Iran and gay rights intolerance in the extreme
Iranian president declared "we don't have homosexulas like in your country. We don't have that in our country. We don't have this phenomenon; I don't know who's told you we have it
( Read more... )
Islam humiliates religious freedom of Christians and human rights of Muslims. It's time for change
http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=5761
The West must not keep silent.
I think allowing a discussion of the cultural factors which promote violence and intolerance is the first step. We must discuss these issues with fear of being called racist. Slavery in the u.s. was a horrible institution even though it was an accepted part of teh american culture at one time. People should be able to criticize cultural practices with out the p.c. police shutting down the conversation.
The use of violence as a mechanism of control has a long history. Dictatorships make liberal use of it, the totalitarian states in the middle east are repleat with examples of this. There are many moderate rational islamic scholars who support a more liberal interpretation of the koran. Western governments should support and promote these individuals and organizations.
Unfortunatly I think the situation has progressed passed the point of dipolmacy, dialogue and political pressure. While Hitler was establishing his cult of personality many countries stood by and watched as he instituted horrific policies. Hitler established policies of killing those of "undesirable" religious and sexual persuasion. No amount of diplomacy or dialogue would have changed these policies.
So in conclusion, all efforts should be made to promote moderate islamic institutions and voices. At the same time a policy of appeasement should be avoided. Historically appeasing groups which use violence to promote a fervently intolerant beliefs only leads to an increase in violence and intolerance.
No matter what course of action is taken it will be a long an ugly road.
I know you do not agree with this particular perspective. That's cool be me I get bored talking to people who agree with me.
In your view are these cultural practices an issue? What do you think should be done, if anything, about the torture and murder of homosexuals in muslim countries?
Reply
Atitudes toward homosexuality in the West did not change in the last 50 years because of opposition by a foreign culture.
*policy of appeasement should be avoided*
Which means what?
Seems to me that there are more important changes in the Wests atitudes toward muslim countries than changes in muslim countries toward this minority interest subject.
Reply
as for a policy of apeasement I'll let you check out wiki for it. :)
"Seems to me that there are more important changes in the Wests atitudes toward muslim countries than changes in muslim countries toward this minority interest subject."
interesting point of view, so if the west suddenly dropped support of isreal and removed their troops from the middle east muslim countries would suddenly become less religiously intolerant and violent. Interesting, you don't think they would think "Allah be praised bombings and beheadings achieved our goals lets continue to reestablish the caliphate" If you research the doctrine of the islamic fundemtalist starting with some of the leaders of the muslim brotherhood you will find they repeatedly state their goal of a one world under sharia law.
I think if people are worried about the republican christian right they should be much more concerned about the islamic right. In a comparison its like taking about table wine and vodka. Personally any form of fanaticism distasteful and dangerous. The more fanatical the more dangerous.
Reply
Perhaps the reverse is not true. Perhaps if the US approached the Middle East in a fair and reasonable manner, in keeping with international law and respect, perhaps the US would not promote democracy and freedom. Since it's never actually happened, I do have to agree that this is just a theory.
Reply
Dafur was just kickin, what was that other place rawanda...oh yeah tibet international law was causing those chinese to flee by the thousands..
sorry I guess again i think its more complex than...its all the fault of the U.S.
Yup there was definately no spread of democracy after WWI or WWII. Perhaps if we had approached Japan in a fair an reasonable manner there would not have been any war between us...
Some times there are other unreasonable organizations and governments other than the U.S.
sorry Rain its getting late and sometimes I have a little difficulty with every answer being "its the fault of the US". So I apologize if I got a bit snarky...
Reply
Muslim fundamentalists are a minority but you speak as though they are the majority, there membership has inreased due only to the indiscriminate slaughter of muslims in the Middle East.
Israel is the spark that ignited the muslim world which fails to see why a homeland for the jews had to be created by bloodshed.
If you look at the Balfour Agreement you will see a part that has been totally ignored.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
If Israel returns to the 1967 border and returns the land to its original inhabitants it will be a beginning towards peace.
Reply
I actually support the withrawl of u.s. foreign aid to isreal and working towards a self sufficient palastinian state. If it were politically feasable I would also support a return to 1967 borders.
This being said we disagree about the reaction of the mulsim world to such a move. I don't think it would reduce the violent extremism in the least. When extremists achieve their goals they do not moderate themselves, they tend to expand their goals. The export of the revolution talked about by the Iranian government is one example.
Reply
Note that Osama bin Laden does not use only religious rhetoric in his statements, but intelligent economic and political opinions. This links him in with intelligent and aware moderates that see no other alternative to help their people.
Reply
Who is "in charge"?
Are the statements and actions of muslim extremists supposed to be ignored as simply a valid response to western economic imperialism?
What would you advocate a muslim in the middle east should do to improve their situation? Do you think that joining al qaeda, hezzbulah, hammas or one of the iraqi militias is what a moral muslim should do? Would you?
Reply
In general, the ones in charge of Middle East countries are those that the US and other western nations have either put in charge or are helping keep in charge by supporting their rule (Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia..., etc.). In Iran, one of the failed US dictatorships, there is the seeming of a representative government, but like the United States, they are mostly conservatives and some extremists who do not represent the majority of citizens.
The statements and actions of muslim extremists should not be ignored; they should be dealt with completely on their merits. Statements by radical extremists should not be painted as majority opinion. Illegal actions should be dealt with as any illegal actions should, by the agents and courts with jurisdiction and, if necessary, by diplomatic and interagency cooperation to deal with jurisdictional issues.
I would advocate that a Muslim in the Middle East work towards creating a representative government in their country. As to joining one of the groups you mention, that depends on the group and the situation. The groups you present have a wide range of purposes, origins and ideals. For example, joining Hamas after they attempted to join the political process in Palestine and worked to create a peace in legal ways seems perfectly moral to me. But I have not been making a point that joining an extremist group to combat western economic imperialism is a moral choice, only that it can be a reasonable one when all other choices appear to have been removed; i.e., that a man joining Al Qaeda does not have to be an insane immoral person bent on the destruction of the US as the greatest evil in the world, he can merely be a man who has seen all other moral options to be ineffective.
Reply
http://youtube.com/watch?v=p9otrfo1SZg&mode=related&search=Terrorism%20Terror%20Muslim%20islam%20protest%20truth%20peace%20subission%20Dispatches%20Democracy%20behead%20freedom
and as for the call for tolerance and understanding here is a bit of a report from the bbc program dispatches
http://youtube.com/watch?v=c8KEBx3YMo4&mode=related&search=
I don't recall catholics calling for beheadings when there are cartoons published about the pope.
Now be assured these are not moderate muslims, at least I hope they aren't.
Reply
And there are plenty of Christian Americans who, on seeing the mental and emotional destruction being performed by US forces at sites like Abu Ghraib, supported the practice.
The difference again here is between a radical Muslim minority who is not in power who 'calls' for something horrific to be done, and a conservative Christian majority in power who is doing horrific things.
Reply
No the difference is between a large number of people (thousands rallied in many countries) calling for killings over a CARTOON and people reacting to terrorism. Find an example of the Bush administration instigating murder over a cartoon and I will accept your analogy.
Again the difference between abu ghraib is the u.s. population was appalled. Those responsible where investgated and charged. Those fundamentalists who are doing beheadings and torture are being held up as "Freedom fighters" their bad deeds are considered worthy of a free pass straight to heaven...
you don't see any difference here?
Keep in mind I am not condoning the behavior at abu graib, It should have never happened and those responsible should have been more severely punished. I do not see a similiar recognition of the immoral nature of the muslim extremist, I seem apologetics and the responsiblitiy for their bad acts being laid at the feet of past american foreign policiy. I hope this is a mistaken impression.
Reply
Is it 'better' that Bush and Co. are murdering Muslims for profits instead of a religious reason?
Regarding Abu Ghraib, the U.S. population was apalled, but the leadership was not. Media leaders made fun of these horrors, calling them the equivalent of college hazing rituals and pranks. Government leaders worked (and succeeded) in preventing the information from reaching the US population at large until after elections, denied the information when it finally did come out, then when evidence was overwhelming, denied their involvement. Those responsible for Abu Ghraib, from the the Bush administration on down to the officers who were in charge of the facilities, have not been investigated and have not been charged. And despite the Bush administration's continued and consistent demand that it has the right to break Geneva conventions and torture prisoners, the majority of the US population has not risen against them or actively denounced them.
As to these generic fundamentalists that are beheading and torturing people and who are seen by a majority of the population as "Freedom Fighters," please give me some more specific examples, because I don't know of any.
The killing of prisoners is immoral. The torture of prisoners is immoral. There is no context, political, religious, economic or otherwise that makes it right and legal. I think the Geneva conventions have it entirely correct.
Reply
We are certainly in agreement that the promotion and support of moderate and liberal religious factions will result in a reduction of violence.
I would take this further and submit that promotion and support of fundamentalist and conservative religious factions results in an increase of violence.
Would you also agree with this, and that a significant step would be to stop supporting religious factions that practice intolerance and violence?
Reply
I would no more support the isreali settlers than the muslim extremists they rail against. The rhetoric of both groups is appalling in my view.
Reply
Leave a comment