IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New It must be hard for many Muslims . . .
. . to see the true face of Islam so harshly exposed for all the world to see. How can they do anything effective against Islamic State when all this stuff is clearly stated in the book they hold most sacred of all things? It would amount to apostasy - punishable by death.

They can do as the quietist Salafism guy does, cherry pick out just the stuff you like and ignore the rest, hoping it just goes away - but that isn't working too well right now.

As for Juan Cole, every point he makes has some truth - and uses it to make light of the whole situation - very dangerous. I'm sure plenty of intellectuals were similarly dismissive of Hitler - until they were sent to camp.

New It's interesting to watch
Here in the UK there's no significant element of non-Islamic fundamentalist religion. Hindus and Sikhs in particular are notable for their effortless integration into British society (although the H and S younglings do occasionally knock 7 bells out of each other, but they soon grow out of that tribal-rather-than-religious thing). I don't even know what a fundamentalist Hindu does. Be really excellent to people to get a super-special place on the wheel of karma? Invite even more people into the temple for awesome curry?

But in the US, of course, there's a fucking huge element of non-Islamic fundamentalism, and it's got its hooks into your political and legislative system, big style. And it's the proponents of such who are most vocal about the imperative to bomb some sense into the locals in the middle-east.

I foster a hope that the current doubling-down by the fundies in the US is just the death throes of a religion that's heading towards a well-deserved irrelevance, like here - where people go to church on Sundays, perhaps participate in the coffee mornings to raise money for the church roof, but that's about it and nary a thought about the Supreme Being passes between the ears for the remainder of the week - but I'm not so sure.

I think that Islam is going through the process that Christianity in Britain went through from the 16th to the 19th centuries (i.e. a transition from what we would call today widespread fundamentalism towards a practically (if not theoretically, although that's more-or-less there nowadays) secular society where religion is very much a light hand on the tiller if you fancy it, rather than being the thing that informs all you are and do), and the compression into a much shorter timeframe means that this process is going to be horrifically violent.

Of course, all this bullshit is because some dickheads decided some old books were (a) The Rules and (b) immutable.
New Ha!
But in the US, of course, there's a fucking huge element of non-Islamic fundamentalism, and it's got its hooks into your political and legislative system, big style.

Yes, of course, there's the "official" church of the State in the US whose bishops sit in our Senate and the figure head is a queen. Completely unlike the England.
New You can "Ha!" all you like. You're arguing against a point I didn't make.
However: let's be realistic.

The CoE is pretty much irrelevant to the daily life of people in the UK (note our effortless legalisation of gay marriage, forex). We have openly atheist party leaders, one of whom has a much better than even chance of being Prime Minister in May. But then, being "openly atheist" in the UK is about as controversial as my Volvo. "Openly atheist? The clothes-wearing, air-breathing bastard!". There are bishops in the HoL (fat lot of good it did them in the gay marriage vote, mind), but that's going to be an elected, secular chamber within the next couple of parliaments.

Everywhere in the UK it's totes fine to be an atheist, despite our having a Church of England. It's totes not fine to be an atheist across huge swathes of "secular" America, and absent the metropolitan centres of the left and right coasts, it seems to be getting worse, not better. You might have a black president now, you might have a woman president next, but I'd wager a pint you won't have a gay or atheist president in my lifetime.
New Can't we just elect a gay, atheist woman of Jewish ancestry?
Then we don't have to listen to the rest of the world congratulate themselves for their moral superiority any more.

I mean, obviously we'd oppose absolutely everything she tries to do. But at least it would prove once-and-for-all that we're not bigots, right?
--

Drew
New back when your betters were kowtowing to the royals
we decided that having a state backed religion was bullshit and specifically wrote in the founding documents that religion can fuck the fuck off when it comes to interference in government affairs. Of course the religious have been fighting that tooth and nail since the founding of the country but thats what they do.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
New Real question
Which is better: Having a law that says there can't be a state religion, but an electoral process that effectively blocks participation by minority or non-religious people? Or having an official state church that has no real day-to-day influence?
--

Drew
New thats what you have courts for
I dont think the current president was voted in by the majority smugs, do you? All of the fervently democratic folks seem to be open to non religionists, or do you think that the democratic party is against atheists gays and non whites?
In the 1950's maybe but they have grown up since then
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
New Colbert did a bit about this
Paraphrasing: Don't judge America by what we actually do. Judge us by what we would do. America would never torture people. America would never judge people by the color of their skin. Etc. etc. etc.

So you say we're open to atheists? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/05/congress-religious-affiliation_n_6417074.html
The 114th Congress has a grand total of one member who is unaffiliated. That's 0.2% of Congress vs 20% of the U.S. population. Apparently people are 100 times more likely to be unaffiliated than to vote that way.
--

Drew
New eh? bhudist muslim hindu anglican lutheran catholic unitarian
accounts for 1/2 of the crew, not exactly raging fundies, more a label
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
New You count Anglican, Lutheran and Catholic as "other"?
Catholic is the largest single denomination within "Christian", and of the Protestant denominations Anglican and Lutheran are both in the top 5.

Not much of an argument, even by your standards.
--

Drew
New you counting them in the same group as liberty university graduates? I dont
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
New That's a different question
You're arguing that "these" Christians aren't the same as "those" Christians. I'm talking about whether a non-Christian can be elected.
--

Drew
New Obama did. He's Muslim. I heard that on the radio.
New Did Rev Wright know that?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
New not a chance
I am sentenced to coerced worship. I report to a holy roller judge. If I give any push back I go straight to jail.
New Neither. Both are equally bad.
Having an official church gives the impression that organized religion has merit. It doesn't. It is an opiate.
New Clearly the latter, of course
A demonstrated, unarguable irrelevance is the ultimate vote in such matters, and needs no violent other-forms of protest for the POV:
to.. just.. Go Away (but one has to have patience for that to work.)

We've had indirect, small-scale confrontations all along--since the Beginning!--about 'believing'; none of the modrin deconstructions discover anything new
about about the fatality of such sub-routines running-in-background in an otherwise functioning mind (wherever That thing "resides"?)

Will the 21st Century see occur a true denouement of the whole virus? Or will it require First: the extermination of the entire species
(and most-all mammals, none of whom has ever been given a vote at The Green Table) to shred that DNA?


SCARY.. innit? to be unable to predict that Answer, with any confidence.
(You'd first have to disabuse every Believer of any faith that there can ever be Certainty in this world/such as we Are.)

Love. It. or leave it, eh?
New rush is gay?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
New It's scary to watch.
I had the book "In The Shadow Of The Sword" on my GoodRead's wishlist for ages before I found a reason to put some moolah down to buy it. It attempts to trace the history of how the Quran came to be, which by necessity means describing the history of the Levant and the Middle East from roughly 0AD to about 700AD (I'm a bit fuzzy as to the exact date).

The history is fascinating, because it includes how the Eastern Roman Empire became Christian, a slice of history I'd not heard told before. It also tells of how the Arab tribes had a consistently warlike relationship with their neighbours since practically forever.

When the author turned his narrative to the stories about the Prophet, he admitted that there is a awful lot of early material simply missing. You might think there's a lot missing about the early Jewish scriptures. There is an ocean of material about that compared to early versions of the Quran: because they either do not exist or are under heavy lock and key. Just once he made the suggestion that the later Muslim scholars watched very carefully how first the Jews and later the Christians redacted and edited their own scriptures. This meant they figured out how to shape the Quran and Islam so both are set in stone with no room to move.

Now, that's just one scholar's effort. But even if it's vaguely correct, there are other signs that Islam was designed to not move with the times.

Wade.
New Re: It's scary to watch.
Reviews seem to indicate that Holland didn't do his research.

Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New That's why I'd like to read another book on the subject.
But I'm in no hurry. I'm not nearly so interested in the topic as I used to be.

I don't even remember how Tom Holland's book got recommended to me.

Wade.
New while it is true that the winners dictate how history reads
there is a buttload of stuff as an aside on how the muslims evolved
here is the 10 cent version
http://www.patheos.com/Library/Islam/Origins/Beginnings?offset=1&max=1
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
New Re: It's scary to watch.
Thanks, Wade.. a fine demo that, what. ever. one chooses to write about [the entire Religio- metaphysics topic], never shall there be a moment's respite from OTOH, since every single ant in the hive.. has his/her [only True Grasp©] of the entire enchilada.

What a Surprise..! that,
tales of onlookers, dwelling on a (probably..) flat Earth, over which the Sun God drove his chariot each day: should generate Point/counter-Point over each syllable "told as exact transcription"
… what, probably forever?

Assuming a polymath, with reading-for-comprehension skillz in the top 1% (we measure Everything, now) ingesting every chronicle from the Greeks onwards, then chroniclers (sorted by date/locale) of the suspected events, that seem to be of enduring Interest: how many (academic lifetimes) would be required to assimilate/analyze then outline some summary of all these homo-sap writings (whether creative opinions or putative first-person testaments: aka journal-ism') ??

Probably the limit of my interest in a topic, never-to-reach consensus, even as to the base-news-koan formula: Who What When Where (very rarely any remote provable!-Why) might be:
this lengthy Review of Holland's 'review' of (whatever eclectic sources he extirpated from the mass ..which he liked.)

(And if you like/hate his style ?? He has another bucket-of-worms,) under Why science ignores God. This essay is brief-enough; could be worth a scan or a giggle, depending..
Bon appetít, pursuers of truthiness (or even just plain satisfiction?)

I too, a Prophet, predict: that our jelloware is simply too primitive to Deal With "n-dimensional assorted Universes", for being demonstrably: unable to deal with this local one and its myths of.. Oh, say:
[Time=0 er, let's call that a Singularity, ergo FIFY] ;^>

Don't worry. Be Happy.
--Meher Baba


Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
But always remember: Cops are armed and Dangerous; the corpus becomes corpse ... easily.
     What ISIS really wants - (malraux) - (39)
         very well written, thanks -NT - (boxley)
         Juan Cole's thoughts. - (Another Scott) - (29)
             whose reality? Yours? Mine? Abe from Sammara? - (boxley) - (28)
                 Cole has been studying this stuff for 40 years or more. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                     death penalty for mischief on offer - (boxley) - (2)
                         Almost 6 years ago? - (Another Scott) - (1)
                             last nov 2014 better time fr ya? - (boxley)
                 It must be hard for many Muslims . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (23)
                     It's interesting to watch - (pwhysall) - (22)
                         Ha! - (mmoffitt) - (16)
                             You can "Ha!" all you like. You're arguing against a point I didn't make. - (pwhysall) - (14)
                                 Can't we just elect a gay, atheist woman of Jewish ancestry? - (drook)
                                 back when your betters were kowtowing to the royals - (boxley) - (12)
                                     Real question - (drook) - (11)
                                         thats what you have courts for - (boxley) - (8)
                                             Colbert did a bit about this - (drook) - (6)
                                                 eh? bhudist muslim hindu anglican lutheran catholic unitarian - (boxley) - (5)
                                                     You count Anglican, Lutheran and Catholic as "other"? - (drook) - (4)
                                                         you counting them in the same group as liberty university graduates? I dont -NT - (boxley) - (3)
                                                             That's a different question - (drook) - (2)
                                                                 Obama did. He's Muslim. I heard that on the radio. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                                     Did Rev Wright know that? -NT - (boxley)
                                             not a chance - (crazy)
                                         Neither. Both are equally bad. - (mmoffitt)
                                         Clearly the latter, of course - (Ashton)
                             rush is gay? -NT - (boxley)
                         It's scary to watch. - (static) - (4)
                             Re: It's scary to watch. - (malraux) - (1)
                                 That's why I'd like to read another book on the subject. - (static)
                             while it is true that the winners dictate how history reads - (boxley)
                             Re: It's scary to watch. - (Ashton)
         Adam Silverman's take. - (Another Scott) - (1)
             [Cool Hand Luke} 'What we've got here is a failure to communicate' [/Cool] - (Ashton)
         ThinkProgress's take. - (Another Scott) - (5)
             cair? really? couldnt you find something on briebart? -NT - (boxley)
             "Council on American-Islamic Relations" - (Andrew Grygus) - (3)
                 "the proof is in the pudding" - (Another Scott) - (2)
                     In response to the kind of Muslim initiated mass slaughter . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                         Conscience-free slaughter proves their felt-immunity to any communication with others. - (Ashton)

It's spelled "LRPD", but it's pronounced "mumble"!
135 ms