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 2/01, 10:28am)

Post 142

Friday, February 1, 2008 - 3:32pm

Jeff Perren:

You make some reasonable points

Thank you.

You're knowledgeable in history. I take it you've seen the short film clips from the period displaying how children were indoctrinated in it for the 50 years prior to 1937.

Frankly I don't consider myself very knowlegeable in history, and, no, I haven't seen the clips you refer to. (Was such indoctrination the whole of their education?) On the other and, I do have a grasp of what is allegedly an education for youngsters in Islamic countries.

Is Shintoism significantly better than Islam?

I know less about Shintoism than Islam. But off-hand, I'd conjecture 'yes, easily'. It has Buddhist roots, which are not oriented to violence and other-worldliness like Islam is. Indeed, from this video: "Shinto emphacizes this life and finding happiness within it."

Obviously differences between countries is a complex matter. It isn't simply philosophy or religion. There are cultural differences and behavioral habits passed from one generation to the next, and some influences from outside in its history. For example, in the case of South Koreans, there is some Chinese ancestory and the Chinese are quite entrepreneurial. Maybe that contributed to their economic drive.

Whatever the philosophical, religious, cultural and character roots are, they are strong and help shape the "soil" in which "foreign seeds might be sown." In the cases of South Korean and Japan, there was something there that bore some fruit. In the case of Islamic countries, Middle East ones at least, they strike me as infertile as the Arabian desert. My critics on this thread seem to think the seeds vastly exceed the soil in importance.

And, incidentally, how do you reconcile your assertion that it was democratic when it was the Fascist country shown in those films?

I relied on Wikipedia. It seems the pre-WWII democracy was for only about 15 years, but I think that has a small effect on my larger point of Japan's "soil" versus Iraq's or Afghanistan's.

Edit: For the straw to break the camel's back: Both Japan and S. Korea have professional baseball. The only game evident to me in the two Middle East countries is banging their foreheads on the ground 5 times a day.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 2/02, 5:41am)

Post 143

Friday, February 1, 2008 - 3:37pm

Robert, thanks for the link.

8. People who go to war start to resemble their enemy.

Thus, we have "Objecto-wahabbists."

Post 144

Sunday, February 3, 2008 - 8:56pm

The majority of conflicts occur between closely related groups, with the warring parties frequently acting as exchange or marriage partners before and after. It is certainly the case that some past societies have distinguished between the two. Thus Redmond focuses on long-distance raiding in her important study of South American warfare (1994), as the J�varo make a distinction between local feuding and true warfare, even though the former includes the assassination of individuals (Harner 1972). J�varo true warfare consists of headhunting raids carried out against distant groups � a far more prestigious activity, as it involves expeditions into lands �filled . . . with evil spirits� (Cotlow 1953: 144). So we are perhaps dealing here with high (long-distance) and low (local) status warfare.

I. J. N. Thorpe, "Anthropology, archaeology, and the origin of warfare," World Archaeology Vol. 35(1): 145�165, The Social Commemoration of Warfare, � 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd ISSN 0043-8243 print/1470-1375 online.

Post 145

Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 8:06pm

al-hadd al-tamm
The complete definition of a thing consisting of its proximate genus and differentia, e.g. the definition of man as a rational animal; also called al-hadd al-kamil.

al-hadd al-kamil
The perfect definition of a thing consisting of its proximate genus and differentia, e.g. the definition of man as a rational animal.

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/pd/d-6.htm#12

Post 146

Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 4:16pm

Merlin,

A search of Shinto on Google proves very misleading. It's true that fuzzy-minded animal spirit worship seems benign enough. (Although it's led to some pretty nasty problems in the form of contemporary viro-paganism, as manifested politically in environmentalist proposals.) For an accurate picture of the philosophy of the Japanese from the end of the 19th century leading up to WWII is best gleaned from Dr. Lewis' article in the current Objective Standard.

There you'll see the state worship (as symbolized and embodied by the god-emperor), the educational influences teaching sacrifice, etc.

Highly recommended.

(Material on the subject is surprisingly difficult to find on the web. I know. I've spent the past two weeks since this exchange looking.)

Post 147

Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 4:35pm

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/shintois.htm

found this to be about as correct as remember from my years in Japan.......

Post 148

Friday, February 22, 2008 - 5:25am

Michael F. Dickey says:

Don't forget the original foundations laid in Ancient Greece 2,000 years ago. So since it took over 3,000 years of progress for the greatest beacon of freedom to come to being, it ought to always take that long in every case? Remember, this course and the time incurred included the invention, discovery, recognition etc of these ideas. It took 90,000 years for humans to build the first airplane, it only takes about 9 weeks to build one now.\

Me:

Some foundation. Athens -at its best- was 5/6 unfree. Only males with two Athenian parents could gather on the Pnyx and exercise their franchise. Even with this, the Athenian jury put Socrates to death for having Bad Ideas and expressing them. And if Athens, which was bad enough, were bad enough then there was Sparta which made Stalinist Russia look positively benign.

After the Battle of Salamis the Athenians established the Delean League in which they tyrannized their neighbors and extorted (and eventually stole) money from them. The Parthenon was build with stolen money. Every drachma was loot.

Just because the Athenians had the Gift of Gab does not mean they were Good Guys.

The truth of the matter was that human rights as we know them were formulated initially in a Jewish and Christian context and perfect in during the more or less secular Enlightenment. Rights were not invented in a Greek-Pagan context. Your buddy Aristotle, was pro slavery.

Bob Kolker

Post 149

Saturday, February 23, 2008 - 7:10pm

Bob your entire post is a non-sequiter.

The idea that since it took western society millennia, although you prefer to think the ideas of man's rights didn't start in Ancient Greece with Aristotle, but instead from the Magna Carte, to mean that since it took at least centuries (although I wouldn't agree) that every society on this planet today that is not a free society should take the exact same path and take centuries to get there. This of course is an unfounded argument, as it took centuries of technological progress to produce the airplane, yet societies that had no pre-existing history of technological progress can learn in a matter of years to build one themselves by exploiting the knowledge that is already there for the taking that others laid out before them.

So stop please, don't deflect your position by changing the subject matter.
(Edited by John Armaos on 2/23, 8:04pm)

Post 150

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 8:37am

Some foundation. Athens -at its best- was 5/6 unfree. Only males with two Athenian parents could gather on the Pnyx and exercise their franchise. Even with this, the Athenian jury put Socrates to death for having Bad Ideas and expressing them. And if Athens, which was bad enough, were bad enough then there was Sparta which made Stalinist Russia look positively benign.

I believe we've had this discussion before, but I'll repeat. Every single nation on the planet was based entirely on slavery, even if Athens was only 1/6th free, that was better than the whole of the rest of the world. Most cultures did not even have a word for freedom. Ancient Greece was the birthplace of modern liberty, as such, as a salient step forward (and major one, being the first step) it deserves tremendous honor and recognition. The United States was at best 1/4 free until 1850, and then half free until 1920's when women were finally able to vote. Every one of these steps forward toward complete freedom should be recognized and applauded. The Soviet Union's tyranny and slavery existed in a world where most of it had the concept of freedom and was embracing it to varying levels, the very opposite of Athens in the ancient world.

Just because the Athenians had the Gift of Gab does not mean they were Good Guys.

They were less bad than everyone else, judging by today's standards, which is rediculous. Judged from the context of the society and world in which they lived, they were the 'Good' guys, they were the 'Best' guys.

The truth of the matter was that human rights as we know them were formulated initially in a Jewish and Christian context and perfect in during the more or less secular Enlightenment. Rights were not invented in a Greek-Pagan context. Your buddy Aristotle, was pro slavery.

While I am honored to be called a buddy of Aristotle, your assessment of him as 'pro slavery' is incorrect. Aristotle said it was ok to rule a man if, objectively, his life was better. That is the opposite of just about every real incarnation of slavery the world has ever seen, and is much more similiar to modern liberal paternalism, than 'slavery' but I wouldnt expect you to have been intellectually honest on this matter.

The Torah, Old Testament, and New Testament are rife with real slavery and routinely adovcate it. It was in fact the return of Aristotle's writings to the Europeans, primarily by Aquinas and the incorporation as such of Aristotlean ideals into Christianity that started the enlightement and in part laid the later foundation for the ending of slavery.

Post 151

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 9:18am

Mr. Dickey says:

While I am honored to be called a buddy of Aristotle, your assessment of him as 'pro slavery' is incorrect. Aristotle said it was ok to rule a man if, objectively, his life was better. That is the opposite of just about every real incarnation of slavery the world has ever seen, and is much more similiar to modern liberal paternalism, than 'slavery' but I wouldnt expect you to have been intellectually honest on this matter.

I reply:

The Master objectively thinks servitude is better for his property. Why is that?

As to the Torah, the Torah remits slavery at the end of the seventh year (in Hebrew, Schmetah). The only permanent slavery is for those who ask for it. If they will let the Master drill their ear to the door post they are slaves until death. Read about the Schmetah and the Yovayl (Jubilee) in the scriptures. Deut 15:12 for example.

Only Canaanites (who were taken alive as prisoners of war) are subjected to permanent slavery as well as those who wished never to leave their servitude. Deut 15:16

Also pursuing and recapturing an escaped servant was prohibited (no fugitive slave law). Life was rough back then, but nearly as rough as it was for an Egyptian slave or a Babylonian slave.

Bob Kolker

Post 152

Monday, February 25, 2008 - 10:26am

The Master objectively thinks servitude is better for his property. Why is that?

I don't understand your comment here, my point was that what Aristotle advocated would make for a better life for the 'slave' this is certainly not the thing we consider slavery to be now, which includes chains whipping and brutal tyranny. The only connection was the similiar word used, the meaning's have completely changed through time.

In "Politics" Aristotle wrote:

There is only one condition in which we can imagine managers not needing subordinates, and masters not needing slaves.

This condition would be that each (inanimate) instrument could do its own work, at the word of command or by intelligent anticipation, like the statues of Daedalus or the tripods made by Hephaestus, of which Homer relates that

"Of their own motion they entered the conclave of Gods on Olympus"

as if a shuttle should weave of itself, and a plectrum should do its own harp playing.

How could a shutle weave itself? Aristotle also envisioned a future world where slaves would not be necessary because of technology and did not particularly like the practice. In fact he was probably one of the strongest voices against slavery in the brutal sense we think of today in the ancient world. Plato's Republic made everyone a slave.

Post 153

Tuesday, March 4, 2008 - 5:02pm

We should all be ashamed of ourselves. Have we lost track of reasoning. The problem here is we do not respect differences. The U.S. pushes capatalism to unwanted vitality on other countries. It is in the best interest of ever person that differing governments and religious types do exist. For example, the only thing to control governments is... other governements. Also, If we knew the people of Iraq where crazy than it takes a crazy S.O.B. to lead his country. As an atheist I have come to grips that some psychological types do need faith as a survival mechanism when things get tough. When my son almost died of meningitis, I realized the irony behind faith and God. For, we are curious creatures always looking for answers. When no answer can be found, we place faith as the algebraic X to most equations. Maybe as RoR postees we should first look at our inconsistencies of faith before we claim that all Muslims have inconsistencies in theirs.

Post 154

Tuesday, March 4, 2008 - 6:47pm

Jon welcome to RoR.

We should all be ashamed of ourselves. Have we lost track of reasoning. The problem here is we do not respect differences.

No we do not nor should we. Would you agree with a criminal that stealing and killing is acceptable behavior? I am not required to respect someone's comments merely on the grounds they are different from mine.

. The U.S. pushes capatalism to unwanted vitality on other countries. It is in the best interest of ever person that differing governments and religious types do exist.

So you're saying even if a government violates the rights of citizens, like Iran that sentences underage girls to death if they are a victim of rape, it is in the best interests of every person that a criminal government like Iran exists? Would you think an underage girl who is raped by several men is having her best interests in mind when her government sentences her to death? Please take a moment to choose your words more wisely and think about what you are saying here.

For example, the only thing to control governments is... other governements.

Just like the Soviet Union controlling other governments by conquering other countries?

lso, If we knew the people of Iraq where crazy than it takes a crazy S.O.B. to lead his country. As an atheist I have come to grips that some psychological types do need faith as a survival mechanism when things get tough. When my son almost died of meningitis, I realized the irony behind faith and God. For, we are curious creatures always looking for answers. When no answer can be found, we place faith as the algebraic X to most equations. Maybe as RoR postees we should first look at our inconsistencies of faith before we claim that all Muslims have inconsistencies in theirs.

And who is operating on faith here and what are the inconsistencies you are accusing others of having? Please no generalized accusations against the posters on this forum, there are a wide variety of opinions expressed here by many different people. If you want to accuse someone please name them specifically and take responsibility for that accusation.

Post 155

Tuesday, March 4, 2008 - 8:03pm

What John Armaos said.

Ed
[a "Saddam-ite"]

Post 156

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - 12:58am

We should all be ashamed of ourselves. Have we lost track of reasoning? The problem here is we do not respect differences�

� Sharia law prohibits adultery and prostitution. Punishment is execution or amputation of the hands.

� Women in the company of men who are not blood relatives are stoned to death.

� Rape victims are often severely punished.

� Women are routinely forced to go undergo clitorectomy and genital mutilation.

� Women cannot vote or get elected.

� Husbands can beat their wives severely with no legal consequences.

� Women cannot do anything outside of the house without the father or husband's consent.

� Women cannot get custody of their children.

� Women are banned from a number of fields of education.

� Women must be completely covered when outside of the house.

� In countries like Iran, a woman arrested for wearing make-up can be forced to clean up with cotton balls rolled in broken glass.

� Insulting Mohammed is punishable by death.

Shame on us for not respecting Islamic culture.

Post 157

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - 5:37am

Kill them all and let Allah (who is Merciful and Compassionate) pick up the bodies.

Bob Kolker

Post 158

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - 6:08am

Totally what John A. said.

Mr. Hollis,

The problem here is we do not respect differences.

Of what differences do you speak? There are tolerable differences, and intolerable ones. Are all differences the same to you? Are you a relativist? I can't tolerate relativists.

The problem here is we do not respect differences. The U.S. pushes capatalism to unwanted vitality on other countries.

This is false. Individual US citizens seek to trade with other individuals. The whole U.S.A. foists nothing onto anyone. If you're saying that individuals who are prohibited from trading with the U.S. by tyrannical government systems is a good thing, then you are saying that poverty is a good thing, as it's just another cultural difference that should be tolerated.

It is in the best interest of ever person that differing governments and religious types do exist

There is "different," and there is flat out wrong. By your logic here, you're saying Nazi Germany was completely correct in murdering millions of Jews. We simply should tolerate these differences in ideology. Is that correct, sir?

For example, the only thing to control governments is... other governements.

I'm failing to understand the example as it relates to your argument, but, again, you're making no distinctions between different forms of government, which is a very relative thing to do. Relativism is morally wrong on so many levels. I encourage you to reflect a little deeper on it's implications.

Also, If we knew the people of Iraq where crazy than it takes a crazy S.O.B. to lead his country.

Are you calling Iraqi citizens crazy? Are you seriously making an intolerant distinction? See? Judgement isn't only natural, it's necessary. This is one reason why relativism is hopeless. I can only encourage you to seek out the errors in your judgement.

As an atheist I have come to grips that some psychological types do need faith as a survival mechanism when things get tough.

You say this as if a psychological type is a hard-wired, metaphysical thing. It isn't. While the jury is still out on much of this, this much is known: Sans deformity or brain injury, everyone has the ability to change his/her own thinking. It happens everyday. Faith is lazy and easy. It feels emotionally safe. That's why so many folks use it, but it's not a hard-wired method.

When my son almost died of meningitis, I realized the irony behind faith and God.

Bacterial, or viral? There is no irony to causation. It is what it is. Nothing mystic about it.

For, we are curious creatures always looking for answers.

Thank Galt we have science then, eh? Otherwise, we'd still be imprisoning victims of epilepsy, and running off Jews for causing the Plague.

When no answer can be found, we place faith as the algebraic X to most equations.

There's always an answer. Nothing is unanswerable (literally). It just may take a while for the facts to be discovered in order to formulate a correct answer, but the facts exist. We sometimes just need the means to find them. No fact is out of reach. Only the technology in order to reach them.

Post 159

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - 6:32am