Why is this happening?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

I know this has been asked before and these are not original observations. But tonight I watched the news. If there was no such thing as religious fundamentalism, there wouldn't have BEEN any news. Or perhaps we might have learned more how folks are faring after that "little" tsunami.

I was struck by the fervor of the Jews, for their country, which is a theocracy. And the close-up piece on Hezbollah of course paints a picture of a culture desperately trying to turn the clock back five hundred years. Young, healthy men these are. Men who should be earning their livings and instead are fighting for religious totalitarianism. Add them to Al Queda, Hamas, the PLO. Saudia Arabia, Iran... places with no tolerance, places where women are less than second class citizens. Then we look over here and the "Christians" of the RW are flexing their muscles more every day. I try and tell myself the pendulum will swing back again. I've said that here many times. And I would tend to believe it, except when I consider what is happening in the Muslim world, how it seems to be rapidly circling the drain of Taliban-type hell. (and, yes, even THEY have risen up again.) Why, at this time in history, are we on both ends of the spectrum...actually on the three points of the Abrahamic triangle, why do we appear to be descending, all over the world, into irrational, intolerant, swamps of human hate?

Why now? And what happens when the Muslims win over there and the Xtians win over here, and then they get after each other?

I could deal with the Cold War. I respected the Russians, who are a sophisticated, learned, romantic people. We understood each other. I never anticipated this religious horror, although in reading I see that Winston Churchill did, 60 years ago. Perhaps the Cold War just camoflaged the hateful bubbling that was taking place all over the world.

In case you haven't guessed...Grannie's bummed.

[lvx35]

1. Its mostly a lack of balls from the religious left.

and I am one of them, so don't take it personally if you are too...But its the truth. Everything has been painted in terms of a false dichotomy between Soviet style materialist atheism and fundamentalism, forcing people to choose between the two. Since so many people are naturally spiritual and have experiences they can't frame in terms of atheism, they turn instead to the "only" alternative, their local fundamentalist religions...In this sense, yes, a great deal of the world is still living in the dark ages, with the only percieved alternative being the absolute denial of God. What clearly needs to happen is the progession and evolution of religion to the modern world from within. This must happen in steps, through religious movements that let people know its okay to believe in God, to have hope and faith in a hereafter, but that the other insanity - the type that creates suicide bombers - must be left behind.

[SPKrazy]

13. Fundamentalism Isn't The "Only" Alternative

and I don't think it is "balls"

I think that the fundies present the world in a black or white way that people who don't have time to think, or aren't thinkers themselves, go for.

I think the world is made of basically 2 kinds of people. Those who can't stand ambiguity and need definitive proof, or in the absence of proof they accept dogmatic beliefs.

There is another group that not only tolerates ambiguity, but accepts it as fact in this universe full of contradictions in understanding (not necessarily the literal universe as much as the universe of knowledge).

When approaching the spiritual realm, there are those who demand proof, and if there is none (and there isn't scientific proof) they conclude there is no spiritual realm, it is "fairy tale" or myth.

There are amongst those who look at spirituality who demand proof, don't get it, but settle for dogmatism, as a poor substitute in that instead of grabbing a proof, they tolerate an all or nothing idea that the "bible" or the Quaran, or whatever book is THE ANSWER.

People who tolerate ambiguity are able to see truths in many different ways of relating to the world, the universe, and the spiritual realm.

They can see pieces of it all coming from the secular world, the different religions of the world, and their own personal spiritual paths. These people don't demand absolutes, and are able to see beyond the dogma of any religion.

Now, there is nothing superior about either group, they are the yin and the yang. It is the people that manipulate the gateway for understanding the spiritual realm in a "believe this" and everyone else is wrong, that are hurting the world.

Maybe it is balls, but I don't know how to change the person who can't tolerate ambiguity into someone that can. I don't know how to attract the one who can't tolerate ambiguity to something that is ambiguous.

[lvx35]

22. Well said, and therin lies the fascinating problem...

...those who accept ambiguity are more naturally more tolerant of other opinions, dogmatic and otherwise, while the dogmatic are not tolerant of the views of the tolerant. When I refered to "balls", what I am talking about is willingness of those who accept ambiguity to assert in uncertain terms the superiority of their position. It sounds a bit like a paradox, but its not. Socrates is a great example of this being done, loudly asserting "the only thing I know is that I know nothing" and standing by his ideas even till he executed for them.
"

[omega minimo]

20. oh fuck balls

what a way to start the replies.
Jesus Christ have some respect.
What did TG say?:

"places with no tolerance, places where women are less than second class citizens."

If you had a clue about what she said and how mis/treatment of women is relevant, you would keep your balls to yourself.
It "cheapens the discussion for everyone" and pisses all over her thread.

:yoiks: and guests in the forum want to :yoiks:

[lvx35]

23. are you kidding?

I hope so, because otherwise you need to go tell Steven Colbert that women are demeaned every time he uses "balls" as a term in his show, and about a million other people who use the term harmlessly to mean chutzpah. What really DEMEANS women is being oppressed through fundamentalism - executed and mutilated for fundamentalist beliefs - and I have absolutely NO problem using strong language to advocate for positive change in these faiths. And if you if you don't like it, maybe you should do a little leading by example and not put the word "FUCK" in your subject line maybe?

[greyl]

25. Let's talk about female circumcision in Islamicised African tribes.

Fuck balls indeed. (what's the plural of clitoris?)

[omega minimo]

37. oh fuck that

Like I said, if you had a clue about what she said and how the mis/treatment of women is relevant, you would have the tact (or whatever it takes) to find another way to express yourself "strongly" in this discussion. After her pointing out the issue of women's status, after being called on the crudity that started off the replies and cheapened the whole thread, you might have at least acknowledged that, rather than trying to defend it.

As you say, the popularity of "balls" as a solution to all our problems is still high. Too bad. "Balls" really gets in the way.

The answer to TG's question "Why is this happening?" with the clue about "... places with no tolerance, places where women are less than second class citizens....." is that this is the logical outcome of several millennia of "the three points of the Abrahamic triangle" and the resultant-- and currently toxic-- predominance of balls during that time.


:patriot:

[lvx35]

40. See? You are demonstrating exactly what I was talking about:

The black and white mentality that prevents actual change from taking place. Take the respose above you, refering to female genital mutilation by fundamentalists in Africa. That's an ACTUAL issue, one example of real violence against women being perpetuated by fundamentalist ideologies. Yet instead of spending your energy talking about that, or ay other of the global forms of oppression effecting women, you focus on the liberal guy saying we should stand up to this oppression because he used the word "balls" in saying it...In fact you blame the issue on "predominance of balls", reframing the issue of oppresion as some sort of war between men and women, where men and their "balls" are at fault, rather than the ideologies which suppress women. This is a distraction from the real issues, not a solution, which is what I proposed when I said religious liberals and moderates need to confront fundamentalists. Yet you just blame it on the Abrahamic triangle, presumably meaning the Judaism, Christianity and Islam are at fault for the oppresion of women. Okay, so you have now blamed half the world for the actions of a minority. Fine. So what are you going to DO about it other than bitcing at liberal democrat guys who support women's rights?

[omega minimo]

42. That may seem the case to you

because you don't understand what I'm saying. I read your view with an open mind. Please reread carefully and try to connect the dots. You've got them all there but are prejudiced in the view that they are not connected. Just consder it.

And don't tell anyone what they should think or do based on your (or your buddy's with the genital mutilation fetish) scale of moral relativism. Especially if you were too busy justifying yourself to consider honestly what was being said.

Thom Hartmann talks and writes about the themes in my posts, as do others. If you choose to educate yourself on this and share it with others on DU, it would help end "the black and white mentality that prevents actual change from taking place." It's tiresome that it still has to be argued here.

At the very least you could have considered and acknowledged that on this thread and after the OP's comment about women's status, maybe the very first reply didn't have to say "balls are the answer."

:hi:

[lvx35]

44. Ah, a reconciliatory tone...

Now that's wise - you know what they say about arguing on the internet, its like running in a Republican primary: even if you win your still an asshole. So sure, lets reconcile. You want me to check out Hartmann. Okay why not. You want me to question whether I should have used a term like "guts" or "chutzbah" instead of "balls" on this thread. Okay. "guts" might have been better, because if its taken literally as a reference to anatomy, its a part of the body possessed by both men and women. Sure. okay. :shrug:
Here is what I would like you to consider: If somebody uses terms you find objectionable, bring it up with them with out using terms like "fuck balls" and "pissing all over thread" or refering to posters concerned female circumcision in Africa as having a "genital mutilation fetish" because all of that is doing a lot more damage to the tone of the thread than anything I said.

[omega minimo]

48. And yet you don't realize

"...paints a picture of a culture desperately trying to turn the clock back five hundred years.... places with no tolerance, places where women are less than second class citizens. Then we look over here and the "Christians" of the RW are flexing their muscles more every day. I try and tell myself the pendulum will swing back again....Why, at this time in history, are we on both ends of the spectrum...actually on the three points of the Abrahamic triangle, why do we appear to be descending, all over the world, into irrational, intolerant, swamps of human hate?"


And yet you don't realize:

In the context of the OP, the first reply proposing a "lack of balls" set a crude, ignorant tone for the thread that is as repulsive and antagonistic as you found some of my comments (which were a direct reaction to that antagonism)

How offensive and arrogant it is for men ("even on DU") to tell women what we can and cannot say based on a golden mean of genital mutilation-- anything not reaching that threshold doesn't deserve to be considered, according to their dictates

On DU, where the reader is considering an OP and looking at replies, the constant and unrepentant sexist lingo is a smack in the face and hostile reminder that this too is one of the "places where women are less than second class citizens."

The answer to GT's question (which you haven't commented on except to still defend your right to objectionable terms) when considered honestly makes it even more clear that respectful and inclusive language is part of the solution-- the opposite is a reminder and reinforcement of the problem.

[lvx35]

50. YOU do not realize.

Because you have to look at reality. Your trying to turn a conversation about the oppression of women larger confrontation against the abrahamic faiths, who constitutes more than half of the world. You blame it on a predominance of "balls", and you have cut off half of what's left. You blame people who use the term, (like the seattle lesbian rock band "hells belles" that does the cover of "big balls" by ACDC) you have even less. What you end up doing is alienating everyone.

But look at women's rights in this country, who's protected them? Dems. Whose put Dems in power? It was a good part people like my old co-workers, Teamsters who drink beer and say "balls", unlike religious right members. Are the Teamsters the problem? NO! Because they vote to support women's rights...And that's the ESSENTIAL thing you don't seem to understand, language is meaningless, action is everything.

Try to understand this, its easy. Take history: The terms "moron" and "idiot" were once medical terms used to describe the mentally disabled people. Then they became insults, and there was slow, then retarded, and now that's an insult, and mentally disabled is used...but changing the name never addressed the issue of lack of respect for these people, only helping their rights does, that's all that matters. "Chics" who can vote are better off than "Womyn" who can't, a "black dude" with a house is better off than an "African American" living on the street, and a "handicapped guy" with a wheel chair ramp is better than a "differently-abled person" without one.

Changing the root issue is EVERYTHING but changing the language means NOTHING, its simply a way to make people feel like they are doing something to fight oppression when they are in fact doing nothing. If you would realize this, than you would question your own posts not mine. Somebody posts about oppression of women, then somebody posts a supportive post talking about actions he thinks need to be taken within religions to bring about a solution...And you attack him for not using PC enough language in expressing his support of women's rights...meanwhile, huge forces which are largely controlling the country are taking ACTION (not language) to diminish those said rights...Yet you are expending your energy here, fighting over a nonsense issue. That IS the problem.

[omega minimo]

51. Why don't YOU

just apologize and get it over with :evilgrin:

:bounce: :bounce:

"Changing the root issue is EVERYTHING but changing the language means NOTHING, its simply a way to make people feel like they are doing something to fight oppression when they are in fact doing nothing."

So you say.

"It was a good part people like my old co-workers, Teamsters who drink beer and say "balls", unlike religious right members. Are the Teamsters the problem? NO! Because they vote to support women's rights...And that's the ESSENTIAL thing you don't seem to understand, language is meaningless, action is everything."

I hear what you're saying about solidarity. But you could not be more wrong about language. Language matters. Maybe those guys who say "balls" don't say it in certain situations, eh?

For example, as I am reading along TG's interesting OP I don't expect to be smacked in the face with "balls" in the first reply. It's a small (or medium or large) matter to you-- however, as I said, it is a reminder of women's second class status and a reinforcement of the dominant power structure that will be just as entrenched, certain, self-righteous and stubborn as you are being about recognizing or even considering any of the points made here. THAT is the luxury of Male Privilege and being on the right side of the dominant paradigm-- the luxury of saying "I/We don't care about this and YOU shouldn't either-- you should see it My/Our way and quit bothering Me/Us with your paltry, pathetic perspective." No clue about the fact that women's status was mentioned in the OP and maybe "lack of balls" is not the best choice of terms?

Here's the thing. That ball-smack in the eyeballs seems so clueless about what the problems and solutions really are, that I lose interest in reading any further. So what, you say?

Well here's the other thing:

"The terms "moron" and "idiot" were once medical terms used to describe the mentally disabled people. Then they became insults, and there was slow, then retarded, and now that's an insult, and mentally disabled is used...but changing the name never addressed the issue of lack of respect for these people, only helping their rights does, that's all that matters. "Chics" who can vote are better off than "Womyn" who can't, a "black dude" with a house is better off than an "African American" living on the street, and a "handicapped guy" with a wheel chair ramp is better than a "differently-abled person" without one."

Notice that your examples of "black dude" and "African American" avoided the "tar baby" of "ni****r". And if the use of sexist lingo on DU was recognized as disrespectful as any RACIAL offense would be, and you were called on it, I'll bet you would back up and adjust to the reality of the person (possibly a man) out of simple respect. That fact that women are EVEN LESS THAN and deserving of no consideration is THE PROBLEM.

I know, I know, supposedly "balls" is no big deal. Thing is, AS I SAID TWENTY TIMES, the RELEVANCE to sexsim mentioned in the OP is RELEVANT. And if you choose to educate yourself, consider others or look honestly at the history of the "Abrahamic Triangle" that would be good.

"Changing the root issue is EVERYTHING but changing the language means NOTHING, its simply a way to make people feel like they are doing something to fight oppression when they are in fact doing nothing."

That's completely false. You might also look into how root meaning is embedded in language.

"Somebody posts about oppression of women, then somebody posts a supportive post talking about actions he thinks need to be taken within religions to bring about a solution..."

That was a challenge, not support.

"And you attack him for not using PC enough language in expressing his support of women's rights..."

No I didn't. I said it is offensive and arrogant for men to set a high bar at "genital mutilation" and tell women that if their comments don't meet that male-approved standard they should sit down and shut up or go fix everybody a snack.

"What you end up doing is alienating everyone............................meanwhile, huge forces which are largely controlling the country are taking ACTION (not language) to diminish those said rights...Yet you are expending your energy here, fighting over a nonsense issue. That IS the problem."

Why is is your right to alienate those who find "balls" crude, ignorant and inappropriate in a specific thread, while you accuse those who understand that LANGUAGE MATTERS of "alienating everyone"? Who is "everyone"? "Everyone" who has balls? "Everyone" who thinks it's no big deal? "Everyone" who skims right past TallahassieGranny's comment about the (shitty, abused, historic and rooted in Abrahamic religion) status of women?

Regarding your examples of language that doesn't matter: I OP titled recently with the term "wheelchair-bound." I meant it descriptively and could have been a belligerent dickhead and argued that I meant it a certain way, when a couple people commented that it was offensive. I don't know all the rationale and I don't need to. I respect the people who are really bothered by that-- I don't buy the "PC" thing because that is just a bullshit line cooked up by people who don't want to respect others. There are enough words in the language to "express strongly" without offending people intentionally.

Language matters.

I am not trying to convince you. You've shown your unwillingness to consider the points being raised and certainty that your right to alienate "everyone" outweighs mine.

Unless that thing about racist language got through to you.

Anyway, check out the history and embedded language of the "Abrahamic triangle." You might be surprised.

:hi:

[lvx35]

52. Okay.

Look, we know this is not about "balls". If you wanted a different term used, you could have asked politely that I use a different term instead of balls, and I happily would have obliged. Instead, you came out with the piss and fuck while going on the attack over my language, as if balls, in a context clearly not refering to male genitalia, was more offensive. I don't think it is therefore I have no interest in apologizing. You wanted me to comment on racist terms, but my point stands, even with serious slurs like "ni**er". It really doesn't matter what you call somebody, compared to what you are doing to/for them.

I don't understand your last comment about embedded language Abrahamic triangle. Historical use of language by these three faiths?

Ending. Its seriously dumb for BOTH of us to commit energy to arguing. No hard feelings, seriously. I just don't agree with you here.

[omega minimo]

53. oh fuck balls

You wanna be crude and self-righteous and tell me I "could have asked politely that I use a different term instead of balls, and I happily would have obliged." :rofl: That may be so, but please don't tell me you have not seen the brazillion times that this has been "asked politely" on DU in the past. And we're supposed to "ask politely" over and over and over and over. You were crude. I was crude. Colbert is crude. Everybody crude. Great.

The "apologize" bit was a joke-- didn't the :evilgrin: help?

I don't expect you to apologize or "happily oblige" or listen to Hartmann on the subject or research the question in your last post or consider the relevance of TG's comment about women's status to the subject of Abrahamic religious violence and the inappropriateness of saying the problem is a "lack of balls" or reread carefully and try to connect the dots or realize that that respectful and inclusive language is part of the solution & the opposite is a reminder and reinforcement of the problem or look into how root meaning is embedded in language or check out the history and embedded language of the "Abrahamic triangle" or quit being obstinate or understand that I've already said several times I don't expect you to "agree with me here."

Don't take my word for it. Educate yourself.

"It really doesn't matter what you call somebody, compared to what you are doing to/for them."

Well, you've got one dot connected and if you just hook up the other one, you might quit thinking "it really doesn't matter what you call somebody."

Good luck! :hi:

[lvx35]

54. Back to "oh fuck balls" eh?

Sounds like this record is broken. No, I will think about language. I always think about what is said to me. I hope you will think about the tactics you use to spread knowledge you want to share, specifically about what tone is effective with people. Seriously, good bye.

[omega minimo]

55. Oh not at all

No "tone" will ever succeed in reaching those who choose self-righteous defensiveness and resistance; those who spend all their time justifying and arguing instead of considering the information that's presented (even for a moment) and playing topdog about HOW women's issues and unfamiliar ideas are presented because they haven't met the right criteria; while unending head games take the place of actual information or "spreading the knowledge you want to share."

If I wasn't fed up with this lost cause I wouldn't have matched your crudeness for crudeness and posted my gut reaction to not only the ignorant tone set by the phrase, but the obvious lack of basic historic background that (if it were more common knowledge) would have made you think twice about the irony or inappropriateness of using that phrase. It's not just you, it's everywhere, although Thom Hartmann and others are doing their part to "spread knowledge."

You think maybe not repeating that the problem is "a lack of balls" would set a more effective tone in future? :think:

[lvx35]

56. You know what I think the problem is here?

I usually don't think about DU chat while living my daily life, but this argument has been crossing my mind today because there is something really deep in it. So I want to try to explain myself really fully so you can see what I am saying.

I have thought about language today, or what you call "embedded language", which I presume means when somebody says something, but something else is embedded in it so there are multiple meanings. For instance I think you took the comment on balls to be superficially about having guts, but having an embedded meaning to male superiority through the term balls, as though I was saying the religious left needs a sort of machismo that, like balls, only men possess. But that's not what I was saying, and I disagree with the idea that multiple meanings to words is important (with the exception of law and poetry) its what a person means that is important, which goes back to what I was saying about action; meaning dicates inner state dictates action, and that's what matters...And balls isn't meant to imply machismo or maleness in this sense...

Actually, since you are a language fan, you might want to look at the term "balls" a little closer. Its really a cach all phrase that covers "big balls", "a lotta balls" and "balls of steel" or "stones". All of these terms are rooted certainly in male dialog, and the significance of all the terms is vulnerability, or lack there of. The reasons are due to the vulnerability of the testicles to painful injury, and therefore somebody with "big balls" "balls of steel" is acting as though they are invulnerable, or has no weak point. If you look at spanish you'll see that too, with cojones (tough leather bags) being used this way famously, while huevos (eggs) isn't heard as much in the same sense, (implying more fragility) but is still widely used to refer to the testicles. "lack of balls" really does mean "lack of big or steel balls", it implies a sense of vulnerability.

So as far as your language goes, this is the root. Its like saying "Achilles has some big iron heels coming in here" or something like that. And in that root lies the meaning of the people who use it, and in that meaning lies the intent, and in the intent lies the action, and that's what matters. Is it male? Very. And that's okay, I think that's the deep issue were talking about here. Its very male, a celebration of maleness, and that's okay...the real point here is that celebrating and appreciating maleness is fine, its a lack of appreciating femaleness that lies behind the oppression of women more than anything.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

57. What a lovely, juicy little subthread!

[omega minimo]

59. Yeah, we grabbed your thread by the scrotum

:wow: so to speak :evilgrin:




:hug:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

60. Yep, you got it by the short hairs, that's for sure.

[lvx35]

64. hehehe! :) nt

[omega minimo]

58. "lack of balls" = "woman"

:bounce: :bounce:

"I want to try to explain myself really fully so you can see what I am saying."

Thank you.

"I think you took the comment on balls to be superficially about having guts, but having an embedded meaning to male superiority through the term balls...."

"....as though I was saying the religious left needs a sort of machismo that, like balls, only men possess."

"...And balls isn't meant to imply machismo or maleness in this sense..."

""lack of balls" really does mean "lack of big or steel balls", it implies a sense of vulnerability."

"Is it male? Very. And that's okay, I think that's the deep issue were talking about here. Its very male, a celebration of maleness, and that's okay...the real point here is that celebrating and appreciating maleness is fine"

:dilemma:





"its a lack of appreciating femaleness that lies behind the oppression of women more than anything."

Um, yeah. And that "lack of appreciation" and all "that lies behind the oppression of women" is telegraphed in a colloquialism that equate huevos with positive attributes and lack of huevos as negative. No matter how you slice and dice "balls" there is one group that ALWAYS has a "lack of balls" and that's women.

There is more to the roots of words and meaning embedded in language which might interest you but you're on your own. Google "pudenda."

"....meaning dicates inner state dictates action, and that's what matters."

This concept obviously means a lot to you. It also allows you to divorce yourself from responsibilty for the meaning in words if you didn't "intend" it. Yet here you have STARTED from meaning > inner state > action. The meaning is there, whether you realize it or not. When people tell you it's there, that's a big clue.

Like I say, I won't be using "wheelchair bound" again and it isn't because I understand or relate to the reasons it's objectionable or because I'm PC or because I am "vulnerable" or "lack balls."

[lvx35]

62. So you want a Mea Culpa, eh?

Okay, but it looked it up when looking up pudenda and found a little more than I bargained for in the latin root of 'culpa' here:

culpa -ae, f.
female genitalia, in a shameful sense, cunt.

So in the language of the original patriarchical empire, admitting its my fault is liguistically equivalent to admitting "I have a cunt"...Isn't that something? I'll give it to you, sexism is reflected in language, no doubt. But did the empire create the language or the language create the empire? I'm sure it was the former. Get rid of Rome, and "mea culpa" becomes the neutral term it is today - but well meaning attempts to replace 'idiot' with 'retarded' before we really worked on rights for the mentally disabled didn't fare so well. I believe language structures arise to describe the world as it is; change the world to change the language.

But we've been over this. I don't think you "lack balls" at all for trying to use language that doesn't offend others. I'm happy to omit that term for your comfort. But I don't think me omitting it will change much...As long as men have the universal experience of intense pain after something hits their testicles, they will be a metaphor for vulnerability and such...What we need is an equal amount of acceptance for universal feminine experience in common language, or rather a state of affairs and rights where such language will arise naturally.

[omega minimo]

67. "...admitting its my fault ....."

"....admitting its my fault is liguistically equivalent to admitting "I have a cunt"..."

:rofl: :hug:

[Random_Australian]

63. What about if "lack of balls" = castrato?

:)

This is a weird, but enjoyable subthread, even though I don't really have a side.

:)

[lvx35]

66. Castrato or women transcend the metaphor...

I'm saying its about men, totally. Have you ever seen the Sopranos? You know when Tony Soprano (mob boss character) says something like "You got a lot of balls coming here after what you done to me!" You know he's not telling the person that he is very tough and masculine for returning to him, rather he is making a comment on the person's vulnerability, or their lack of seeing their vulnerability; the implication of "you gotta lotta balls" is that you had better, because he's about to take two of them...or something like that. Its not a jibe on women or anything like that! :)

[Random_Australian]

68. No, I have never seen the Sopranos. TV in general happens to be

drool inducing sub-moronic swill, so I limit myself. :)

[greyl]

65. No, it doesn't.

Similar to how referring to a book titled "The Student as Nigger" isn't a racial slur.

[Finder]

2. With all due respect, Israel is not a theocracy.

Of course they have their fundy elements too but overall it is a secular country.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. It has very strong theocratic elements

The ultra-orthodox control the balance of power, and have almost from the very beginning of the modern State of Israel. While they have had to compromise, there are many areas where ultra-orthodox interpretation has been given the force of law, either by statute (Israel grants marriage licenses only for weddings performed under Orthodox Jewish practice) or by custom (it is not illegal to have your business open on the Sabbath, but those who do will be harassed, stonewalled and generally bureaucrated until they decide to close from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday.)

Israel is a theocracy in the same sense that large stretches of the United States are a theocracy: one particular religious ideology holds sway that any opposition to it is tantamount to treason. Witness how many people scream "Anti-Semitic bigot!" at every single complaint against Israeli national policy.

[Finder]

8. It is very similar to what we have here actually...

except they do not have a secular constitution to fall back on like we do. They are a young democracy and like the US will iron it out some day. If they were not constantly in conflict with those around them, they would be in conflict with themselves. It was not an Arab who assassinated Rabin if you recall. The majority of citizens are of a secular bent but it is hard to see under all the nationalism.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

6. Really?

I was listening to a description of their founding and they said it was a theocracy. Perhaps they have modified it since then?

[Finder]

10. Well look at how many say we were founded on Judeo-Christian..

law. Doesn't mean it is true.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. In Israel's case, it does

Remember, it was not atheists and agnostics who agitated for a "Jewish homeland." Modern Israel was founded, first and foremost, as a religious state; Zionism was never a secular movement.

[Finder]

38. Zionism was originally secular which is why the orthodox jews were...

against it and still are. Of course along the way groups like the Christian Zionists and other sects joined in.

[catbert836]

41. It was originally a secular movement

however, it was hijacked by Orthodox Jews shortly before the location of Palestine was chosen for a Jewish homeland.

[moggie]

61. Book recommendation for you, gran

"The Trouble with Islam Today: A Wake-up Call for Honesty and Change", Irshad Manji.

Manji is a liberal, feminist, lesbian Muslim who asks pointed and refreshingly impolite questions about Islam with the aim of liberalising it, and in particular with making it more women-friendly. It's a very thought-provoking book. The reason I mention it here is that she takes a trip to Israel, and while not uncritical of Israeli government treatment of the Palestinians, she finds much to praise in Israel. Seems they have greater freedom of and from religion than you'd expect of a "theocracy".

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. "If there was no such thing as religious fundamentalism..."

"... there wouldn't have BEEN any news."

You have summed up very nicely something I've been feeling for years now, and didn't quite know how to articulate.

As for analysis, the only explanation that I can think of is: uncertain times have always seemed to bring out fanatic certainty in humanity. There is some deep-seated need to have some kind of stability; when economic or cultural stability can not be found, when natural disasters loom, when resources become scarce, people fall back to religion as a refuge. And anything that might challenge that stability... it is no accident that the very worst atrocities in human history have been motivated by adherents of one religion "defending" themselves against adherents of a different religion.

[xchrom]

5. the west dealt unfairly with the palestinians

when they did not commit to some kind of plebiscite when israel was formed.

in short -- europe and the u.s. asked for someone else to pay for europes sins.
and they have resented it ferociously ever since.

had a multiethnic institution been formed called greater palestine -- things could very well have been different.

whether anyone likes it or not -- and most don't and others try to deny history{not unlike some other denyers} palestinians feel like they are fighting for their homeland.

no matter what it's the palestinian people who are getting screwed by everyone.

and btw -- hamas and the plo would both be happy with secular governments.

[China_cat]

7. I have never understood why,

in order to make amends to the Jews who survived the Holocaust, that the West decided that they should take land away from people in the Middle East and give it to the survivors. They penalized people who had absolutely nothing to do with Hitler's plans...who would, in fact, have been included in those plans if the man had ever gotten around to it.

Yes, I know Jews had always wanted a place in that part of the world but I truly believe that if they had been left alone, the region would be totally assimilated with all and with none of the violence we see today.

[xchrom]

9. for the most part i think you are right.

certainly the region would have not felt as though they were always on the backfoot when dealing with the wests corporate colonialism.

as it was - every insult felt like it added salt to every injury.

not to mention -- we were ever, ever so wrong supporting dictators like the shah in iran.

we've made a fine mess of it -- and we problems recognizing our own culpability.

[varkam]

14. A point of clarification.

From what I understand (and I may be totally ignorant), the historical roots of modern day Israel go back to before World War II and the holocaust to (among other things) the Balfour Declaration of 1917 in which the British government expressed support for the creation of a Jewish state in palestine.

[catbert836]

16. But for the Holocaust...

the plans for a Jewish state probably never would have gotten off the ground. One tradition of the white race in the past thousand years is that we prefer to outsource our problems to others than deal with them ourselves.

[varkam]

18. But didn't Jewish immigration to the area occur

during the pre-WWII years?

[catbert836]

19. Some of it did.

Though it was mostly a trickle, it increased exponentially after WW2.

[varkam]

21. I can certainly understand why that would be.

But doesn't that run contrary to the West making up for the holocaust?

[China_cat]

34. Before that the immigration was like any other.

People coming in and assimilating. They weren't throwing people out and telling them that they were no longer welcome in their own homes.

Sort of like the Europeans did to the native Americans.

[neebob]

17. I've wondered about that myself

I wasn't born until 1960, and even if felt I could ask my mom without starting a "thing," she was only 12 in 1948. What you call making amends, someone on one of the threads in GD called collective guilt. I wonder if if there wasn't also a bit of "out of sight/out of mind," coupled with trusting them to be good caretakers of the holy places of Christianity as well as Judaism and not really giving a crap about the other people who were already there. Maybe even not viewing them as people, because their skin was darker and they worshipped a different god than the Jews and Christians.

"It was a different time," as my mother is so very fond of saying.

[Zebedeo]

33. Uh, not exactly correct

They penalized people who had absolutely nothing to do with Hitler's plans...who would, in fact, have been included in those plans if the man had ever gotten around to it.

Pics

[catbert836]

39. There's a couple of problems with that.

Firstly, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and other Muslim leaders who supported the Nazis did not have a great role in Hitler's plans. The Nazis were never very concerned with the Middle East. Secondly, it makes no sense at all to blame the Palestinian people for the views of a few of their leaders, and even less so to take away their land because of it. Thirdly, although there were some Bosnian Muslim soldiers working for the Reich who rounded up Jews and such, it would not make any sense at all to blame the Palestinians for their coreligionists role in the Holocaust. You seem to be thinking that there is only one group of Muslims, which is not true in the least.

[Crunchy Frog]

11. I'm bummed too Grannie.

I sometimes think that the world is going through some sort of anti-enlightenment backlash, and that we are currently descending into a new Dark Age. I'm thinking that it may just have to run its course, however devestating it will be to the planet and to humanity. I honestly can't imagine what could beat the religious fundamentalism trend in this country, let alone in the Middle East. Maybe the pendulum will swing back in another couple of hundred years; after Armegeddon has come and gone and people have figured out that Jesus isn't coming back, and nobody's going to get raptured.

I agree with you that the Cold War was a piece of cake compared with the present religiously based conflicts.

[catbert836]

15. It's a struggle within Islam

between the hardliners, who often turn out to be terrorists, and the moderates. You might call it the beginnings of an Islamic Reformation. During the course of the conflict, the West has often been lashed out at, similar to the way the Middle East was lashed out at as the Christian Reformation was beginning.

[greyl]

24. Because faith is off-limits to reason.

I considered using a question mark instead of a period in the subject, but...

On my behalf, I don't single out any one of the 5 major salvationist religions.
To the world's detriment, they do.

[Random_Australian]

26. You know, I am coming to the conclusion that the fanatics are bieng

entirely logical, but just using the wrong assumptions and not checking the answers with reality.

eg1. Logical with correct premises

1) All people are mortal

2) Socrates is a person

Therefore Socrates is mortal

eg2. Logical with an incorrect premise

1) We can facilitate interactions with people to acheive certain outcomes. (True)

2) God gave America to the white people (Do I really have to say whether this is right?)

Therefore start hate groups eg. those stupid freaks, the Klan.

Actually the logical outcome if the premises were true.
:)

My $0.05

[greyl]

27. Hahah, you're taking the piss! :)

There is no logic with false premises.

[Random_Australian]

28. Actually, I'm not.

There is no logic in the philosophical sense, but we have the scientific too, in which we don't get certainties so us sciency types learn to apply the process to hypotheticals :) 'false premises' are now 'premises which are have incorrect p-values with regards to the evidence'

Yay for statistics!

:)

[greyl]

29. (I figured) ;)

If you want to talk about the larger issue in statistical terms, I have no problem with that.

We'll just have to come to logical agreement on the voracity of the data first.

[Random_Australian]

30. Uh, I would like to talk about the larger issue in logical terms, actually

.....
...
...
...
...
I think we are lost, didn't we pass that tree before?

[greyl]

31. Fine. Because faith is off-limits to reason.

Your turn.

[Random_Australian]

32. Ooooh nice one! En guarde!

Define reason internally to the reasoner and then it is the learnt sum of the biological processes of the mind. :)

This expresses it as the sum of many logical processes; and as said above logical process can be used with faith, it merely means that the faithful has some inherit assumption not supported by the sum of experience, but only not supported statistically, not absolutely incorrect.

Therefore that one can be logical in faith allows one to reason using a faithful mind.

Heh heh heh. What say you? (Don't take me uber-seriously, though, please, I should not want things turning sour over something petty)

[Goblinmonger]

36. You wouldn't happen to have a bit of rope? n/t

[ironbark]

35. "And what happens when ..."

Hi Grannie

You have good cause to be pissed off.
It looks like a shitfest…the whole stinking show.

But...
Painting with the broadest possible brush….nomadic tribe fought ‘the other’ until greater tribe was formed, village is established and fights ‘the other’ until city is formed, play on, fast forward, city to city state, city state to nation….ever expanding ever greater networks, us against the other at every stage of expansion, when you run out of turf to fight over you can always fight over ideology.
We *have* run out of turf, the only expansion we can make is from nations to ‘world’…we can still be Palestinians, Americans, Scandinavians…but they had best become a preface to the central identity….Earthling.

I heard a young man on the radio the other day…he asked what was the single greatest development impacting on human history in the 20th C….I was expecting some scientific innovation….his answer was the ‘diasporas’. The great population and culture shifts resulting in Irish/American, Cambodian/Canadian, Greek/Australian….
the young man himself was Vietnamese/American who lives/works in China and identifies as global citizen.

Right now there are thousands of Lebanese/Australians ‘coming home’ (I suspect the same is happening in the US)…sooner or later the melting pot stirs to the recognition of ‘one home’…’one people’………an historical inevitability from my pov.

Religion?.....It either serves as a unifying vehicle as it has in the past….or it is abandoned as an un necessary source of division.

[cynatnite]

43. What were you reading in regards to this and Churchill?

I would be interested in checking it out.

I've often wondered if we're heading to a new kind of world war with it being the Xtians vs. the Muslims? The mentality each side carries allows for no middle ground whatsoever. 'Your either for me or against me'...where have we heard that before?

With an extremist and his neocons running this country and on the other side of the ocean are extremists of another religion. There is no such thing as compromise with these types of people.

Yeah, Grannie...It's depressing as hell and scary.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

46. Here you go...

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

—Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. Is the problem the belief in an infinite afterlife?

Especially an infinite afterlife for which your fate is decided, permanently, in this life.

If people are convinced that they only have this life to behave as a deity, or deities, or 'the universe', wishes, and that after that they will forever more be in a perfect world, or everlasting torment, then it's only natural they should be obsessed with the details on how to achieve the perfect afterlife - relegating how this life is lived to mere details, unless they're explicitly told by someone or something they believe has divine authority that your behaviour in society is a vital part of the judgement. And similarly, they may put their concern for their fellow humans into practice by doing all they can to convert them to the 'one true religion' - because they're convinced this is the only alternative to infinite suffering.

Compare that attitude to religions which believe in reincarnation - while they can have a goal for our 'spirit' to aim for, worldly life isn't shunted off as a prologue to 'the real thing' - so getting on with other people, loving them, putting food on your family, etc. becomes a major part of "the reason we're here". Believers who think God could forgive, or still love people who didn't conform to a certain religion or sect, are similarly freer to think more about humans than eternal life.

There's a division between humanists, whether secular or religious, for whom our interactions with other humans are either very important, or all that there is, on one side; and fundamentalists, for whom some form of theology means everything. I remember a late night, somewhat alcohol-fuelled, conversation between various believers and non-believers about how humans should behave, and whether there was a universal 'purpose' to life. I (an atheist) could understand most viewpoints, including a minister, because they all talked about people, until one guy, who I didn't know well, came up with "I believe the sole purpose of life is to love, worship and glorify Jesus Christ Our Lord and Saviour". There really isn't much arguing with that - it was a conversation stopper. I couldn't work out how I could relate to him - and I wasn't sure if he even wanted any relationship with me.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

47. Yes, I would say that was

a conversation stopper for sure!

I think that for peoploe of limited perspective, the idea of an infinite afterlife makes them careless of what we have here and now. I could personally be convinced of reincarnation rather easily. It actually makes more sense to me than "heaven."

[Zebedeo]

49. It's nothing new

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 1:9