The Middle East part 2

[shinRaiden 0]

Unfortunately, any possible discourse between science and faith has been so abused that it has forced a polarization of the camps into non-negtioable positions. Since strictly rational science leaves no placefor esoteric faith, religious persons would then be confined to the scientific purgatory of ignorance.

On the other hand, for a person of faith to deny to deny the manifest works of God, and ascribe them solely to the relative impulsive and reactive theories of science, would be heretical and assure one of spiritual purgatory.

With this logic or arguement, there can not be any room for compromise or debate by either party, and you just have a bigoted mess on both sides.

---

Anyway, this should be cheaper than paying the families of the Hezbollah bombers for the Iranians:

Kerry email's Iran

[Scorpio 0]

It really makes me sad, how these extremists teach small children to kill. It's because of these people that we're getting racism against muslims.

[shinRaiden 0]

New CRITICAL update from my bosses:

kbid=833404

Seeems that once again the Bhuddist <manji> has offended those that do not speak Japanese. Yoroshiku ne.

[denoir 0]

Unfortunately, any possible discourse between science and faith has been so abused that it has forced a polarization of the camps into non-negtioable positions. Since strictly rational science leaves no placefor esoteric faith, religious persons would then be confined to the scientific purgatory of ignorance.

On the other hand, for a person of faith to deny to deny the manifest works of God, and ascribe them solely to the relative impulsive and reactive theories of science, would be heretical and assure one of spiritual purgatory.

With this logic or arguement, there can not be any room for compromise or debate by either party, and you just have a bigoted mess on both sides.

The flaw in that reasoning is your assumptions that the sides are equal, which they are not.

The difference between science and religion is that science can universally and repeatably confirm its claims while religion requires blind trust in arbitrary authorities. Science has only the ambition to describe how nature works. And it does not have the pretense of being absolute; every scientific theory can potentially be replaced by a better scientific theory. Religion on the other hand has the ambition to state why and how nature should be based on the claims of arbitrary authorities. Newton's equations are equally correct, regardless if you are a Muslim, a Hindu or a Christian. The definiton of "God" however is quite different. Each religion has its own and since it's the ultimate authority, the theories about anything are different. And none of them is provable.

Due to this lack of generality, claims of being absolute, the unchangeability and the reference to arbitrary authorities, religions have been a source of conflict since the dawn of man kind. You don't see scientist killing other scientists over disagreement in theories. With religion however, this has often throughout history been the case.

[shinRaiden 0]

No, science claims that it can be proved independently by its own laws, and my faith like most others claims that it can be personally verified via its own methods. As each is verified by its own laws to the observer, and that the results can be reproduced by another observer, I correlate the two.

Each religion has their own variation of a faith-based process to verify their claims. Most will admit, however, that the results are not externally independently verifiable according to classic scientific methodology. However, they hold that the results are just as valid and binding in their domain. You do not use audiological tests to determine the color of stars, and you do not use color spectrography to display the frequency shift in doppler echo-location.

Now the problem we see in the ME is a rather dicey one. You're right that Christendom has its bad apples in its historical barrel. But the way we dealt with it is through ~1800 years of ongoing bloody civil war. And the consequences are that our fundamentalists are still out there, but the general populace austracizes them to avoid any further calamity. This is because a lot of 'cowboy' westerners chose to question the inconsistencies in their beliefs, and stand up for change. Some fought, many burned.

This is still a major taboo in the ME - self introspection  of one's own faith. To Judiasm, this is equateable to adding to the holocaust, and the core tenet of Islam is 'Submission'. Both positions are non-negotiable, any any 'political' solutionshave to be compatible with incompatibilities. To me however, that selfsame introspection and resultant personalization of faith is the core of my ability to believe.

Specifcly in the case of the palestinian issues, you have israeli and palestinian christians marching together in parades, muslim palestinian vendors supporting Israeli firms, Muslim Israelis in the Army and Knesset, Muslim palestinian and Jewish Israeli restaurant co-owners, etc. But when you ask about the things that really matter, like who ultimately gets to have the big rock, there can and will be no negotiations.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]No, science claims that it can be proved independently by its own laws, and my faith like most others claims that it can be personally verified via its own methods.

The basis of science is assuming as little as possible, and then using evidence to prove theories. Religion, however, is built on many unprovable postulates. For instance, there is no way to prove that the Bible is factual, and the Bible is definitely an important part of Christianity.

Quote[/b] ]and that the results can be reproduced by another observer, I correlate the two.

And what kind of "results" can you possibly get studying religion?

Quote[/b] ]However, they hold that the results are just as valid and binding in their domain.

In their own little world.

[denoir 0]

No, science claims that it can be proved independently by its own laws, and my faith like most others claims that it can be personally verified via its own methods. As each is verified by its own laws to the observer, and that the results can be reproduced by another observer, I correlate the two.

Each religion has their own variation of a faith-based process to verify their claims. Most will admit, however, that the results are not externally independently verifiable according to classic scientific methodology. However, they hold that the results are just as valid and binding in their domain.

No, scientific validation methods are founded on axioms based on the human senses. Basically there are three elementary axioms:

1) Our senses convey a representation of the real world

2) If two theories covering the same issue, in the same domain, are in contradiction, then one must be wrong

3) A theory must be validated through repeatable experiments

Science does not rely on science for validation, but through the most elementary common perception of nature that humans share. From this, consistently the scientific methodology is constructed.

Furthermore, science does not go outside its domain. You won't find any serious scientist trying to use scientific methods to prove that killing is wrong or that God exists/doesn't exist. Religion on the other hand is very happy to offer opinions on everything from the shape of the earth to why the sky is blue. It's stepping outside of its domain and stepping into the domain of science, where it does not in anyway belong.

Quote[/b] ]You do not use audiological tests to determine the color of stars, and you do not use color spectrography to display the frequency shift in doppler echo-location.

Exactly. You do not use the bible to discuss gravity. The problem is that to correlate to the real world, religious texts must give some references to it. And that's where they generally go bad. While that might seem like an insignificant flaw, it's not as religion has the ambition of being absolute and flawless. The ultimate axiom of the religious texts are that they are divine and hence perfect. Find one flaw and the whole system collapses.

Apart from a historical background there is nothing that separates religion from any lunatic theory or delusion. And having a long history means nothing; for thousands of years people believed that the earth was flat - that didn't make their opinion more correct.

And religious people have to be made aware of that. It is going too far when you have an arbitrary theory and you start oppressing people that have another equally arbitrary view of the world. Neither of them can be substantiated, except for their little narrow unique domain. All of them are in contradiction with scientific theories that are valid in a much broader, more general domain.

Quote[/b] ]Now the problem we see in the ME is a rather dicey one. You're right that Christendom has its bad apples in its historical barrel. But the way we dealt with it is through ~1800 years of ongoing bloody civil war. And the consequences are that our fundamentalists are still out there, but the general populace austracizes them to avoid any further calamity. This is because a lot of 'cowboy' westerners chose to question the inconsistencies in their beliefs, and stand up for change. Some fought, many burned.

This is still a major taboo in the ME - self introspection  of one's own faith. To Judiasm, this is equateable to adding to the holocaust, and the core tenet of Islam is 'Submission'. Both positions are non-negotiable, any any 'political' solutionshave to be compatible with incompatibilities. To me however, that selfsame introspection and resultant personalization of faith is the core of my ability to believe.

Specifcly in the case of the palestinian issues, you have israeli and palestinian christians marching together in parades, muslim palestinian vendors supporting Israeli firms, Muslim Israelis in the Army and Knesset, Muslim palestinian and Jewish Israeli restaurant co-owners, etc. But when you ask about the things that really matter, like who ultimately gets to have the big rock, there can and will be no negotiations.

I could not agree more and overall, that was what I wanted to say. The fact is that they can't back down. Religion is total and absolute. You can't be partially right or partially wrong. It's all or nothing. Modern day religious practices, as seen in the west, are actually serious sidesteps of true religious following, which should through the absolute that god represents, be uncompromisable. Fundamentalism is the only way to go for the real believer. And we know what practical consequences that has.

[shinRaiden 0]

Quote[/b] ]1) Our senses convey a representation of the real world

What is 'real', and what is the extent of it?

Quote[/b] ]

2) If two theories covering the same issue, in the same domain, are in contradiction, then one must be wrong

Yes, and it is the obligation of both parties to confirm and resolve them.

Quote[/b] ]

3) A theory must be validated through repeatable experiments

That's what I do. It's called living. Life just a big experiment, so many big shiny buttons so little time to push them all...  

Quote[/b] ]Science does not rely on science for validation, but through the most elementary common perception of nature that humans share.

When I was younger, my dad and I were at the airport. We didn't know that I needed coke-bottle glasses bad, so he asked me to read the numbers on the tail of a nearby plane. "What plane?" I asked. All I could see was a big fuzzy.  To my perception, that plane did not exist. Of course, my dad having 20/10 vision couldn't understand why I said that there was no plane out there. How do we know what the limits of personal perception are?

Quote[/b] ]The problem is that to correlate to the real world, religious texts must give some references to it. And that's where they generally go bad.

I would be more inclined to be leary of the interpretations, rahter than the actual text itself. Another plus for Islam, they have deftly avoided the translation debacle by declaring that only Arabic Quran's are valid. However, this means that for non-arabic speakers, we'll never quite get the hang of what's talked about. Being a partime translator (waei/eiwa) myself, I understand the vagarities and pitfalls common to translation. In fact, when I translate, I have two choices: a) dictate verbatim as to what the speaker is saying - and be sure no one understands the message, or provide interpretive translation - and describe what is 'really' meant. I could, for example, say all sorts of crap in front of my boss, and he'd never have the foggiest.

Quote[/b] ]Modern day religious practices, as seen in the west, are actually serious sidesteps of true religious following, which should through the absolute that god represents, be uncompromisable.

Yeah, aren't we a bunch of pansies. I will say though, that on the personal level as opposed to the organizational level, the religious indepence expressed by the populace at large has been one of the chief mitigating factors supporting the west. The lack of uniformity and discipline though has led to different forms of abuse and malfeasence.

Now, the Q of the day - is religious liberty something still worth fighting for and dying for? I may personally believe you are going to hell, but my faith obligates me to defend with my life your right to choose to go there.   While Islam was the friendlist to Judiasm in the middle ages, they still practiced segregation and political exclusivity.

[bn880 5]

Where is this going... come on, let's get back on Mid-East a little more, because this is going into la la land.

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ]

I find it very objectionable as it lessens the meaning and the requirements that are put on something to be considered 'scientific'. But that is a completely different topic, that I'll do my best to stay clear of in this thread

Yes, don't go there because if this is the case then "social sciences" are NOT REAL science because they do not fall under your definition of science. Yet there is no doubt in my mind that the social sciences are tremendously useful (and harmful when misused).

Quote[/b] ]

The problem lies in the outrageous amount of arbitrary interpretation that is required. In some cases they advocate extremely literal interpretations of the texts while in other they claim that it is not to be taken literally. When the Quran (or Bible or whatever) says something that is incompatible with today's world views, then suddenly it's not supposed to be literal while when they're trying to make something fit, they take out-of-context segments and try to asign them a literal meaning. And that's fine, as long as they know their place. When they start attacking other people over it, then the line is crossed.

Actually this is very legit with the Qu'ran. The Qu'ran is supposed to be the most beautiful poetry ever written in Arabic. It loses much of its meaning in translations so it doesn't have the same impact in English. Nevertheless like alot of poetry some of it uses metaphors to get meaning across...while in other parts of the Qu'ran it is more blunt and straightforward. THIS is the reason why some parts are taken as literal meaning and other parts not taken literally. You have to understand the historical and cultural context of the words hence the reason you have a long history of Islamic scholars offering interpretations that may sound foolish to you because the interpretations are based on a different cultural framework which they then try to interpret in modern culture. It is extremely difficult to do but not impossible.

Quote[/b] ]

Yes, I have quite a bias against religion. From my point of view, the only difference between religious people and people who believe that they were anally-probed by little green men from Mars last night, is that the religious people have a longer history. And out of respect to that, I don't advocate that all religious people should be institutionalized. I also fully understand it has a lot to do with the environment you grew up in and what dogma you were told. So I don't see religious people as stupid or insane, just as victims of a cultural/traditional/ethnic brain-washing.

However, when people who think they were probed by little green men start attacking the people who think they were probed by blue little men, then the line of what can be accepted is crossed.

I agree about crossing the line. However I also have seen the positive power religion has had on human beings so I am not one of those cynics who simply see religion as just another way to control the masses. I met good Christians, good Jews, and good Muslims who were just incredible human beings because of their strong faith. I can't say I've met any atheists who were quite on the same level of these people. These were people who were incredibly compassionate, humble, peaceful, loving, and just beautiful people who have devoted their lives to serving God and the world. Did they convert me? No, but I respect these types of people highly and I have learned alot from being around these types of people and count them amongst my best and most dependable friends.

So while on TV we normally see the worst of religion, I have also seent he best and it inspires my hope in mankind.

Quote[/b] ]

I admire your universal tolerance Chris, but do not count on that your tolerance is universally reciprocated. In religion the only possibility is that your beliefs are right and that the beliefs of others are not. And since those beliefs are about the very fundamentals of our existance and they cannot be proven, they make the ideal environment for nasty long conflicts. And due to its universal claims, it can and is used to justify just about anything you can think of. People form their religion to fit their world view and then use it to justify that very world view. It's circular logic in its ugliest form.

Yes I am aware of that. I am aware that there are people in this world who would wish me dead (and who would likely try to kill me)for talking about tolerance and learning about things that might challenge their views.

My job as I see it is to find ways around those barriers.

Also the view of religion you paint is an extreme form. Many such as Sufis for example, believe in converting by leading by example and through dialog. I've seen many Christian missionaries convert using the same methods very successfully. You don't fight the people you want to convert. You embrace them, but do not emulate them. You lead them. It doesn't always work of coarse as there are many different variables and each situation has to be looked at in its own context.

Whatever the case most Muslims are not extremists who wish to kill the world of all infidels.

Yes there are some who believe this, but moderate Muslims are waking up to this matter and making moves to halt this in many different countries in ways you do not see. But in each country they have different circumstances they have to deal with and right now we are not helping them in doing thing but rather instead are helping to convert more and more Muslims to extremist attitudes. For example our friend, Acecombat was to continually hear nothing but attacks from people like yourself despite his best efforts to educate people about Islam, I would not blame him for being bitter towards non-Muslim Westerners. After years of this he may very well decide that the militants are correct and that there is no hope for dialog.

If the Uma (Islamic world population) begins to shift towards this opinion, then there will be genocide and we will have our Armegeddon. But it is something entirely preventable.

I am not one of these people who believe in passively standing by preaching love and kisses to everyone either. As I stated, I believe in this thread, or an other Middle East thread, I believe in the intelligent usage of violence when there is no other option. But it must be done quietly and in a subtle fashion and not with invasions and fighterbombers.

There are Islamic allies that the West can still depend on as well as Muslims who believe in secular government who can help us quietly elliminate the most dangerous militant Islamic groups. But it requires patience and a deep understanding of Islam and the cultures and history of the Middle East so that we don't inadvertently start civil wars and messes like that.

But I am convinced that it can be done through a combined attack of propaganda (mass marketing of anti-militant Islamic ideology), sincere dialog, a better development of human intelligence (and better trained intelligence agents), good diplomacy, and the intelligent usage of focused covert violence against very specific targets in an unannounced manner and that is not bragged about in the media but rather is made to look like accidents (acts of God) or the work of rival militants). Along with that also we must do a better job of economic development programs that can be integrated into an Islamic system... something probably will never happen, but that may at least be experimented with.

But it will only happen if the powers that be, allow it to happen or want it to happen. If not there will only be more war and we are doomed to repeat the past.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[denoir 0]

When I was younger, my dad and I were at the airport. We didn't know that I needed coke-bottle glasses bad, so he asked me to read the numbers on the tail of a nearby plane. "What plane?" I asked. All I could see was a big fuzzy.  To my perception, that plane did not exist. Of course, my dad having 20/10 vision couldn't understand why I said that there was no plane out there. How do we know what the limits of personal perception are?

If you mean to say that what we experience through our senses is wrong and we are fooled by some higher power, then any theory falls flat. Including the religious ones. The basic thing we must agree on, if we want to do anything is that our senses give us generally the correct picture of nature. And note that it's not what you've personally seen or experienced, but what we have collectively and can agree on. It's not "I've seen a ghost when I was high on crack so ghosts must exist". It's "I see the sun, you see the sun, Bob in China sees the sun, therefor the sun must exist".

Quote[/b] ]I would be more inclined to be leary of the interpretations, rahter than the actual text itself. Another plus for Islam, they have deftly avoided the translation debacle by declaring that only Arabic Quran's are valid.

True that the less translations make for a better text, assuming that the text was something you'd want to keep anyway. Still, you won't get away from the unavoidable ambiguity of any language.

Quote[/b] ]Now, the Q of the day - is religious liberty something still worth fighting for and dying for?

In the context of freedom of speech yes. Just as fighting and dying for people who want to express how they were probed by little green men from Mars. It's the principle, not the contents.

What I'm more interested in is at what level of delusions you commit people to mental institutions. If I say that Napoleon is giving me advice on how to live from beyond the grave, I'd be put under observation. If I on the other hand said that Jesus did so, I'd just be a good Christian. So my question is why are we willing to put up with the religious stuff when we lock up and ridicule people coming with much less outrageous claims?

Quote[/b] ]I may personally believe you are going to hell, but my faith obligates me to defend with my life your right to choose to go there.   While Islam was the friendlist to Judiasm in the middle ages, they still practiced segregation and political exclusivity.

Well, to connect this back to the Mid-East conflict, I think my original point should be perfectly clear to anybody. Avon brought up religion and I immidiately said that it was a bad idea. If you can't agree on the secular stuff, you can much less agree on religion. And if people in the region choose to focus on their differing religious beliefs, there will never be peace. Real religious beliefs rule out any co-existance with other religions since obviously only your religion can be right. And since there is no way of proving who is right, the religious conflict can continue forever (until people realize that they can't let religious beliefs guide their lifes, like people in the west have come to realise the last couple of hundred years). Remove the religion form the equation and peace will come more easy. If nothing else, you'll remove a commonly used excuse for conflict.

[Guest]

Quote[/b] ]Well, to connect this back to the Mid-East conflict, I think my original point should be perfectly clear to anybody. Avon brought up religion and I immidiately said that it was a bad idea. If you can't agree on the secular stuff, you can much less agree on religion. And if people in the region choose to focus on their differing religious beliefs, there will never be peace. Real religious beliefs rule out any co-existance with other religions since obviously only your religion can be right. And since there is no way of proving who is right, the religious conflict can continue forever (until people realize that they can't let religious beliefs guide their lifes, like people in the west have come to realise the last couple of hundred years). Remove the religion form the equation and peace will come more easy. If nothing else, you'll remove a commonly used excuse for conflict.

While this is a perfectly agreeable statement, it doesn't really apply to Israel.  Israel is a secular democracy.  The conflict from its point of view is political and strategic, not religious.  If Israel has truly followed the "teachings" of the bible, Palestinians would not exist at all.  I think that the model for statehood that Israel maintains currently, while extremely fragile, is the perfect balance between religion and secularism.  After all, the entire justification for Israel is as a "jewish state", so religion has to play a part, but a smaller part than in many Arab states.

[denoir 0]

Yes, don't go there because if this is the case then "social sciences" are NOT REAL science because they do not fall under your definition of science.   Yet there is no doubt in my mind that the social sciences are tremendously useful (and harmful when misused).

I'll be first in line to say it: social sciences are NOT REAL science

It's a horrid abuse of the word and I'd rather eat my monitor than to call sociology "science".

When I use the word "science", I'm, unless explicitly stated otherwise, refering to the natural sciences.

Quote[/b] ]I agree about crossing the line. However I also have seen the positive power religion has had on human beings so I am not one of those cynics who simply see religion as just another way to control the masses. I met good Christians, good Jews, and good Muslims who were just incredible human beings because of their strong faith. I can't say I've met any atheists who were quite on the same level of these people

As it depends on your interpretation religion can get you doing anything from helping homeless people to burning witches. Religion is completely arbitrary, depending on your interpretation of it. And that's the core problem. It has nothing to do with how "decent" or "good" a man is. It has to do how much grip on reality he has.

Quote[/b] ]Also the view of religion you paint is an extreme form.  Many such as Sufis for example, believe in converting by leading by example and through dialog.   I've seen many Christian missionaries convert using the same methods very successfully.  You don't fight the people you want to convert.  You embrace them, but do not emulate them.  You lead them.   It doesn't always work of coarse as there are many different variables and each situation has to be looked at in its own context.  

Believing in invisible absolute omnipotent beings because you read it in a book is an extreme form of religion?

Quote[/b] ]Whatever the case most Muslims are not extremists who wish to kill the world of all infidels.  

Yes there are some who believe this, but moderate Muslims are waking up to this matter and making moves to halt this in many different countries in ways you do not see.  But in each country they have different circumstances they have to deal with and right now we are not helping them in doing thing but rather instead are helping to convert more and more Muslims to extremist attitudes.   For example our friend, Acecombat was to continually hear nothing but attacks from people like yourself despite his best efforts to educate people about Islam, I would not blame him for being bitter towards non-Muslim Westerners.

Ok, stop right there. I never said that Muslims were militants by default. I said that Acecombat's position was militant and intolerant and I've stated my reasons for that. By going after other religions he crossed the line. IF and a big IF that is muslim standard, then perhaps I'd say that muslims are generally militant. I do not however think that is the case, but I think our friend Acecombat has some seriour fundamentalist issues.

Quote[/b] ]If the Uma (Islamic world population) begins to shift towards this opinion, then there will be genocide and we will have our Armegeddon.

Not really. More their armegeddon. While cultural diversity is a very nice thing, there are still limits to it. There are general guidelines today how a country/culture can behave not to get smacked on the fingers by the west. Fundamentalist theocracies are such systems. In the end if it comes to conflict, then brute force will solve it. And they'll lose. Actually, I think that fairly sums up the neocon plans for the Mid East. While it ain't pretty, it's a solution. If you look at the Arab states today, it ain't a pretty sight. Corrupt dictatorships basing their demagoguery on religion. If that is Islam, then the Bush plan perhaps ain't so bad. It's not a nice or tolerant way to do it, but it can give an acceptable solution.

My hopes on the other hand is that the Arab states can evolve into something like Turkey - a poster-child of how Islam can be integrated into a modern secular society. And a very tolerant such. On the other hand, Turkey has always been very tolerant with religion, something that the Arabic states can't really brag with. But I'm hoping for the best.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well, to connect this back to the Mid-East conflict, I think my original point should be perfectly clear to anybody. Avon brought up religion and I immidiately said that it was a bad idea. If you can't agree on the secular stuff, you can much less agree on religion. And if people in the region choose to focus on their differing religious beliefs, there will never be peace. Real religious beliefs rule out any co-existance with other religions since obviously only your religion can be right. And since there is no way of proving who is right, the religious conflict can continue forever (until people realize that they can't let religious beliefs guide their lifes, like people in the west have come to realise the last couple of hundred years). Remove the religion form the equation and peace will come more easy. If nothing else, you'll remove a commonly used excuse for conflict.

While this is a perfectly agreeable statement, it doesn't really apply to Israel.  Israel is a secular democracy.  The conflict from its point of view is political and strategic, not religious.  If Israel has truly followed the "teachings" of the bible, Palestinians would not exist at all.  I think that the model for statehood that Israel maintains currently, while extremely fragile, is the perfect balance between religion and secularism.  After all, the entire justification for Israel is as a "jewish state", so religion has to play a part, but a smaller part than in many Arab states.

Indeed. I was not talking about Israel, but rather the Arab countries in the region. I think that Israel is a bit on the edge there. You do have a basically secular democracy, but you still have that religion/nationality connection. When you say "the Jews" it refers both to the religion and to the nation. A more correct form would be a separation into "Israelis" and "Jews". So there is not an entire separation between state and religion, as should be.

This on the other hand is compensated by the fact that Judaism is (unlike Christianity and Islam) not an expansive religion, but rather more isolationist. So there is less of a chance of you shoving your religious opinions down the throat of others.

Bottom line, if you want to be religious - fine. However basing a political system on religious beliefs inevitably means trouble if you ever plan to have any contact with people that don't share your beliefs.

[shinRaiden 0]

True Turkey has been a lot more 'stable' and hospitable than the rest of the ME, but Turkey is unique in lots of ways. First off, they are Turkmen, not Arabs. Also, in the west, you have a strong historical greek influence. Turkey, because of it's location, has been a place where Europe, Asia, and the ME all wander though, rather than stop at the borders. Kemal Atturk (?) iirc had to do a fair amount of typical despotic bloddletting though to enforce Turkey's secularism. Also, not being a significant Oil baron, they've had to rely more on classical marketeering, which has resulted in a moreflexible society. That and they haven't sold themselves off to the Wahabi's.

[Guest]

Quote[/b] ]You do have a basically secular democracy, but you still have that religion/nationality connection. When you say "the Jews" it refers both to the religion and to the nation. A more correct form would be a separation into "Israelis" and "Jews". So there is not an entire separation between state and religion, as should be.

Quote[/b] ]Bottom line, if you want to be religious - fine. However basing a political system on religious beliefs inevitably means trouble if you ever plan to have any contact with people that don't share your beliefs.

 Again, good point, but Israel is not based strictly on belief (or religion), persay...  her political system, in and of itself, is almost purely secular.  Aside from some (IMHO) minor regulations, like no buses running on the Sabbath or that jewish weddings must be overseen by a state ordained rabbi, there is little in the way of "religious enforcement".

The "character" of the state, however, is distinctly jewish, even though its founders were predominately secular.  You are scratching the surface here, but understanding the nuances between Judaism as a culture, ethnicity, and religion, is not something I have the energy to explain on this board. I assure you, though,  that it cannot be achieved by 'empirical' measures alone.  

EDIT: Formatting...

[shinRaiden 0]

l0s3r punk tried to IRC al'qeada

More tolled logs n blogs

Is it lawful for Muslims to lie to 'infidels' about anything for any reason? I've heard that it is. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[miles teg 1]

Yes, don't go there because if this is the case then "social sciences" are NOT REAL science because they do not fall under your definition of science.   Yet there is no doubt in my mind that the social sciences are tremendously useful (and harmful when misused).

I'll be first in line to say it: social sciences are NOT REAL science

It's a horrid abuse of the word and I'd rather eat my monitor than to call sociology "science".

When I use the word "science", I'm, unless explicitly stated otherwise, refering to the natural sciences.

Quote[/b] ]I agree about crossing the line.  However I also have seen the positive power religion has had on human beings so I am not one of those cynics who simply see religion as just another way to control the masses.   I met good Christians, good Jews, and good Muslims who were just incredible human beings because of their strong faith.  I can't say I've met any atheists who were quite on the same level of these people

As it depends on your interpretation religion can get you doing anything from helping homeless people to burning witches. Religion is completely arbitrary, depending on your interpretation of it. And that's the core problem. It has nothing to do with how "decent" or "good" a man is. It has to do how much grip on reality he has.

Quote[/b] ]Also the view of religion you paint is an extreme form.  Many such as Sufis for example, believe in converting by leading by example and through dialog.   I've seen many Christian missionaries convert using the same methods very successfully.  You don't fight the people you want to convert.  You embrace them, but do not emulate them.  You lead them.   It doesn't always work of coarse as there are many different variables and each situation has to be looked at in its own context.  

Believing in invisible absolute omnipotent beings because you read it in a book is an extreme form of religion?

Quote[/b] ]Whatever the case most Muslims are not extremists who wish to kill the world of all infidels.  

Yes there are some who believe this, but moderate Muslims are waking up to this matter and making moves to halt this in many different countries in ways you do not see.  But in each country they have different circumstances they have to deal with and right now we are not helping them in doing thing but rather instead are helping to convert more and more Muslims to extremist attitudes.   For example our friend, Acecombat was to continually hear nothing but attacks from people like yourself despite his best efforts to educate people about Islam, I would not blame him for being bitter towards non-Muslim Westerners.

Ok, stop right there. I never said that Muslims were militants by default. I said that Acecombat's position was militant and intolerant and I've stated my reasons for that. By going after other religions he crossed the line. IF and a big IF that is muslim standard, then perhaps I'd say that muslims are generally militant. I do not however think that is the case, but I think our friend Acecombat has some seriour fundamentalist issues.

Quote[/b] ]If the Uma (Islamic world population) begins to shift towards this opinion, then there will be genocide and we will have our Armegeddon.

Not really. More their armegeddon. While cultural diversity is a very nice thing, there are still limits to it. There are general guidelines today how a country/culture can behave not to get smacked on the fingers by the west. Fundamentalist theocracies are such systems. In the end if it comes to conflict, then brute force will solve it. And they'll lose. Actually, I think that fairly sums up the neocon plans for the Mid East. While it ain't pretty, it's a solution. If you look at the Arab states today, it ain't a pretty sight. Corrupt dictatorships basing their demagoguery on religion. If that is Islam, then the Bush plan perhaps ain't so bad. It's not a nice or tolerant way to do it, but it can give an acceptable solution.

My hopes on the other hand is that the Arab states can evolve into something like Turkey - a poster-child of how Islam can be integrated into a modern secular society. And a very tolerant such. On the other hand, Turkey has always been very tolerant with religion, something that the Arabic states can't really brag with. But I'm hoping for the best.

Quote[/b] ]

I'll be first in line to say it: social sciences are NOT REAL science

It's a horrid abuse of the word and I'd rather eat my monitor than to call sociology "science".

When I use the word "science", I'm, unless explicitly stated otherwise, refering to the natural sciences.

Actually experimental psychology is very close to a "hard science" as we like to call the natural sciences.  Experiments are conducted often in a lab setting with as many variables as possible controlled for and the results of such experiments are repeatable.   Sociology of coarse operates in the real world and not a lab, thus you can only do quasi-experiments due to the inability to control variables.  Nevertheless there are many very sophisticated analytical tools for doing social science research that both sociology and cultural anthropology use.  

So it can have a bit of a "sciency" approach.  In anthropology there are in fact some who believe that if you can't quantify aspects of human culture, then its not worth studying.

We call those "positivists".  Personally I don't like such an approach and prefert to combine good statistical measures (using appropriate measures) with also good descriptive analysis.

It is very challenging to do however as both sociology and cultural anthropology deal with the real life complexity of human societies and cultures.   So there are no real "truths" only different perspectives of "reality".   That is the concept that some sociologists (and most people in general) often have a difficult time grasping.   A good cultural anthropologist will try to document these different perspectives of reality in order to try and get a good picture of a society or culture rather then lumping groups together in a homogenous fashion.

I could go into greater detail into various theories and methods of conducting field work, but you get the picture.

It's not "quack science".    But it's not "truth".  Hell even science is not "truth".   It is simply an observable form of reality that can be tested and validated to a large degree.

But science is merely a glimpse at ultimate truths such as what the meaning of life is and how the universe was created.

These areas are where religious/spiritual beliefs come into play.  

Quote[/b] ]

As it depends on your interpretation religion can get you doing anything from helping homeless people to burning witches. Religion is completely arbitrary, depending on your interpretation of it. And that's the core problem. It has nothing to do with how "decent" or "good" a man is. It has to do how much grip on reality he has.

I would disagree.  Religion has everything to do with helping to learn strong morale values.  It is essential for such things?  No, but it certainly helps to have a good religious morale framework.  It's difficult to teach people moderation, patience, and compassion for example when they believe that they will cease to exist when they die.   They will only care then about themselves and about getting as rich as possible and doing what ever they want (as long as it doesn't get them in prison or killed) no matter who they step on.

There is really then no need to be compassionate to fellow human beings.  Who cares what'll happen when you'll cease to exist and never remember any of it.

Quote[/b] ]

Believing in invisible absolute omnipotent beings because you read it in a book is an extreme form of religion?

God is not taught in a book.  Those books you speak are mainly meant to be guides for the ways in which God intended for us to live.

God in most monotheistic religions is infinity... or like the Zen Buddhists say, both everything and nothing.

Some religions believe that the universe is the manifestation of God... that God is in all things.

Others believe that God is both Good and Evil... positive and negative... Yin & Yang.

Or like in Islam, they believe the universe is a mirror of God, but not God... but that the more we understand the universe and ourselves, the more we pollish that mirror and get less distorted picture of at least some aspects of the divine.

But religion is alot more then just a bunch of old stories in a book.

Quote[/b] ]

Ok, stop right there. I never said that Muslims were militants by default. I said that Acecombat's position was militant and intolerant and I've stated my reasons for that. By going after other religions he crossed the line. IF and a big IF that is muslim standard, then perhaps I'd say that muslims are generally militant. I do not however think that is the case, but I think our friend Acecombat has some seriour fundamentalist issues.

And so you are allowed to criticize other religions and he is not?  Doesn't that make you a militant then?

I do not think Acecombat is intolerant.    Militant in my definition means advocating violence and hatred in the pursuit of one's religious goals.    So Acecombat does not fit that definition in my book.

I would however perhaps regard him as a fundamentalist.  Even my very liberal Sufi friends are very fundamentalist in that they follow the teachings of the Qu'ran very closely and very sincerely.   But militant, no.   If he is militant, then most Christians are very militant as they tend to criticize other religions all the time.

Quote[/b] ]

Not really. More their armegeddon. While cultural diversity is a very nice thing, there are still limits to it. There are general guidelines today how a country/culture can behave not to get smacked on the fingers by the west.

And you are simply repeating 19th century social evolutionary theory that most Americans and Western Europeans are so heavily doctrinated in:  That Anglo American and Western European culture is the pinnacle of civilation and that because of their economic success that by default allows them to be the judges of morality and culture.   History shows time and time again that the most "advanced" civilizations have tended to be amongst the most barbaric and rutheless.  

Quote[/b] ]

Fundamentalist theocracies are such systems. In the end if it comes to conflict, then brute force will solve it. And they'll lose. Actually, I think that fairly sums up the neocon plans for the Mid East. While it ain't pretty, it's a solution. If you look at the Arab states today, it ain't a pretty sight. Corrupt dictatorships basing their demagoguery on religion. If that is Islam, then the Bush plan perhaps ain't so bad. It's not a nice or tolerant way to do it, but it can give an acceptable solution.

If that is the solution more then just Muslims will fight neo-conservatives violently.   Freedom in my mind means freedom for a country's people to decide their own fate without us keeping them from learning on their own what works and what doesn't.  By imposing our restrictions upon their freedom to establish what governments their people wish for, we then only encourage the dream of fullfilling that dream of an Islamic state.  In doing so the West is seen as being a barrier to fullfilling those dreams, when rather we should be allowing them, to experiment with such regimes so that they can not pin the blame on us when it fails.   We see this in Iran.  The pendellum is turning back against the Islamic extremists there in that country.  Change will happen their either peacefully or violently.   If we try to meddle militarily in the affairs of other countries we are going to get bitten.

Obviously in the Middle East the West does have legitimate interests.  One of these is to prevent Islamic extremism from taking place.   But the neo-conservative Ideology sees military force as the solution.  I do not see that as a solution unless it means MASSIVE genocide in which case many Americans would revolt against our own government and all hell would break loose.  

It will not be an armeggeddon of their making.   It takes two to tango in this case.  Both sides have agitators, but our side is the bigger of the two agitators and has the power to guide our world more towards peace or more towards world war.

If we continue to oppress the people of the Middle East military hypocritically in the name of "freedom", (while we prevent them from freely electing an Islamic government), then we simply feed the fires of Islamic extremism by justifying those extreme beliefs.  

I had thought that you had understood my earlier points about the importance of understanding Islam, but I guess it fell on deaf ears.  

The whole point is to attack Islamic militancy from within Islam and with the control of powerful Islamic symbolism and beliefs to de-legitimize these militants and to alter their perceptions and attitudes by shifting them to views that are less dangerous to the world.

Quote[/b] ]

My hopes on the other hand is that the Arab states can evolve into something like Turkey - a poster-child of how Islam can be integrated into a modern secular society. And a very tolerant such. On the other hand, Turkey has always been very tolerant with religion, something that the Arabic states can't really brag with. But I'm hoping for the best.

Ah... but your own example proves that an Islamic state can be a tolerant one.   Only until the end of the Ottoman Empire was it a secular empire.  During the rest of its history it was an Islamic empire that, overall, was a fairly tolerant empire when it came to how it treated its Jewish and Christian citizens.   It is no coincidence that the most successful interfaith dialog groups I have been involved in have been those run by Turks and Turkish-Americans who are generally Sunni Muslims but oriented more towards Sufism.

But the Ottoman Empire was also no democracy.  

Also the current Turkish government is an experiment in combining Islamic values and a secular government.

I to hope that they are a success.  But even Turkey could easily be swept up in the fires of Islamic militancy.   The majority of their population is still Muslim.  The same goes for countries like Indonesia (the largest Islamic country population-wise).  

Only massive genocide would suppress this militancy if it got out of control and not invading these countries and doing regime change like we've done in Iraq.

So I'm not sure how you can support the neocon view when its been show that it simply DOES NOT work in the Middle East.

America is simply the lastest of colonial powers to control Iraq...and history has shown what eventually happens to colonialist powers.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[shinRaiden 0]

A large part of our (the west's) problem is that we are impatiently demanding that the Islamic ME come to the conclusions, and make the philosophical changes overnight that took us over 500 years to do ourselves.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

lol, avon you gotta read this. this is the simplistic comment of  a soldier in a military forum

Quote[/b] ]Because it's all they know. Hate has consumed their resolve. I don't believe there are too many religious people on here but my pastor believes that Islam is the ultimate "fake" religion. God promised Israel all the land from the Sinai to some river in Iraq that I don't remember. But Israel doesn't stretch that far. He believes they will soon, in a new, ultimate war of the middle east, in which Israel will not only win, but spread out and conquer the lands that God promised Moses. Islam was created as a falsehood, so that a following against the Jews could be established in the Middle East. He believes God did this on purpose. Through Islam, a war will come, in which God will use them for one purpose: to die. Everything they believe is a joke.

And I know I'll probably get flamed by some for this, but it makes sense from the religious standpoint. Israel must control Jerusalem before Christ can come back a second time. And they will.

I am not getting too much involved with the Middle East process cause I simply dont know enough. But I somehow have the strange impression arguing with him might turn me into a scientologist!

[denoir 0]

But science is merely a glimpse at ultimate truths such as what the meaning of life is and how the universe was created.

These areas are where religious/spiritual beliefs come into play.  

I agree that if you introduce arbitrary non-observable concepts such as "the meaning of life" then an arbitrary theory like religion can be applied. It's not however in any way universal or the "truth", just an internal abstract model you have in your head to help your brain to cope with some things. As for how the universe was created, I could not agree less. It's a physical process that left very clear traces that can be measured and observed. It's not in the domain of religion.

Quote[/b] ]

I would disagree.  Religion has everything to do with helping to learn strong morale values.  It is essential for such things?  No, but it certainly helps to have a good religious morale framework.  It's difficult to teach people moderation, patience, and compassion for example when they believe that they will cease to exist when they die.   They will only care then about themselves and about getting as rich as possible and doing what ever they want (as long as it doesn't get them in prison or killed) no matter who they step on.

As religion is completely arbitrary your interpretation of it can be equally arbitrary. On one hand you can be motivated to help the less fortunate and the other you can fly planes into buildings. Religion is used as a self-serving justification for whatever. The biggest danger is that unfortunately it's seldom your choice. Children get indoctrinated at a very young age. And the results only depend on how those that indoctrinated them related to more general humanist principles. You don't say that it's Bin Ladens freedom of religion to kill other people. Equally you don't give credit to the religion because some of its followers are behaving according to more general 'moral' standards.

Quote[/b] ]There is really then no need to be compassionate to fellow human beings.  Who cares what'll happen when you'll cease to exist and never remember any of it.

I'm not here for a second, you know, I have an entire lifetime where other people can be compassionate to me if I'm compassionate of them. Cooperation within the species is just another survival strategy. You can see the same behaviors with 'lesser' animals than humans. And I don't think you want to claim that they are driven by a religious moral code.

Quote[/b] ]And so you are allowed to criticize other religions and he is not?  Doesn't that make you a militant then?

The difference is that I do not base my critique on arbitrary arguments. I use a common language that both you, I and Acecombat can agree on. I'm arguing from a general position that can be agreed upon. I'm not referring to some abstract authority that can't be validated. If I said that your arguments were wrong based on what little green men from Mars told me, then I would be doing the same mistake as Acecombat. I'm not making any claims or assumptions like that.

Quote[/b] ]And you are simply repeating 19th century social evolutionary theory that most Americans and Western Europeans are so heavily doctrinated in:  That Anglo American and Western European culture is the pinnacle of civilization and that because of their economic success that by default allows them to be the judges of morality and culture.   History shows time and time again that the most "advanced" civilizations have tended to be amongst the most barbaric and ruthless.  

No, I'm not any values on it; I'm just saying how it is. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, just the fact that the western, or better to say Eurocentric culture is completely dominant. And our tolerance for diversity is limited to what falls within our cultural bounds. We have no problem with any other cultures as long as they follow our set of rules based around our political ideas and more than anything open trade. You have a large number of variations of the implementations of Eurocentric systems, everything from the American version to the Asian version. The Muslims are no different. Oh look: Big Brother comes to Arab world. Our tolerance for cultural diversity extends to the point that they can make their own little version, but in the core these are products of the western culture being propagated through another culture, assimilating it. As a side note, I must say that I find it odd how often the cheapest worst elements of western culture are often adopted by other cultures. Have you seen Japanese TV?   I guess it has to do with a greater social segregation and when everybody is a consumer.. Oh well.

Anyway, the reason for this dominance is not because the Eurocentric/Western culture is 'morally' more correct. It's because Europeans were great at making weapons and very willing to use them against other human beings. Had the British not been as good as building guns and ships as they were, we would not be having this conversation in English. Actually we would probably not be having this conversation at all. The hallmark of Eurocentrism is a projection of power that reaches far beyond the homeland. It's violent, aggressive expansion. And it still is, we just have it in a brand new package. We are however doing the exactly same thing as we did before, just in a slightly modified way. We're not converting heathens any more to save them from going to hell, but we're introducing people, by force if necessary to the latest Eurocentric ideology: democracy and free trade. While Europe is less involved in that field, America is the shining beacon of Eurocentrism today, propagating western values with an incredible force.

Is it good, is it fair, is it moral? Not knowing the future, we can't say. We can however conclude that it is the way things are.  

The Arabs/Muslims will have to adapt. Not because our ways are better, but because we have enough nukes to kill every living being on this planet. And proudly we march on holding the Eurocentric banner high, now in the name of the democratic system that we prefer.

Quote[/b] ]f that is the solution more then just Muslims will fight neo-conservatives violently.   Freedom in my mind means freedom for a country's people to decide their own fate without us keeping them from learning on their own what works and what doesn't.

The funny/ironic thing is that you take freedom of chocie and democracy so much for granted that you are blind to the fact that it is a western ideology. Listening to the general population is just one of many arbitrary forms of rule. You could instead of listening to the people be listening to the clergy, like they do in Iran. Surely they, who are in contact with God, must know better than your average Ahmed on the street? How on earth would the benefit from having a mob rule when they have divine guidance? Tell me that.

Quote[/b] ]  We see this in Iran.  The pendellum is turning back against the Islamic extremists there in that country.  Change will happen their either peacefully or violently.

Funny you should mention it as Iran took two steps back in the elections yesterday. Low voter turnout. The hardliners won by a land-slide. More power to the ruling clerics, less to the reformists.

Quote[/b] ]I had thought that you had understood my earlier points about the importance of understanding Islam, but I guess it fell on deaf ears.  

It's because you fundamentally misunderstand me. My attack on Acecombat was not because of his Muslim faith but because of his faith. Period. I would have equally reacted to a statement by a Christian or a Jew. It has to do with my strong opinion that religious intolerance is very bad and that religion in general is responsible for a lot of evil in the world. Yes, you might call me militant. I am militant against religion in the same way I am against Nazism. It has throughout history been responsible for a lot of bad things and I don't like when people enforce it today.

As for Acecombat from a cultural perspective, I have nothing but positive things to say. I find it uplifting that we living in very different cultures still share so many ideals and opinions. It reinforces my core belief that people, regardless of cultural differences can not on co-exist, but do it in a beneficial manner for both.

(The irony of it that we have aggressive Eurocentric colonialism to thank for today's global society)

Quote[/b] ]Also the current Turkish government is an experiment in combining Islamic values and a secular government.

Turkey converted to a secular rule under their great reformist and 'founding father' Ataturk. You might want to read up on how many people he executed and oppressed to achieve the level of secularism that Turkey now enjoys. It was not a willing transition, and I don't see why any such transition would be received by the Arab states with open arms.

Quote[/b] ]So I'm not sure how you can support the neocon view when its been show that it simply DOES NOT work in the Middle East.

No it hasn't. It was an half-assed attempt. With no restrictions and with one goal, it would have not been a problem. If the western world comes to a point where it is threatened enough by another culture, it won't hesitate to destroy it. And it certainly has the means to do so. For the record (and you should know by now), I do not support Bush's Mid East adventures. I do not think that they are necessary or good now.

I am also however pointing out that there is a limit on western tolerance of diversity. If the Arab states become a real threat then they will be destroyed, just as countless other cultures have been. It's not an endearing quality and I'm not advocating it, but that is what will happen if there is an open conflict.

Quote[/b] ]

America is simply the latest of colonial powers to control Iraq...and history has shown what eventually happens to colonialist powers.

Yeah, Chris, what happens to colonialist powers? Oh, let's take Europe as an example. Europe and its former colonies (that still faithfully practice Eurocentric values) own more than 90% of the world's GNP. European culture (now referred to as Western culture) is global. The language is global. The former colonialists are today a group of the wealthiest nations on earth, together along with their former colonies. English is the standard language, the Latin alphabet is globally known. And then of course there's Big Brother  

No, but seriously, the aggressive colonization of Eurocentrism has made the Western world what it is today: the completely dominant culture and power. The roles of the Arab/Muslim vs. the western world are simply not symmetrical.

There are two options for the Muslim world. On is to adapt an Islamic-western variant of democracy within the bounds of what the western world finds acceptable. And then we'll be one big happy western family.

The other is conflict. Isolation is today not an option. And that option means now and in the foreseeable future the total destruction of their culture.

I am very much hoping for the first alternative, and I am convinced if we have less Bushes and less Bin Ladens then we'll get there.

Ugh. I think this is the longest post I've ever written

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]Have you seen Japanese TV?

Hey now- we just gave them the game show- everything else is entirely on them

[shinRaiden 0]

Hmm... Drudge is just now learning that there really is kitty-surprises in the sandy litter-box...

Rummy's war

And the actual top-secret report referenced is here.

As for the Iranians, I was hoping of course that this would go easy, but don't forget, even in Russia there was a coup attempt and parliment burned before everyone could think about stopping the holding of collective breaths.

--- edit ---

Yeah, this is old, but it got shoved way to far back in the local paper. Busbomb num. 20 or 21ish.

[joltan 0]

Nothing new, but the water aspect was somewhat new to me. I knew the golan heights were important for that very reason (apart from their strategical importance), but the info about the westbank areas was new to me.

Quote[/b] ]The wall has already claimed some of the most fertile lands of the West Bank. And, crucially, it extends Israel's control of critical water resources, which Israel and its settlers can appropriate as they choose, while the indigenous population often lacks water for drinking.

Palestinians in the seam between the wall and the Green Line will be permitted to apply for the right to live in their own homes; Israelis automatically have the right to use these lands. "Hiding behind security rationales and the seemingly neutral bureaucratic language of military orders is the gateway for expulsion," the Israeli journalist Amira Hass wrote in the daily Haaretz. "Drop by drop, unseen, not so many that it would be noticed internationally and shock public opinion." The same is true of the regular killings, terror and daily brutality and humiliation of the past 35 years of harsh occupation, while land and resources have been taken for settlers enticed by ample subsidies.

(New York Times - you can read the full article without subscribing at Spiegel Online)

[joltan 0]

IDF bank robbery

Quote[/b] ]Israeli troops have swooped on several banks in Ramallah in what officials say is their biggest recent move to choke off funding for Palestinian militants.

More than $3 million was removed from bank vaults during the action, Israeli security sources say.

So, what happens to those buisnesses and non-militant citizens who had money deposited in those banks?