|
Post by What Hat on Apr 12, 2015 10:35:32 GMT -5
My wife and I also saw the interview. Stewart was awkward to say the least. In fairness to his guest he should have been better prepared. I'm reading the book and have a few reservations about it, but as an internal critique it holds up well. The problem is that she makes summary judgements like "violence is at the root of Islam" and then makes much more nuanced claims and factual findings. For example, that only Medina Muslims have a violent theology, and that 97% of Muslims are moderate. (I have to check these quotes against the book). Thanks whathat. I have not picked-up her most recent book yet but do look forward to reading more about her perspective. It is interesting that you, fixit and matisse all saw Jon Stewart as being ill prepared for the interview. My sense of the interview was different, his dogged pursuit of a specific theme suggested to me an intent to follow a pre-determined agenda. Although I stand on the other side of the political spectrum, Jon Stewart is an impressive intellect and a quick study on most topics. I recognize his time on the Daily Show was drawing to a close but I don't think that explains the nature of the interview. Interesting how each viewer carries a different perspective. I do expect that this interview blunted interest for many in his audience. I did look up the Washington Post article referenced in the National Press Club presentation. It is not particularly well written but it does expand on the ideological process that informs much of the information we consume. Here is the link: www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-the-honor-brigade-an-organized-campaign-to-silence-critics-of-islam/2015/01/16/0b002e5a-9aaf-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.htmlThis is why I admire advocates of reform within the Islamic world. It's no different in our world. Advocate meaningful change and you'll face adversity and possibly be killed for it. I'm surprised this writer thinks this is unique to the Muslim world. Possibly hasn't read about Selma, MLK or gay rights advocacy. The only difference is that the Muslim world is fighting battles against religious ideology at the point we were at 200 years ago. We have had the necessary constitutional and legal changes to keep religious ideology in its place. Much of the Muslim world has not. But the negative, hateful and vengeful reaction to change, or even change advocacy, is a human constant.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 12, 2015 10:46:42 GMT -5
<snip> It is interesting that you, fixit and matisse all saw Jon Stewart as being ill prepared for the interview. My sense of the interview was different, his dogged pursuit of a specific theme suggested to me an intent to follow a pre-determined agenda. Although I stand on the other side of the political spectrum, Jon Stewart is an impressive intellect and a quick study on most topics. I recognize his time on the Daily Show was drawing to a close but I don't think that explains the nature of the interview. Interesting how each viewer carries a different perspective. I do expect that this interview blunted interest for many in his audience. I don't intend this, in any way, to plunge the thread into a "no I didn't/yes you did"! But I didn't say that I thought JS was ill prepared! :-) I agree that there was something "dogged" happening during the interview, I don't know about the "pre-determined agenda". It seemed to me like Ali wasn't able to hear what Jon was saying. And now, let me quickly agree with you that it is interesting how each viewer carries a different perspective! Thanks for the additional link. He did seem 'ill prepared' to me. There were substantive points in the introduction that Stewart could have picked up on, so I feel he wasn't prepped on the book by his staff. Someone also posted a panel discussion on Islam in which Stewart played a part, and I didn't quite understand where he was coming from. Stewart seems to see all religion somewhat homogeneously. I think the critique of many liberal atheists is simply, Islam is bad, but so are we, at least those of us who are Christian. Christians, on the other hand, see all the faults of Islam and none of their own. That's because they permit themselves to distance the extremist elements of Christianity while at the same time requiring all Muslims to take responsibility for ISIS and the Charlie Hebdo killers. The kind of analysis that I think is useful is to identify those elements of the Muslim religion that make the Muslim moderates into apologists or sympathisers for the more extreme tendencies in their religion. Christianity has had these kinds of debates for some time. For example, women being required to "obey" does indeed inculcate violence against women within Christianity. We know that now, so most Christians either reject that particular teaching or mollify it in some way. This kind of change is also needed in Islam. The reason I like critics such as Ali is that she has lived in the culture so is able to make a more rational analysis. Most of the analysis from our culture tends to be accusatory and uninformed. It centers on atrocity stories and sensationalism and shows little knowledge of the religion as a whole. I hope that Ali's book does provide more light than heat. The Introduction of the book shows promise, and I've learned a number of things from it - for example, the distinction between Medina and Mecca Muslims helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy between the European and Canadian Muslims we know versus the more violent Sunni/ ISIS Muslims in the Middle East.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 12, 2015 11:07:56 GMT -5
I don't intend this, in any way, to plunge the thread into a "no I didn't/yes you did"! But I didn't say that I thought JS was ill prepared! :-) I agree that there was something "dogged" happening during the interview, I don't know about the "pre-determined agenda". It seemed to me like Ali wasn't able to hear what Jon was saying. And now, let me quickly agree with you that it is interesting how each viewer carries a different perspective! Interesting, my impression was that Ayaan Hirsi Ali became frustrated as a consequence of unmet expectations. I presume she was booked to discuss her book and not the medieval history of Christianity. I thought she heard and responded reasonably well to the parallel Jon drew the first time but that she became impatient with the repetitive nature of a theme that was at best tangentially related to the theme of her book. Your take may be correct. I would enjoy hearing a well informed debate comparing the state of lay and clerical medieval Christianity with modern day Islam and how reformation informs the continued development of a religion. Could be quite interesting considering the commonalities between the religions. I take it that Stewart thought the Reformation didn't take Christianity anywhere. Of course it did. The church that emerged from the Reformation was much less authoritarian and centralist. Its greatest achievement was diversity of doctrine, manifested visibly in the form of "denominations". Previously the only exit point on dissent was death or martyrdom. Now you could start your own church! That is progress. One of my history profs remarked that Martin Luther wasn't the first reformer; he was the first one that managed to survive. So consider that bit of analysis against the Washington Post critique you've linked above. The reaction of the seats of Islam sounds similar to the Catholic reaction in Luther's time. But Christianity has had the advantage of easing itself into modernity by stages over several centuries. Meanwhile Islam, whose governance model is essentially like pre-Reformation Christianity, is running up full bore against 5 centuries of emancipatory progress in the West. Would Martin Luther have posted the theses on the door in Wittenberg if he was aware it would lead to - women preachers, gay Christians, and everything else that our modern world encompasses? This is the trouble with great principles of justice. They are used to solve an obvious and present problem ... but even their purveyors never fully understand their inevitable and inexorable reach. Islam is going to need time and a level of tolerance.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 24, 2015 17:05:17 GMT -5
Is multiculturalism dead? Not in Toronto, Canada.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 4, 2015 5:31:04 GMT -5
I found this interesting:
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 4, 2015 11:59:37 GMT -5
I found this interesting: I think that happens often. An example closer to home, is the idea of church meeting in the home. I'm sure the idea had its roots in getting away from building life-sucking edifices that take the church away from its real mission. Great idea. But before long, the doctrine went from being able to worship God anywhere, in any place, to being able to worship him properly ONLY in a home.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 4, 2015 14:43:06 GMT -5
That's what religion has been doing for a very long time WH.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 13, 2015 14:56:29 GMT -5
Ten girls in a class, nine Christians, one Muslim. Those nine Christian girls have five girls between them, the Muslim has five girls. This second generation class has five Christian, five Muslim girls in it. Each of those Muslim girls has five girls and the five Christian girls have five girls between them. Third generation has five Christian and twenty five Muslim girls in it. Comes election time - guess what.... So what ... some of our best politicians here are Muslims. www.calgarymayor.ca/The Calgary mayor's fellow Ismailis slaughtered by Muslims... www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079272/Motorcycle-gunmen-kill-41-bus-attack-Pakistans-Karachi-police.html
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 23, 2015 6:30:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 24, 2015 20:39:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 24, 2015 20:58:19 GMT -5
One of the comments sums this article up quite well:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2015 20:58:40 GMT -5
a MOAB can make a pretty big mushroom cloud, I doubt seriously that isreal would be the first to shoot off a nuke at anyone and we also never see the alleged F15/16 going by so it could have been dropped by a bomber instead...and the posts says Saudi Arabia doesn't have F15/16's which it does en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Saudi_Air_Force
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 24, 2015 21:21:31 GMT -5
a MOAB can make a pretty big mushroom cloud, I doubt seriously that isreal would be the first to shoot off a nuke at anyone and we also never see the alleged F15/16 going by so it could have been dropped by a bomber instead...and the posts says Saudi Arabia doesn't have F15/16's which it does en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Saudi_Air_Force
I doubt that Gordon Duff would let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory!
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 24, 2015 21:56:12 GMT -5
What I didn't think made any sense about it was saying Saudi's didn't have F-16's and yet they stated that the plane's had Saudi paint. Why would Israel paint their planes with Saudi markings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2015 22:18:17 GMT -5
What I didn't think made any sense about it was saying Saudi's didn't have F-16's and yet they stated that the plane's had Saudi paint. Why would Israel paint their planes with Saudi markings. to cover up that they(isreal) used "the bomb" of course
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 24, 2015 23:11:37 GMT -5
What I didn't think made any sense about it was saying Saudi's didn't have F-16's and yet they stated that the plane's had Saudi paint. Why would Israel paint their planes with Saudi markings. I think Gordon Duff is trying to say that Israel is secretly helping the Saudis. Every Muslim on the planet would protest against the Saudis if the Israelis were helping them.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 25, 2015 2:28:35 GMT -5
Interesting, my impression was that Ayaan Hirsi Ali became frustrated as a consequence of unmet expectations. I presume she was booked to discuss her book and not the medieval history of Christianity. I thought she heard and responded reasonably well to the parallel Jon drew the first time but that she became impatient with the repetitive nature of a theme that was at best tangentially related to the theme of her book. Your take may be correct. I would enjoy hearing a well informed debate comparing the state of lay and clerical medieval Christianity with modern day Islam and how reformation informs the continued development of a religion. Could be quite interesting considering the commonalities between the religions. I take it that Stewart thought the Reformation didn't take Christianity anywhere. Of course it did. The church that emerged from the Reformation was much less authoritarian and centralist. Its greatest achievement was diversity of doctrine, manifested visibly in the form of "denominations". Previously the only exit point on dissent was death or martyrdom. Now you could start your own church! That is progress. One of my history profs remarked that Martin Luther wasn't the first reformer; he was the first one that managed to survive. So consider that bit of analysis against the Washington Post critique you've linked above. The reaction of the seats of Islam sounds similar to the Catholic reaction in Luther's time. But Christianity has had the advantage of easing itself into modernity by stages over several centuries. Meanwhile Islam, whose governance model is essentially like pre-Reformation Christianity, is running up full bore against 5 centuries of emancipatory progress in the West. Would Martin Luther have posted the theses on the door in Wittenberg if he was aware it would lead to - women preachers, gay Christians, and everything else that our modern world encompasses? This is the trouble with great principles of justice. They are used to solve an obvious and present problem ... but even their purveyors never fully understand their inevitable and inexorable reach. Islam is going to need time and a level of tolerance. I have an interesting picture of myself dressed in a type of hat & gown like one of the Reformationist's would have worn. If I can ever figure out how to get it down to size, I'll post it as my avatar & let you guess which one I represent.
I've had enough help from snow & faune to figure it out, but I'm am just lazy about getting it done.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 26, 2015 17:35:26 GMT -5
Interesting that the article mentions "between 100 and 500 women in the Netherlands wore the burqa", meaning the full face-covering garment, no doubt. There are 850,000 Muslims in Holland, so only a very, very small percentage are wearing the niqab. I have mixed feelings about this new proposal. I like this aspect of it: "the ban would not apply to wearing the burqa or the niqab on the street, only for security reasons or 'in specific situations where it is essential for people to be seen', the Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, told journalists after a cabinet meeting.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 26, 2015 19:04:15 GMT -5
Interesting that the article mentions "between 100 and 500 women in the Netherlands wore the burqa", meaning the full face-covering garment, no doubt. There are 850,000 Muslims in Holland, so only a very, very small percentage are wearing the niqab. I have mixed feelings about this new proposal. I like this aspect of it: "the ban would not apply to wearing the burqa or the niqab on the street, only for security reasons or 'in specific situations where it is essential for people to be seen', the Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, told journalists after a cabinet meeting. Something to consider: If between 100 and 500 women in the Netherlands were beaten regularly by their husbands, and the women claimed to be OK with that because it's part of their religion, should the state intervene?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 26, 2015 21:09:44 GMT -5
Interesting that the article mentions "between 100 and 500 women in the Netherlands wore the burqa", meaning the full face-covering garment, no doubt. There are 850,000 Muslims in Holland, so only a very, very small percentage are wearing the niqab. I have mixed feelings about this new proposal. I like this aspect of it: "the ban would not apply to wearing the burqa or the niqab on the street, only for security reasons or 'in specific situations where it is essential for people to be seen', the Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, told journalists after a cabinet meeting. Something to consider: If between 100 and 500 women in the Netherlands were beaten regularly by their husbands, and the women claimed to be OK with that because it's part of their religion, should the state intervene? No special intervention by the State is required. The laws against spousal abuse are already on the books. But even if there weren't already laws against spousal abuse, I don't see the relevance of your example. Remember that this new law is based on "security reasons", not on any tangible harm that you or I perceive in the general wearing of the niqab, as there might be in the situation of spousal abuse. When it comes to "security reasons" you DO want to make sure you're dealing with a tangible threat, since such laws almost always erode personal rights and freedoms.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 26, 2015 21:25:08 GMT -5
Something to consider: If between 100 and 500 women in the Netherlands were beaten regularly by their husbands, and the women claimed to be OK with that because it's part of their religion, should the state intervene? No special intervention by the State is required. The laws against spousal abuse are already on the books. But even if there weren't already laws against spousal abuse, I don't see the relevance of your example. Remember that this new law is based on "security reasons", not on any tangible harm that you or I perceive in the general wearing of the niqab, as there might be in the situation of spousal abuse. When it comes to "security reasons" you DO want to make sure you're dealing with a tangible threat, since such laws almost always erode personal rights and freedoms. If it was security reasons, you wouldn't want between 100 and 500 women getting around with suicide belts concealed by a burqa. (No, I don't think all Muslims - or even burqa-wearing Muslims - are suicide bombers).
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 27, 2015 2:44:50 GMT -5
No special intervention by the State is required. The laws against spousal abuse are already on the books. But even if there weren't already laws against spousal abuse, I don't see the relevance of your example. Remember that this new law is based on "security reasons", not on any tangible harm that you or I perceive in the general wearing of the niqab, as there might be in the situation of spousal abuse. When it comes to "security reasons" you DO want to make sure you're dealing with a tangible threat, since such laws almost always erode personal rights and freedoms. If it was security reasons, you wouldn't want between 100 and 500 women getting around with suicide belts concealed by a burqa. (No, I don't think all Muslims - or even burqa-wearing Muslims - are suicide bombers).Not "if it was", that's the reason they passed the law. Why does the security issue have to be a Muslim suicide bomber? It could be a Caucasian bank robber that uses the burqa as a disguise.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 27, 2015 5:14:46 GMT -5
If it was security reasons, you wouldn't want between 100 and 500 women getting around with suicide belts concealed by a burqa. (No, I don't think all Muslims - or even burqa-wearing Muslims - are suicide bombers).Not "if it was", that's the reason they passed the law. Why does the security issue have to be a Muslim suicide bomber? It could be a Caucasian bank robber that uses the burqa as a disguise. Exactly. Anyone who doubts they are a security risk only needs to Google "disguised in a burqa".
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 27, 2015 10:29:34 GMT -5
Not "if it was", that's the reason they passed the law. Why does the security issue have to be a Muslim suicide bomber? It could be a Caucasian bank robber that uses the burqa as a disguise. Exactly. Anyone who doubts they are a security risk only needs to Google "disguised in a burqa". What do you know? There actually was a bank robbery. So, restrictions on wearing face covering garments for security reasons are quite reasonable. In Canada, you can wear a Sikh turban anywhere, but not on a motorcycle where you must don a helmet as the law requires. There was a court challenge launched by a Sikh but the court ruled personal safety trumped religious rights, in this case. There is a limit to what we accept as a society, but those limits have to be established on practical grounds... not just that we see the culture generally to be threatening.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 27, 2015 12:31:50 GMT -5
Exactly. Anyone who doubts they are a security risk only needs to Google "disguised in a burqa". What do you know? There actually was a bank robbery. So, restrictions on wearing face covering garments for security reasons are quite reasonable. In Canada, you can wear a Sikh turban anywhere, but not on a motorcycle where you must don a helmet as the law requires. There was a court challenge launched by a Sikh but the court ruled personal safety trumped religious rights, in this case. There is a limit to what we accept as a society, but those limits have to be established on practical grounds... not just that we see the culture generally to be threatening. Most things we do impacts others so there's a balance to be found. A Sikh motorcyclist without a helmet is more likely to be injured, resulting in a cost to society. Also, if an exception is made for him, there would be nothing to stop a bikie gang from wrapping something around their heads and claiming religious exemption as well. It would be like a gang of bank robbers claiming religious reasons for wearing burqas. BTW, if you're bleeding heavily it can be useful to have a Sikh nearby: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3086085/I-just-really-want-thank-know-s-against-religion-turban-Mother-boy-5-hit-car-says-son-wouldn-t-alive-wasn-t-Sikh-hero.html
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 27, 2015 21:56:26 GMT -5
What do you know? There actually was a bank robbery. So, restrictions on wearing face covering garments for security reasons are quite reasonable. In Canada, you can wear a Sikh turban anywhere, but not on a motorcycle where you must don a helmet as the law requires. There was a court challenge launched by a Sikh but the court ruled personal safety trumped religious rights, in this case. There is a limit to what we accept as a society, but those limits have to be established on practical grounds... not just that we see the culture generally to be threatening. Most things we do impacts others so there's a balance to be found. A Sikh motorcyclist without a helmet is more likely to be injured, resulting in a cost to society. Also, if an exception is made for him, there would be nothing to stop a bikie gang from wrapping something around their heads and claiming religious exemption as well. It would be like a gang of bank robbers claiming religious reasons for wearing burqas. BTW, if you're bleeding heavily it can be useful to have a Sikh nearby: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3086085/I-just-really-want-thank-know-s-against-religion-turban-Mother-boy-5-hit-car-says-son-wouldn-t-alive-wasn-t-Sikh-hero.htmlThe claim you made for the bike gang, on religious grounds, would not stick. This is a claim that I often see made in discussions, but the court considers such claims frivolous. I don't know why people try to waste the court's time and taxpayer money on such frivolous claims. www.ctvnews.ca/canada/pastafarian-fights-to-wear-spaghetti-strainer-for-id-photo-1.1960281
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 27, 2015 23:59:15 GMT -5
The limits are not know until tested in court. It seems the US has greater religious freedom than BC. The United States allows Pastafarians to wear colanders for their driver’s licence photos.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 28, 2015 1:50:30 GMT -5
The limits are not know until tested in court. It seems the US has greater religious freedom than BC. The United States allows Pastafarians to wear colanders for their driver’s licence photos.Come on, that's not religious freedom. That's stupidity. In some cases, the photo is allowed simply because no rules are being broken. But in other cases, you're correct: a religious exemption to the rules is granted. Doesn't make that right. You should only be able to exercise such exemptions if you belong to a bona fide religion ... that is, subject to some kind of test or definition. If you Google "legal definition of religion" followed by a country name, you get a lot of stuff, but more than I have time to read. It seems that Canada does have a stronger test for what constitutes a religion than the USA does.
|
|