What we are seeing in Egypt is counter-revolution pure and simple, military hardliners who are going to be friendly with Israel and the US, and are committing gross human rights abuse.
Western backed counter-revolution is going to be sweeping back across the Middle East; do not be distracted by the words of the West, watch the deeds. It will of course be in the name of secularism. There is an important correlation between what is happening in Turkey and Egypt. I made myself unpopular when I pointed out what the media did not tell you, that behind the tiny minority of doe-eyed greens in the vanguard of the Istanbul movement, stood the massed phalanxes of kemalist nationalism, a very ugly beast. “Secularism” was the cry there too.
well Kibo Noh, thanks for the delightful Sophia, so well versed with shedlife.
which brings me to this Sunday afternoon diversion….
Mind, I’m well aware that some of the best ideas, ever, have come out of sheds and garages, spaces were you gaze outside, listen to the birds and bees, whilst letting the innovative mind sore to ever more intricate heights, were blueprints become Eureka moments and were life is easy holding a cup of tea.
make mine an Assam, watch in wonder, a motorbike with no frame in the 1990’s, awesome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGFkfhrTrIk
Jon
I don’t know them. I don’t speak for them, they don’t speak for me.
It isn’t Muslims that want to replace democracy with Islamic law.
There is no such thing as the democracy you are on about.
It is just a useless slogan.
It wasn’t us, so called Muslim fundamentalists who go about removing democratically elected governments.
People voted for what you called fundamentalist Islamists.
And it is blatant hypocrisy for people like yourself to claim you believe in democracy, but not if the people want a system you disagree with.
My question to you is, if the majority of people here in the UK want to be ruled by Islam. If an Islamic part won the election, would you stop believing in democracy?
Arsalan, having the vote is not a sufficient condition to ensure democracy on its own. After all Hitler was democratically elected and look what he did with it. It seems to me that for a democracy to function properly it has to be propped up by three basic pillars (and the institutions that support them) – the right to vote, freedom of speech/press, and the rule of law.
Challenge them as I have inadvertently done and you will soon find that these pillars are more fiction than reality. Here in Canada, as in the UK, it has to be said that the democracy is a bit of a sham and it seems to me that with the growing power of the secret (and unaccountable)security state, the situation is getting worse day by day.
And there is a forth pillar too – the right of minorities not to be dominated by the majority.
‘ello Arsalan,
Of course, I didn’t claim that. I said that you both appear to be saying the same things, with my intended inference being that you are inadvertently supporting religious fundamentalism.
Do you mean there are no current examples of it, or that it is impossible? To take the first point, there has been discussion here in the past about Swiss I & R, which already exists, and whilst it is not perfect, I think it would be the right step forward for any state that genuinely wishes to be ruled by the demos. If however you believe it is impossible to achieve, I disagree – we need to be optimistic.
And it wasn’t us, so-called democracy supporters, who go about removing democratically elected governments.
Ah, I think I understand your earlier comments now – you are disenfranchised with systems that are labelled “democratic” because, in the West, the “wrong” election result (such as Hamas in Palestine) will sometimes not be recognised by world powers. I agree with you on this point: this is an example of abuse of imperial power, but since it’s an undemocratic abuse, it’s not the fault of the theory of democracy. It just means that democracy isn’t respected by elites as much as it should be (but then that has always been the case). I’ll touch on this later, though.
To answer your question directly, I’ll assume by “Islamic party” you mean one that would implement Sharia courts and remove the houses of Parliament, the judiciary and the principles of the legal system. If such a party won an election fairly in the UK, I would not recognise the result, since it is undemocratic to use democracy to destroy democracy. Put another way, if the people who voted for this party changed their mind after a few years of theocratic rule, they would not be able to vote them out since voting will have been abolished.
For what it’s worth, I think I would struggle to come to terms with any faith party doing well in the British polls. We have something of a proud record of secularism in both national and local elections, and I hope it stays that way. Religion (and thus also religious politics) is, in my view, a symbol of the suffering of the masses, who turn to increasingly irrational solutions to ameliorate their woes. Even though faith fails to cure the ills of poverty, war, basic want and hunger, the feeling that we have a benign creator is comforting but unprovable.
That all said, it’ll surprise you to hear that I respect people’s religious choices, since people must be free to decide for themselves. I think on the whole religion (and religious politics) is bad for people.
Earlier I indicated that Hamas should be recognised as the government of Palestine. However, I also don’t think governments should be religious in character. Thus, I suppose I have two competing values (respect for democracy and support for secular governance) so I have to sort them in order of importance.
So I understand where you are coming from, is there an example of an Islamic party in the world (whether in power or not) who you would vote for?
“And there is a forth pillar too – the right of minorities not to be dominated by the majority.”
This is the excuse they use to nulify democracy when lesser races are the majority and the master race is the minority.
They have no problems at all with the majority dominating the minority when they themselves are the majority, do they?
When France bans the Hijab and the Niqab, it is democracy and the minority needs to submit or get out?
Isn’t it?
And Canada itself has it’s own bans on Islamic practice, so before you come to us to preach respecting minorities to us. Isn’t it about time you started implimenting it where you are?
Well, not just us, the way you treat your aboriginal minority is much worse.
And that is exactly why I use “White and brown” here.
It is all to do with racial superiority of the white race. When a non-Muslim country votes in someone with ideas whites don’t like they use the same old excuses.
Remember what this thread is about?
It is about people in Egypt voting for a party that some white people wish they had not voted for. And then those same white people who always talk about how white nations are superior to brown because white nations have democracy, suporting the army in removing that elected government.
This is not just about Egypt.
Islamic parties have won elections in many other nations.
And everytime they do, the very people that scream democracy and use it as an excuse to kill and invade make excuses against democracy.
Elections are just a rubber stamp when your guy wins.
When the other guy wins, then winning an election is an act of terrorism. For which people are arrested, tortured and killed.
🙂
So, you the enlightened white master race can take your freedom, your democracy, your capitalism, socialism, communism, freedom and secularism and shove it up your chock on it.
You to your way and we to ours.
We have our own ways of governing ourselves. you might think your ways are better just as you think your race is better. But we don’t. Get over it!
Jon I think I need to clarify my position.
I think the confusion might be my fault because I have said two seperate things and not indicate they are seperate.
My first point was to do with this thread.
The elections in egypt.
the Brotherhood won.
the Army removed them.
They were arrested for the crime of winning an election.
The west recognised the army rule.
My point was to show the hypocrisy of those people who keep calling for democracy but call for something else when anyone other then their own people win.
Jon your last post shows the key issues here. Democracy is just one tiny part of what people believe in when it comes to ruling.
If the people you elect implement what you want implemented you are happy with democracy. If they implement anything else you are not happy.
You wouldn’t like to be government by Shariya courts.
But the people of Egypt would.
That is why they voted for who they did.
The same thing happened in Algeria. And if every Muslim country ever had free and fair elections, you would find that is what would happen all over the Muslim world.
That is why White countries support the dictators and kings in the Muslim world.
They make no secret of knowing the system that would replace them if there were free and fair elections.
My first point was to call YOUR democracy, hypocrisy.
The fact is you believe in your system, and if an election results in your system all well and good. But if it results in anything else. Well then the election is not valid is it?
You don’t really believe in democracy do you? in the rule of the people. you and everyone else believe in the rule of yourown people.
People that think like you.
My second point was:
So do I. I don’t believe in democracy. I believe in my own way.
I am just not a hypocrit about it. I don’t claim it is all about the majority of people agrying with me.
So the best thing for all concerned is white people should rule white countries by their white ways.
And allow us lesser people to rule ourselves by our ways.
We have our own history and traditions that we can use to develope our own systems.
We have no reason to want to become duplicates of the white race.
What confuses me is why you all go on about Muslims trying to force their shariya courts on you?
It isn’t use invading your countries forcing our ways on you. It is the other way.
There are no Muslims trying to take over the UK or canada or any other white nation. None of us are lobying the priminister to make him implemant islamic law.
It is the other way.
It is you forcing your ways on us.
Arsalan, thanks.
I haven’t made my mind up about the events in Egypt. I would in general agree that the army seizing power is a worrying development, and yes, the US recognition is bound to have come from the usual self-serving “American interests” mindset. However, I am moderately of the opinion that the overthrow has widespread popular support, i.e. the people changed their mind. If you have views on that I should be most interested to hear them. Did the Brotherhood fail to live up to expectations, or has popular support for the coup been mischaracterised?
I have to say I don’t know the dynamics in Egypt well enough to be able to comment on that. My guess is that they appear to be, in the main, quite moderate and the Egyptian people voted for them on that basis. From my limited understanding, the Brotherhood would likely have continued within a democratic framework, and that there was no popular mandate for its dissolution. I should be interested if you know otherwise, of course.
Some of what you say confuses imperialism’s disdain for democracy with my concerns about undemocratic systems, and you are entirely wrong to suggest I don’t believe in democracy. I suggested that if a religious party was voted into power in the UK, and they intended to dismantle the democratic framework, then the result should not be accepted; I say this because I believe in democracy, not because I don’t.
I accept that rejecting a democratic decision to destroy democracy is a contradiction, it certainly is. In such cases, one again has to prioritise competing values. But equally, your position contains the opposite contradiction: you claim to hate democracy and appear to be in favour of absolutist theocratic rule, but you wish to use democracy as the vehicle to get you there. Is that not odd, in your mind?
This is worrying stuff. There is no such thing as a “white country” and making this the fault of “whites” is as racist as the imperial attitudes towards Muslims that you rightly decry. In any case, US/UK support for dreadful regimes around the world is essentially a capitalist decision – any religious/racial conflict that stems from it is regarded by the elites as just a side-effect.
I notice you use the word “you” a lot, suggesting that you believe I am personally forcing my ways onto you. I am doing no such thing, but importantly, it reveals your world-view to be quite them-and-us, which is wrong. Some Muslim folk are quite attached to democracy, as it happens, just as some white folks would abolish it tomorrow if they could.
Not true, as my earlier post showed. There are groups in the UK who are (or at least were) calling for theocratic rule and the dissolution of the democratic and legal mechanisms.
Final point; I’d like to appeal to you to try to understand my views as being well-motivated. If you believe that I support American imperialism, or that I am secretly racist, it just isn’t true. I want peace, security and justice for everyone, and I condemn imperialism in all its forms. Whilst you genuinely think religious rule will solve the problems of predominantly Muslim countries, I regard that as an example of false consciousness i.e. you actively support policies that are opposed to your own interests. Perhaps you have been lured into that view by seeing Islamic countries as a barrier to total American domination, and whilst that may be true to some extent, you put too much faith in fallible humans to think it can’t go wrong.
If you support the creation of a religious oligarchy, and such a thing were to come into existence where you live, you may later regret it. Unfortunately your support cannot be withdrawn, and short of a popular revolution you will not be allowed to change your mind.
Arsalan makes FedUp/Passerby look like Norman St John Stevas.
Arsalan – I was not referring to Egypt in my earlier comment since I have not been given enough information by the media in Canada to be able to form a knowledgeable opinion; though in general I don’t like to see the military intervene either.
Nor do I support Canada’s treatment of its dissenters, and the lack of adherence of the Harper Government to rule of law and even basic civil liberties. Their record on democracy is truly shocking. Mr. Harper is marching us down the road to a sham democracy. Our security agencies are totally out of control and becoming a threat to democracy. I have written on the subject.
http://lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster65/lob65-canadian-spy-agency.pdf
I am not in any way opposed to fundamental religion provided it doesn’t interfere in the lives of those who have a different viewpoint. I can certainly think of the West’s past sins in this regard – from Torquemada and the Inquisition to the fundamentalist political movements we have had in Europe that brook no opposition and seem to have a need to persecute in an almost quasi-religious manner – Hitler and Auschwitz or Stalin and the Gulag, etc.. But, what all this tells me is that there is a need to protect minority rights if one wants to live in an inclusive, tolerant and prosperous state as I do – what I called in my earlier comment: the 4th pillar of democracy.
How ironic that Arsalan Goldberg writes this:
“So the best thing for all concerned is white people should rule white countries by their white ways.
And allow us lesser people to rule ourselves by our ways.”
Arsalan, you are white and you are from, of and are living in (what you would call) a ‘white’ country.
What is this, Stockholm Syndrome? Lebensraum? “Our ways”. Yeah, sure. “Our ways”, defined by Maududi and Qutb and propelled by the House of Ibn Saud.
Oh fickle matters of majority voting is no longer the issue in a democracy, seeing as the narrative faxed through for the sound bites; “there is too much emphasis on the ballot box, and numbers”!
Oh Mr. Darcy! fuck me with kippers democracy is what the “massers” in the West say it should be, and the meaning can be changed, as and when the West finds the wrong bastards are winning the ballot box battles set.
Have not got the time, but will be back into this thread now that it is getting interesting. However there should be a working definition of democracy so that we all know what the fuck we are on about instead of the current arbitrary woolly concept that is more fluid than fucking quick silver.
Jon
” Egyptian people voted for them on that basis. From my limited understanding, ”
This sounds just like talk of the “White man’s Burden”.
You know about how us lesser races can’t understand what is best for us so need the devine guidence of the white race?
The army ruled before the election. And now they rule once again.
This wasn’t due to the brothehood failing the next set of elections, which is what would have happened of people did actually change their minds.
What happened was the army just took back power.
Brown people do not think differently from you due to their lesser understanding, they think differently from you because they think differently.
The people in Egypt are Muslim people. They don’t eat what you eat, they dont dress the way you dress, they don’t believe in what you believe in.
So get over yourself!
They choose their own way, and you can choose your own.
And no, Islam for UK and anyone else the racist press are telling you to fear are doing no actions to take over this country.
They haven’t given F16s to an Islamist coup here, that is what the Americans have just done in egypt.
So I repeat No Muslims have understaken any actions to take over this country at all.
No one in the army here has been bribed to do a coup, Not by Islam 4 UK, Not by any other group for extreme or less extreme.
No Muslim army has invaded this country and no one is planing to invade.
But it does happen the other way. It is us who are the ones being invaded by you.
rr
I believe in the rights of religious minorities living in Muslim countries because and only because Islam gives them that right.
It wasn’t our Islam that did the Spanist Inquisition. Hitler wasn’t implementing Shariya.
Not to mention the religious rights given to the native Americans when their lands were stolen, or the blacks carried their from Africa.
We give religious minorities their rights because Islam gives them these rights.
And when Muslims treat religious minorities badly.
The way to solve it isn’t the great example shown to us by the white man.
The way to solve it is to see the example given to us by our own Quran and our own Prophet pbh.
No Islamic group however extreme intends to force others to convert to Islam at gun point. That has never happened and that never will.
If you want to see forced conversions, look to your own history.
Speak to native Americans and African Americans about it. they will give you all the information you need to know about religious rights of minorities.
SS
My loyalties lie with the one that created me.
Not to any race.
you can call it stokeholm syndrome if you want.
I call it tawheed.
You should try it.
Arsalan,
You seem to have skipped over all the points I made to you. Whilst I agree with Craig that a coup by the army may be a slide back into authoritarian military rule, I put it to you that the coup received genuine, mass support. Do you believe the people supported the coup or not? Would you bring back the Brotherhood if that was against the stated wishes of the people?
I should note as an aside that this stuff is complex, and my not condemning the coup outright – given the apparent popular support – is, of course, not the same as agreeing with the American position. Hopefully that is obvious.
Much of the rest of your post I’ve already responded to. I still think you need to avoid the sweeping generalisations of what you think people believe based on their skin colour. “Brown people” do not all agree on introducing theocratic rule across the Muslim world. As I’ve said before, “brown people” have a wide range of hugely differing views on this topic.
As for my need to “get over [myself]” and my having apparently “read the racist press”, we can’t have a sensible discussion if you are going to mistake me for a racist right-winger. My criticism comes from the left, not the right, and whilst I do think sensitivity is appropriate in mass-media discussion given the current global context of Islamophobia, we’re here having a small discussion in a very quiet corner of the internet.
I did read that point. I just didn’t see it as worth dealing with.
Why?
No one denies the losers in elections have support.
Few elections have 100% victories.
No real elections have that.
The wide spread support you refer to are the support of the people who lost.
The support of the people who supported the dictator who ruled before.
Even though he wasn’t elected, he did have support.
And most importantly, the support of the army itself.
There was an election. The people that want to be ruled by Islam won. The people that want to follow your ways lost.
And that is all it takes for you to loss all your democratic principles.
🙂
If it was the other way. And the Islamist had lost the election, and did a coup to take power, i’m sure you would condemn it out right woundn’t you?
Yes in Muslim countries people differ on many things.
We have the majority that believe in Islam and try to live by it.
We also have what African Americans would call uncle tom Niggers.
People that love the whiteman, want to be the white man.
See the white man as superior to themselves and see the majority of the people in their nation as beneath themselves for being less like the whiteman then themselves.
These were the dictators, their families and supporters.
The elections have shown the are the minority, but the elections also showed they do exists.
And less than a year after the elections, these people took back power with the same means they kept power for so many years. With the Army.
And when they did, racist white people support them, over the majority they suppress.
Why?
Unlike their less enlightened country men, these men recognise the superiority of the white way of life.
You can say they are like the civilised tribes. The tribes of native Americans that were allowed to live, because they adopted white dress, white names and the white way of life, while all other native americans were exterminated.
Democracy is useless isn’t it?
You have your secularism.
I have my Islam.
If democracy were to show people liked your secularism more than they like my Islam you would say you believe in it.
It doesn’t so you reject democracy.
Oh yah, I said it before. But you probably missed it.
I am not a supporter of the brotherhood.
LOL
They were idiots for taking part in an election.
Did those morons really think the army that had ruled for so many years would give up power just because they lost an election.
lol
morons!
lol
The army always knew what the majority of people in egypt want.
That is why they ruled egypt so harshly.
The election was bait to get the idiots to show themselves.
To come out of hiding to caste their votes.
And as soon as they came out of hiding and took part in the elections.
Wossssshhhhhh they all got arrested.
Idiots!
The next elections will be fake, just as they were for the many years Hosni Mubarak had been getting more than 100% of the vote. with the results revealed even before the votes were cast let alone counted.
LOL
The term ‘fundamentalist’ is used a lot these days, most recently in relation to so-called muslim fundamentalism. If we agree that the term means a strict adherence to the accepted principles of a given belief system or idea, then I’d like to question how the term has come to be used as a pejorative or criticism.
Do we call engineers and scientists ‘fundamentalists’ when they adhere strictly to the practice of observing mathematical accuracy in their calculations? Should they be liberal with rounding numbers such as Pi? Should bridges and aeroplanes be built using less exacting standards?
Are doctors ‘fundamentalists’ when they adhere strictly to safe hygenic practices and compliance with established medical procedures?
Should lawyers and judges be more flexible with language and principles, and less ‘fundamentalist’ with a strict adherence to the letter of the law?
So on what basis are religious ‘fundamentalists’ wrong, bad or backward when they adhere strictly to their religious texts? How are scriptures to be interpreted when they make perfect grammatical sense as they were written? How can they simultaneously believe that their ascension to heaven is dependent on their compliance with God’s will but then regard the textual origins of his will to be so ambiguous that it must be interpreted in manifold competing versions?
Of course, it is too easy to point out that so many stories, principles and edicts within various religions are stupid, ignorant, primitive, offensive, violent and destructive. But that describes perfectly what the whole religion is. What is Islam, Christianity and Buddhism, if not the various stories, principles and edicts that comprise them?
To selectively ommit or modify the principles and edicts of a religion is to admit that it is not the supernatural divine force that it falsely purports to be, but an evolving human invention that is shaped to conform with contemporary political agendas and pressures.
Therefore, criticising muslims for the strictness with which they adhere to their beliefs is, well, ‘fundamentally’ stupid.
And if Sharia Law implements God’s will for the rule of society, why should a democratically empowered muslim majority accomodate the non-Islamic demands of non-muslims? Because the idea of democracy predominates over the principles of Islam? It makes no sense that people who ‘know’ they are right should accomodate those things that they ‘know’ are wrong.
So, asking muslims to be less muslim doesn’t make sense.
Arsalan,
Ah, this is rather telling. What you mean is, people are entitled to vote in the Brotherhood, but if the popular will is to the chuck the Brotherhood out, they should not be permitted to. This makes your argument even more inconsistent: in Egypt, I previously assumed you would support democracy until such time as a Sharia party dismantles the fledgling mechanisms of democracy. Now it seems, if they throw a Sharia party out in (what might be) a popular bloodless revolution, you’d ignore their democratic will even earlier!
I earlier asked you if you believed that this was not a popular revolution. However, the reportage appears to show it has widespread support, and you’ve not come back to me on that, so I assume you believe the reports to be accurate.
If we’re talking the Brotherhood here, you’re completely wrong about my view, which invalidates at a stroke everything you’ve said about me being undemocratic. If a democratic Islamic party (which I assume the Brotherhood to be) has huge popular support, in contrast to the incumbent which is hugely unpopular, then I think a bloodless coup would reflect the will of the people, and I’d cautiously support it. (Coups are, of course, not subject to democracy’s checks and balances, but they are sometimes better than tolerating a dreadful regime).
However, if the nature of an Islamist party was to oppress its own people, and a reasonable analysis of a coup suggested that such a ruling power would treat the people in a worse fashion than the last lot (police state, extrajudicial punishments, no legal system, rule by decree, no mechanisms to regulate power, etc) then there would be reasons to reject it. But, as things stand in Egypt, I think I would support a popular coup from the Brotherhood, since they seemed to want to rule more fairly than Mubarak’s gang.
As I say though, the events on the ground appear to be going the wrong way for you. You are so desperate for an Islamic party, you’d force it on the Egyptian people even if they march in their millions against it.
It occurs to me that a solution to the present woes would be to hold another election, to underscore (or reject) the legitimacy of the new government. Here’s an interesting article with a new representative.
Interesting observation: When I read Jemand’s comment of 8:29am, today, I thought had been written by Arsalan.
Arsalan, I’m sorry to have to say this, but I think you’ve been sold a crock. Calling for Apartheid and lebensraum is the politics of C20th Nazism.
Is it not ironic – and this may be discomfiting or embarrassing or maybe even inappropriate for me to iterate this – that as far as one is aware, all the supporters of Islamism who post regularly on this blog are (possibly white, British) converts to Islam who appear to have swallowed, hook line and sinker, the C20th postmodern dogmas of Sayyid Qutb, Abul A’la Maududi et al and believe it is the sole truth. They also presume to speak for one billion Muslims, which seems to me a sign of supreme arrogance. This combination justifiably might be described as, ‘supremacism’.
The truth is, thankfully, they do not even speak for the majority of (white, British) converts to Islam.
Nonetheless, they politics they espouse must be opposed on every level from within Muslim communities. This is not helped by Saudi Arabia/UAE bankrolling Islamist preachers and paramilitaries and by the strategic alliance of the UK in particular with Saudi Arabia and the tactical alliance of the UK with Islamist paramilitaries. As Jemand’s comment also exemplifies, the Far Right and indeed what one might continue to call imperialists (of which the British Far Right partly is a manifestation) actually are very comfortable with (that mirror-image Far Right) of Islamism because it fits with their political philosophy and serves their interests. That should tell us something.
“My criticism comes from the left, not the right…” Jon.
Jon, they hate the Left above all else. They like the Right. They are of that aspect of the Right which is defined by tribalism. The Right likes them – because they serve each other’s purposes and because Lebensraum is a political philosophy common to both.
We see this globally. Saudi Arabia/UAE/Pakistani ISI-Military (the Right) bankrolls and supports them and the first two of these remain (have been since WW1) firm strategic allies of (the Right) in the form of NATO/USA/UK et al.
Suhayl, how does my comment exemplify the far-right? Or are you saying that I am far-right and identify with the far-right nature of Islamists as demonstrated by my comment? How is that?
In any case, you’d be wrong. My comment is but a logical argument about the irrational criticism of ‘muslim fundamentalism’ as if any religious belief ‘should’ not observe fundamental principles from which they supposedly derive the laws and customs that characterise their culture. To put it simply, if I must, why would someone act in contravention of their stated beliefs?
All monotheistic religions are supreme because they claim to know of and are faithful to a supreme power in the form of a God. And, they often claim, they know God’s will and his will is that all of humanity is to surrender to it, and their job is to ensure that. Supremacists? Yes. So what? Religions weren’t conceived to be pluralistic.
Suhayl, agreed. I was responding to Arsalan’s implication that I’m gullible enough to have been taken in by the reactionary British media. I thought that it was important to reject that specifically, and to note that I am sympathetic to Islamic people in Britain whilst they’re under Official Government And Media Suspicion. It’s a balancing act, of course, since one doesn’t want to accomodate religious political fundamentalism either.
Suhayl, I think you misread Jemand. I think his contribution was from an atheist standpoint (see his link) but was suggesting (perhaps with some irony, to highlight its contradictions) that there’s no such thing as religious fundamentalism, since religious belief is so hard to pin down.
That said, Jemand, I do think there’s a fault in your analogy. Scientists, doctors and engineers cannot be less “fundamentalist” with their work because they deal with the real, physical, proven world. Religions can, and do change, and since their very nature requires faith. By fundamentalism, I mean that the context and time of the holy books’ creation is ignored, and thus the spirit of God’s laws becomes increasingly incorrectly applied as time goes on.
In the Old Testament, it is written that a menstruating women should be shunned for seven days, which because of our understanding of biology, and decent moves towards equality of worth, we now correctly regard as stupid. Perhaps the rule to smash any jar that had a lizard fall into it was a primitive understanding of hygiene, but now we would just use hot water and soap. Early rules on abstaining from sexual behaviour stemmed either from reducing STDs (hardly understood at the time) or derived from shame-based psychologies (hardly understood at the time).
I accept the danger that one could rewrite a religion and lose its original spirit, but if a process of modernisation is undertaken by leading scholars of that religion, taking into account the changed circumstances of the world, I see that great strides could be made.
I would rather that people did not wear their religion on their sleeve; in fact, I wish people were not religious at all. But as I said recently, people must be entitled to make up their own mind upon that.
Okay, thanks, Jemand, very sorry if I misread your comment. Perhaps it was the context of the stream of comments that led me astray.
“people are entitled to vote in the Brotherhood, but if the popular will is to the chuck the Brotherhood out,”
What do you mean it was the popular will to chuck them out?
LOL
What planet do you live on?
The army chucked them out!
The same army that have been ruling for all these years.
SS
LOL
I can repeat what I said to Jon to you.
What planet do you live on!
You call the Islamists a minority when they won the election.
LOL
You say:
“This is not helped by Saudi Arabia/UAE bankrolling Islamist preachers and paramilitaries and by the ”
When Islamists are tortured, arrested and murdered in these countries.
When it was these two countries who sent billions to the people that did the coup.
LOL
What planet do you live on?
I think to accuse you of lying would be an understatment?
Arsalan, by “popular will” I mean “the opinion of the majority of the citizenry”. Here’s that story again, please read all of it. Here’s an important bit:
What appears to be happening is that the people no longer support the Brotherhood. I accept that may not be true, but if that’s your view, please supply alternative links that show a different picture.
I agree that the army staged a coup, and I agree that it is largely Mubarak’s old army. But the Egyptian public seem to widely support what is happening. What is your view on that, please?
For what it’s worth, a similar demonstration against the British government would have to comprise of about 10 million people around the country (based on our having 60m citizens). I would say that such a figure would constitute an uprising were it to happen, and if their demand was to topple the government, elections would have to be called immediately.
As to whether the British army should seize power in such circumstances, that’s a difficult question. It has been suggested on this board in the past that they would look to the monarch for guidance. I’m not in favour of the monarchy, but I think the Queen would probably handle such a duty quite well (and the likes of Philip or Armaments Andy would be disastrous).
@Jon
“Suhayl, I think you misread Jemand. I think his contribution was from an atheist standpoint ..”
Correct, but I think seeing these contradictions doesn’t require atheism, I would hope that it leads to atheism. But so many believers are in denial of these anomolies while they laugh at Scientology’s ridiculous claims.
“Scientists, doctors and engineers cannot be less “fundamentalist” with their work because they deal with the real, physical, proven world.”
Jon, this idea of what is real, inside and outside the apparent physical realm, is a subject of endless philosophical contention – to my enjoyment. We can agree, I think, that the hard problem of consciousness is one example of the unknown that leads us to understand that our collective knowledge is a subset of all that can be known. Religious believers exploit these examples of knowing that something exists without knowing how it exists. They will say that their beliefs are unprovably true (when they lose the first round of the debate). But you and I know that unfalsifiable beliefs are just bullshit.
Religions can, and do change, and since their very nature requires faith. By fundamentalism, I mean that the context and time of the holy books’ creation is ignored, and thus the spirit of God’s laws becomes increasingly incorrectly applied as time goes on.
True, religion evolves by political selection but believers are in denial about the reasons for change. We can see a lot of that in Catholicism as it adapts to new political and social pressures. But I don’t see how anyone can authoritatively know what the “spirit of God’s laws” can be if they are not already understood from the text of the scriptures.
Science, on the other hand, also changes but scientists (mostly, I think) accept the inevitability of change as we accumulate ‘knowledge’ in our exploration of the physical and metaphysical universe.
In the Old Testament, it is written that a menstruating women should be shunned
for seven days, which because of our understanding of biology, and decent moves
towards equality of worth, we now correctly regard as stupid.
Whoa! Let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water. I didn’t say I disagree with everything in religious beliefs.
I accept the danger that one could rewrite a religion and lose its original spirit, but if
a process of modernisation is undertaken by leading scholars of that religion, taking into account the changed circumstances of the world, I see that great strides could be made.
But what is the “original spirit” of religious texts? This is a perennial source of conflict, a bit like American constitutional law with regard to the original spirit of the “founding fathers” in drafting the clauses of the constitution.
Indeed, in all Abrahamic scriptures, it is a sin to admit, modify or omit anything that was not originally written in them – and I think, by implication, all interpretations that depart from unambiguous statements. From this, we witness internal divisions between reformers and conservatives, the latter referring to the former as heretics. See link below.
I would rather that people did not wear their religion on their sleeve; in fact, I wish people were not religious at all. But as I said recently, people must be entitled to make up their own mind upon that.
I agree, to the extent that their beliefs do not target me for harrassment, discrimination or social antipathy.
. . . .
God will shit on you if you change the gospels –
http://www.bible.ca/interactive/salvation-21-must-follow-bible-exactly.htm