Electoral Reform

[Jester]

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but at least in the last 10 years or so, all terrorists are Muslims.

As one contrary instance, and there are certainly others, the use of death threats, murders involving mutilation, massacres, kidnappings, suicide bombings, improvised explosives and other terror tactics have been a regular feature on all sides of the ongoing conflict in Colombia, who, last I checked, were catholics.

-Jester

[NuurAbSaal]

There is a difference between patriotism and nationalism. There is a difference between being religious and zealotry or fanaticism. I can be a patriot, a libertarian, and still have Christian moral standards. The difference is that I don't seek to force anyone to live my beliefs. And, I would never seek to have the State implement and enforce laws for the stated reason of liberty, and for the secondary reason of the cost of enforcement. I can seek to discuss, argue, educate and enlighten people to my way of thinking, but I would never force anyone to pay for the enforcement, or live my morality by law. Anyhow, this is how I define Liberty.

I almost started a "gee thanks..." response, before realising this actually helped me understand your point of view a bit better. Even though I had made the distinctions you list myself, long ago:).

strippers

This probably wouldn't even raise an eyebrow in most European countries;)
While I don't see the clear relation between being happily married and not being allowed to look at, guessing, breasts, my girldfriend might hold different views. I would be annoyed at the obvious risk this adds to driving. Distraction ftl.

I desire all people to be free to live as they desire within the boundaries of what is defined in law as a civil society. But, if we encroach on liberty with excessive taxation, laws, and government for the governors, then we succumb to the shackles of the state.

We can totally agree on that part.

I cherish the freedoms defined within the US Constitution, for me and my children. So much so, that I would be willing to die to defend them from usurpation or dilution. This is patriotism. But, I don't believe my nation is better than another's. That is nationalism.

A solid distinction, in my opinion. I still don't "get" patriotism, to be honest. But I admit to being generally confused on issues/topics like this one. I'd describe myself as a happy cynic and cultural pessimist, to give you a glimpse of my state of mind at the moment.

There are Christian kooks and there are Muslim kooks. But, the news is now filled with many more Muslim kooks these days. And, comparatively, I don't recall Christian militants beheading anyone lately, or sending their people strapped with bombs into crowds. While, the Muslim kooks are reaching into the very souls of nations and telling their peoples and government to watch out or they will incite their adherents to intifada or jihad. It's not that Muslim = terrorist, just that Muslim might = terrorist. Maybe not today, but maybe next week. The problems in France for example are partly a social justice issue, but also a Muslim issue.

Pointing at the obvious: IRA and ETA. While ETA bombings are clearly politically motivated, they are carried out by Christians. Spain qualifies as being hardcore religious in my book.

About Islam as a violent religion:
I should finally get off my butt and inform myself about it. From my, still uninformed, point of view Islam (islamistic cultures/governments) lack a couple of hundred years of development, let's not forget that the catholic church used to be a merciless slaughtering behemoth for hundreds of years.

Also the lack of a figure comparable to Jesus, who, in my interpretatin, turned around the rather bloodthirsty "theme" of the Old Testament into something completely different might be a factor. As an atheist I'm speculating again though. Damn, I'm really uninformed...

While the teachings of Christ certainly did not stop the church from cheerfully committing mass-murder in his name, somewhere along the line change happened.

And if you don't mind I'd rather drop the topic, or at least the confrontational part of it (if there was any...), before I get stomped by Pete for mouthing off about issues I clearly have no idea about:).

take care
Tarabulus

EDIT: a couple of "hundert", right...

[eppie]

About Islam as a violent religion:
I should finally get off my butt and inform myself about it. From my, still uninformed, point of view Islam (islamistic cultures/governments) lack a couple of hundred years of development, let's not forget that the catholic church used to be a merciless slaughtering behemoth for hundreds of years.

I completely agree with you. And I also think Kandrathe agrees on most points with us. Especially the part that we are all not willing to force our believes to others using violence.


One mistake Kandrathe makes (in my opinion) and a lot of other people do is illustrated by him saying:

quote kandrathe....I can be a patriot, a libertarian, and still have Christian moral standards. unquote


Christian moral standards don't exist. A society makes moral standards, a religion just follows. This might look like a detail but it makes the whole Muslim vs. Christian struggle a lot less severe.

If it weren't for some bright scientists and people doubting the existence of god, we in Europe would still be living in the middle ages. We would burn witches, put heretics on stakes etc. etc.
At that time that was good Christian believe.......and the bible is still the same old book. Religion will follow society (often not happily) and that is why the most advanced societies generally sport the least extreme religion.

[kandrathe]

I completely agree with you. And I also think Kandrathe agrees on most points with us. Especially the part that we are all not willing to force our believes to others using violence.
One mistake Kandrathe makes (in my opinion) and a lot of other people do is illustrated by him saying:

quote kandrathe....I can be a patriot, a libertarian, and still have Christian moral standards. unquote
Christian moral standards don't exist. A society makes moral standards, a religion just follows. This might look like a detail but it makes the whole Muslim vs. Christian struggle a lot less severe.

If it weren't for some bright scientists and people doubting the existence of god, we in Europe would still be living in the middle ages. We would burn witches, put heretics on stakes etc. etc.
At that time that was good Christian believe.......and the bible is still the same old book. Religion will follow society (often not happily) and that is why the most advanced societies generally sport the least extreme religion.

It was Christian ethical principles that eventually gave every human being an equal standing with their Creator and convinced modern nations to abandon slavery. The majority(91%) of Americans still espouse a belief in God, and we are not living in the middle ages. Source: Newsweek Poll (link) I would qualify your distinction. I can have moral standards, and I can have Christian moral standards. I freely admit my morality is shaped by my society, but also primarily by my understanding of the teachings of Christ. If there were a conflict between my societies rules and Christianity, I would defer to my Christian upbringing.

I recently was channel surfing a couple months ago and came across a show on EWTN "The Catholic Channel" regarding the misrepresentation of Catholicism in excessive deaths in Europe. Of course, you need to take the source with a grain of salt, but it made me start to question my assumption of the veracity of the historical "blame" against the Catholics for events like the "Inquisition". The argument was that the amount of state punishment and the tactics of the Christian states are actually less than non-Christian states in those same time periods. Viewing crime and punishment with a modern eye will of course shock the modern sensibilities. I am still researching and answering the question; "What was the norm for crime and punishment during these dark ages in all nations, and is there any correlation of excessive punishment related to the religious standing of the rulers?" Also, I think we need to look the culpability of the "State" in the violence which is inherent in the totalitarian monarchies of that time.

Anyway, I'm trying to be more open minded and analytical rather than just accept what might be hundreds of years of anti-Catholic propaganda. It kind of reminds me of the anti-American propaganda being levied against my nation now.

[Jester]

It was Christian ethical principles that eventually gave every human being an equal standing with their Creator and convinced modern nations to abandon slavery.

It is just a coincidence, then, that the rise of deism and freethinking, and the resulting attempts to establish ethical principles without necessary reference to Christianity, happened to coincide with the rise of abolitionism in England?

I think not.

-Jester

[eppie]

It was Christian ethical principles that eventually gave every human being an equal standing with their Creator and convinced modern nations to abandon slavery.

Anyway, I'm trying to be more open minded and analytical rather than just accept what might be hundreds of years of anti-Catholic propaganda. It kind of reminds me of the anti-American propaganda being levied against my nation now.

I was not trying to be anti catholic or anti something. I'm just saying that society creates moral standards and not religion. Religion just tries to keep using old moral standards (which most of the time make no sense). And I also just want to say that this is not typically a Muslim thing, the catholics, jews etc. do the same.

[kandrathe]

It is just a coincidence, then, that the rise of deism and freethinking, and the resulting attempts to establish ethical principles without necessary reference to Christianity, happened to coincide with the rise of abolitionism in England?

I think not.

-Jester

I think Thomas Clarkson is the prime reason for the rise of the Abolitionist movement in Britain. Who are the actors in the play my dear Jester?

[Ashock]

As one contrary instance, and there are certainly others, the use of death threats, murders involving mutilation, massacres, kidnappings, suicide bombings, improvised explosives and other terror tactics have been a regular feature on all sides of the ongoing conflict in Colombia, who, last I checked, were catholics.

-Jester

This is completely localized and internal. Sort of like a mob war. Irrelevant. If Muslims only killed each other in their own countries and noone else, it would not be our problem and would also be irrelevant.

[Jester]

This is completely localized and internal. Sort of like a mob war. Irrelevant. If Muslims only killed each other in their own countries and noone else, it would not be our problem and would also be irrelevant.

Okay, so now we've gone from "All terrorists are Muslims" to "All terrorists I care about are Muslims."

-Jester

[Jester]

I think Thomas Clarkson is the prime reason for the rise of the Abolitionist movement in Britain. Who are the actors in the play my dear Jester?

Religious dissenters played a huge part in the end of the slave trade in Britain. But religious dissent, of all forms, from quakerism through deism to freethinking, were part of a larger explosion of unorthodox thought that occured at that time. To describe this as "christian" ethics, is to miss that this was not accepted by most christians, and that it included other kinds of dissenting thought, including atheism.

I would say that the slow death of traditional christian dogmatism led to a series of new lines of ethical thinking about slavery, some of which were evangelical, others barely christian or unitarian, and yet others deist or outright atheist. That any given person in the opposition to slavery was of a certain church or not binding upon the whole movement.

-Jester

[Ashock]

Okay, so now we've gone from "All terrorists are Muslims" to "All terrorists I care about are Muslims."

-Jester

Drug related crime is completely irrelevant.
*sigh* You have nothing to really argue this point with, so you pull out something as rediculous as that just so as not to admit that I am right.
How about this: All terrorists that the whole civilized world (excluding the drug-ridden Columbia, which is possibly not even a part of that world) cares about are Muslims.

Really, you are just bull#$%&ting here. I now remember why I stopped responding to your posts a while back.

You have yourself a nice day.

[Jester]

How about this: All terrorists that the whole civilized world (excluding the drug-ridden Columbia, which is possibly not even a part of that world) cares about are Muslims.

No true scotsman. We no longer care about the IRA? About the ETA? You're just excluding from the discussion any example that disproves your bigoted generalization. How logical.

For anyone who's even remotely interested if Ashock is correct in his claims (apparently Ashock is not), wikipedia has a quick list of terrorist organizations by category. There are, contrary to his rather impressive monomania, categories other than "muslim".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_org...ist_and_Marxist

Really, you are just bull#$%&ting here. I now remember why I stopped responding to your posts a while back.

You have yourself a nice day.

Good to know it's still Ashock. It just wouldn't be the same unless you ended every argument with an arrogant, furious dismissal of your opponent, with a promise to ignore their posts in the future.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

No true scotsman. We no longer care about the IRA? About the ETA? You're just excluding from the discussion any example that disproves your bigoted generalization. How logical.

For anyone who's even remotely interested if Ashock is correct in his claims (apparently Ashock is not), wikipedia has a quick list of terrorist organizations by category. There are, contrary to his rather impressive monomania, categories other than "muslim".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_org...ist_and_Marxist
Good to know it's still Ashock. It just wouldn't be the same unless you ended every argument with an arrogant, furious dismissal of your opponent, with a promise to ignore their posts in the future.

-Jester

ETA, Columbia, and the IRA *are* red herrings though. Their objectives are in order, self rule, a weak government and control of the drug trade (greed), and self rule. An example of Christian extremists would be those those who target abortion clinics and staff. The percentage of Christians in that extreme are soooo very low compared to Islamic extremists.

Also, regarding your Catholic examples... Just because the predominant faith in those countries is Catholic doesn't mean the extremists are practicing, or devout. Is religion the reason for the conflict? Not really.

[kandrathe]

Religious dissenters played a huge part in the end of the slave trade in Britain. But religious dissent, of all forms, from quakerism through deism to freethinking, were part of a larger explosion of unorthodox thought that occured at that time. To describe this as "christian" ethics, is to miss that this was not accepted by most christians, and that it included other kinds of dissenting thought, including atheism.

I would say that the slow death of traditional christian dogmatism led to a series of new lines of ethical thinking about slavery, some of which were evangelical, others barely christian or unitarian, and yet others deist or outright atheist. That any given person in the opposition to slavery was of a certain church or not binding upon the whole movement.

-Jester

The Quakers were instrumental in getting slavery banned everywhere, but from what I can tell, in Britain, it was really Thomas Clarkson who persevered, and along with MP William Wilberforce eventually turned the tide of public opinion to the abolitionist side. Can you name a deist or atheist that anything significant to do with the abolitionist movement?

[eppie]

Also, regarding your Catholic examples... Just because the predominant faith in those countries is Catholic doesn't mean the extremists are practicing, or devout. Is religion the reason for the conflict? Not really.

You and Ashok are making a bit of a mess of it now. So all terrorism we care about is done by muslims and if it is done by Catholics they will not be practicing Catholics?

To use statistics it bit more correct you might also put poverty in the equation. An armed conflict in which one of the parties has the best and biggest army in the world, and the other party hasn't. What do you do if you want to battle than? Terrorism (mind that I don't try to approve of this, I just give you reasons).
An exception is here Northern Ireland, where Catholics and Protestants thought they were so different that they had to fight amongst eachother.......and this was in a civilized country.....

About the numbers you are claiming.....I don't know the number of muslim ectremists.....I don't think it is fait to count those in Iraq at the moment. If you do you should also count all the Americans that know Saddam had nothing to do with the WTC bombing but still find it rather a good idea that there is a war now.

My main point is, if you and Ashok want to discuss this thing (with Jester) but don't make your own rules about what you think is real terrorism or extremism.

[Chaerophon]

Just a couple of questions for you Kandrathe: what would you say if I told you that I think the distribution of natural talents and abilities was, for all intents and purposes, morally arbitrary? That I don't think we "deserve" our natural talents and situation of birth,that they were thrust upon us through no doing/fault of our own? I'm not sure whether or not you're familiar with John Rawls, but this is the foundation on which his theory of redistribution is legitimated, and I think that it is the strongest basic argument against your brand of libertarianism.

This isn't meant as an attack post; I'm just curious to hear your thoughts. As members of a society, do you think that we all equally "deserve" our talents and starting positions, whether good or bad? How does this square with the typical libertarian emphasis on "hard work" and "earning" one's position in life? How great of a role should "luck" with respect to these factors play in our share of society's distribution of wealth? I've always found the libertarian position a bit self-contradictory. If property is an absolute right due primarily to the input-value of my labour, then how can we definitively claim our talents as something that we "own", and deny that they are a matter of luck? If we can't claim an entitlement to our talents, then it would seem that graduated taxation is fully legitimate, as those who are worse off in this regard ought to be made better off due to inequalities of starting position that are no fault of their own and have nothing to do with any action (or lack thereof) on their part.

[Chaerophon]

Actually, it does, and we have had court cases for the last ten years addressing this. The Affirmative Action programs are being challenged on just those grounds, the most common challenge being about admission to Universities in a number of states. The mechanism behind this status is based on rather Old Testament thinking: visit upon the grandchildren the sins of their grandfathers and great grandfathers, by assigning a remediation status in selected cases, based on ethnicity. My daughter is not eligible for about 2/3d's of the scholarships easily available here in Corpus Christi and Texas because I did not lie and claim that I am of Mexican or Hispanic heritage. Her status as an Anglo precludes her being considered. (Other programs are means based, and we make enough to qualify for very small grants, which I have directed her to apply for.)

Hi Occhi,

I find your comments re: "paying for the sins of the grandparents" interesting. After all, the argument can quite reasonably be made (especially in the south) that many minority groups are paying for the same sins as your daughter - and that they have even less reason to pay for them than she does. It's only been 40 years since the first BA's were granted to blacks in many of the major universities of the south (including Duke, Emory, Rice, Vanderbilt, etc.). That's not a lot of time.

I am also somewhat skeptical about the very aggressive AA agenda pursued in education, but for different reasons having to do with its effectiveness as presently instituted. Is your objection really made on grounds of principle, or is your concern more practical/a matter of the "scale" of AA?

EDIT: Just wanted to make sure you realized that I mean no disrespect to your daughter. I know that it can be frustrating to look through the lists of available scholarships and fellowships and realize that you aren't eligible for the vast majority of them.

[Jester]

ETA, Columbia, and the IRA *are* red herrings though. Their objectives are in order, self rule, a weak government and control of the drug trade (greed), and self rule. An example of Christian extremists would be those those who target abortion clinics and staff. The percentage of Christians in that extreme are soooo very low compared to Islamic extremists.

Also, regarding your Catholic examples... Just because the predominant faith in those countries is Catholic doesn't mean the extremists are practicing, or devout. Is religion the reason for the conflict? Not really.

This is ludicrious. The IRA and ETA do not practise terrorism because its goals are self rule? Colombians kidnapping and bombing in the name of FARC or the Paramilitaries are not terrorists because they are looking to weaken the government? Practically every government in the world acknowledges that these are terrorist groups. On what possible basis could you exclude them? And, if you're not excluding them, what then of Ashock's ridiculous statements?

If you're going to just whittle down the definition of terrorism until what you're essentially saying is that all muslim terrorists are muslims, that would be vapid. I'm having a hard time seeing how that's not what you're doing.

-Jester

[Chaerophon]

ETA, Columbia, and the IRA *are* red herrings though. Their objectives are in order, self rule, a weak government and control of the drug trade (greed), and self rule. An example of Christian extremists would be those those who target abortion clinics and staff. The percentage of Christians in that extreme are soooo very low compared to Islamic extremists.

Also, regarding your Catholic examples... Just because the predominant faith in those countries is Catholic doesn't mean the extremists are practicing, or devout. Is religion the reason for the conflict? Not really.

Nor is religion the only reason (or likely the main reason) for the terrorist threat in the U.S. This should not be taken as a claim about the "right of Israel to exist", but simply a statement of fact: if Israel had not taken up in the Middle East in the 1950's, Sept. 11 would not have happened. Islamic terrorism is as much about the perception of cultural imperialism and disputed territory as it is about religion. Religion is the binding vehicle of their hatred, their source of shared identification, but I think any sane person can recognize that it would not have motivated them to such heights on its own.

[Jester]

The Quakers were instrumental in getting slavery banned everywhere, but from what I can tell, in Britain, it was really Thomas Clarkson who persevered, and along with MP William Wilberforce eventually turned the tide of public opinion to the abolitionist side. Can you name a deist or atheist that anything significant to do with the abolitionist movement?

Your claim was about the *ethical* change. (It was niggardly of me to restrict it to England, as this phenomenon was very much transatlantic. Apologies.) The thinking of John Locke, David Hume and Erasmus Darwin (Interesting as a freethinker allied closely to a dissenter, Josiah Wedgwood) in England, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Frankin, Thomas Paine, in America, Voltaire and Diderot in France, and a rather lengthy list of other deists and freethinkers form a part of the movement against slavery, in philosophy. Some of them were widely read (Locke, Paine) and others' opposition was more obscure.

But do you really think that without such philosophical underpinnings, that the hectoring of two men turned the tide of public opinion, even just in England? Movements that large are not made of that little. Abolitionism was the result of a long process, and a huge part of that process was the increasing doubt about the church. Sometimes this meant new churches (Quakers, Methodists, etc...) and sometimes it meant no church at all (Deists, Agnostics, Atheists). Some of it came from entirely elsewhere, the beginnings of the labour movement.

If the political muscle came from the churches, that is to be expected. Zealots do tend to be zealous, and atheism neither is nor was popular. Indeed, "atheist" was the great invective hurled at the abolitionists, even at the Quakers on occasion. But politics did not make the ethics, but the reverse.

-Jester