The point always was, that if what anyone says about anything is verifiable, replicatable etc, in other words, stand up to scientific scrutiny, then so be it. I can see nothing in your paper which will do this. You start from the wrong end as it were “Believe first then I’ll prove it to be true”, instead of the proper way; present a testible hypthethis.
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — Malaysia’s Muslim men are suffering sleepless nights and cannot pray properly because their thoughts are distracted by a growing number of women who wear sexy clothes in public, a prominent cleric said.
Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, the spiritual leader of the opposition Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party, said he wanted to speak about the “emotional abuse” that men face because it is seldom discussed, the party reported Wednesday.
All true. But you paint an overly-pretty picture of the lot of women in industrialized coutries.
The normalising of pornography has led to a tolerance, even assumption of ‘right’ to the sexual abuse and assault of women. ‘Rough sex’ is the favoured euphemism.
It also ignores the fact that unless Western girls come from stable, child-first homes which provide a good education and health-care, they are as likely to wind up being treated just as badly as women in the developing world, vis-a-vis prostitution and abusive relationships.
Domestic violence and rape may be illegal, but the conviction rates are risible. Stranger-violence is taken far more seriously, as is theft of property. Nor do children abused by parents – especially (and typically) fathers – have much legal redress once they’re over eighteen: institutions are held accountable the way parents are not.
That’s not to demean the very real realites of third-world misogyny. It’s just that we shouldn’t be too complacent, much less triumphalist about the lot of women in the West.
Thanks, Espadre. The relevance of the cartoon is no accident – look below it and you’ll see a link to the article. The cartoonist (she said modestly) is a big fan of B&W (and B&W returns the compliment).
The Nov 4 NYTimes Magazine article on Dr A. Flew and his ideas and beliefs or non-beliefs, as the case may be, sent me to the web looking for a copy of the old essay, “Theology and Falsification,” which I read with — dare I admit it, a touch of boredom. I expected something like paragraph four (“Now to assertr that such…”), which is pure OxBridge word fencing. And there it all is in its barren nothingness.
There is a reason why the logical positivists and school of B. Russell and the math-osophers such as Ludwig
Wittgenstein has fallen into disuse and disregard, and why by 1935 Schopenhauer had mounted the throne. (Any more, not even the throne exists.)
In fact I am struck that Dr Flew’s
paragraph four is a classic example of chop logic (he would be horrified!), born out of a quagmire of unspoken and unacknowledged assumptions on which the propositions are postulated, as well as the top layer of stated assumptions. No space here for in-depth details, but anyone who is interested in philosophy/
theology need only read the little Flew essay to see how pointless it all is. The rhetoric of this kind of thinking is endlessly tedious and can be disputed forever because of the ‘if this’ or ‘but what if’ and so on. I am not sure the kinds of questions that A. F., and by extension, your essay into his current situation, bring up even exist to be asked. If there are no questions for an answer, does the answer even exist? But now I am sounding like Flew & Co., and I don’t really mean to. “Judge, I move the case dismissed, the question does not even exist, and in any case is irrelevant!” >
>The Nov 4 NYTimes Magazine article on Dr A. Flew and his ideas and beliefs or non-beliefs..>
weak, shaky, belief is not faith, is heresy..honestly doubting God, even for the sake of testing arguments, is positing ‘reason’ not ‘God’ as ultimate and thus itself not faith but blasphemy
>Muslim scientists have made all discoveries of the current age, said University of Columbia’s Arabic and Islamic Studies prof George Saliba at a seminar at the Government College University (GCU) on Monday.
The seminar, titled The Problems of Historiography of Islamic Science, was held at Fazl-e-Hussain Hall.
What need for parody? The conversion of Antony Flew deserves serious consideration. The conversion of an intelligent and learned person to religious belief poses a problem that calls for serious study, especially as it is not unexampled. I think that the conversion or reversion of an atheist to religion in most cases comes when the ex-atheist had bound his atheism too closely to materialism in one or another of its many metamorphoses. S/he then finds that atheism leaves her/him with an impoverished life. They seek the remedy in religion. In my opinion the true remedy is in an idealism that acknowledges the reality of spiritual values and is free of any taint of supernaturalism or revelation.
D R Khashaba makes a good point, unfortunately not one relevant to the one being satirized. The exploitation of a confused philosopher hardly represents a case study worthy of “serious consideration,” unless consideration be given to the cynical motives of the exploiters who want to make him look foolish and inconsistent in old age. Antony Flew did not “convert” to religion; he fumbled his way onto a playing field he could no longer negotiate. There is irony and sadness in that.
As an Atheist, I am sympathetic to your account of the harm religion, including Islam, does. However, when you speak of Muslims using our democracy to incite hatred against the West, you give the impression of coming very near to saying that some hateful, anti Western statements by Muslim should be against the law.
Part of the concept of freedom involves people being free to SAY anything. It is only when their hateful opinions impel them to engage in ACTIONS that hurt others that the law is justified in stopping them.
The English utilitarian, John Stuart Mill, pointed out in ON LIBERTY that humans were most likely to arrive at true opinions by studying ALL views, no matter how odious, as presented by a sincere adherent of those views. Having something like a college of Jesuits to tell us about all the “wrong” views and why they are “wrong” won’t give our minds the full benefit of hearing a free exchange of all views. Such a college is more likely to present a superficial account of the “wrong” views and miss giving us the full force of the arguments when given by a sincere believer.
If were need to consider the arguments for all views presented by a sincere adherent of those views to have the greatest probability of arriving at conclusions nearest to the truth, we can’t do it if the adherents of some views are forbidden to speak.
The progress of civilization depends on free inquiry so I sefinitely disagree with you if you are saying that some Mullahs should be forbiden by law from saying certain hateful things about the West. But as an Atheist, I would be even stronger than you in denouncing the harm done by all religions.
>C. Thomas’s success owes nothing to the affirmative action he has come to despise..>
‘affirmative action’ is racism and it is rightfully rejected. It rewards and grants privileges not deservedly (i.e., because of individual worth, individual achievements) but on reason of mere belonging to a race-group (or gender).
“affirmative action rewards and grants privileges not deservedly but on reason of mere belonging to a race-group”
But the point is, if that’s what Thomas thinks, then he should have declined the appointment to the Supreme Court, which was made precisely ‘on reason of mere belonging to a race-group.’
>if that’s what Thomas thinks then he should have declined..>
Is not that simple, the wrong laws were (and are) in place and this reality changes the conclusion on “what one should do”. Had he refused it would have simply went to someone else.
All have to play by the rules before respecting the rules to make sense for each.
Have read ‘Women under Theocracy’, which I found very depressing reading. Surely there are enough enlightened men in these regimes to oppose these terrible abuses of women and start to realize that women have equal rights and deserve to be treated as equals. It would make for a happier and healthier society and probably lead to less wars
“Had he refused it would have simply [gone] to someone else.”
Well obviously. But that of course doesn’t mean he couldn’t have refused; people do refuse nominations to the Court. And having accepted, he has no moral standing to rebuke other people for advancing ‘on reason of mere belonging to a race-group.’
the outcome of a case which made headlines few months ago :
A court in the ultra-conservative kingdom of Saudi Arabia is punishing a female victim of gang rape with 200 lashes and six months in jail, a newspaper reported on Thursday.
The 19-year-old woman — whose six armed attackers have been sentenced to jail terms — was initially ordered to undergo 90 lashes for “being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape,” the Arab News reported.
But in a new verdict issued after Saudi Arabia’s Higher Judicial Council ordered a retrial, the court in the eastern town of Al-Qatif more than doubled the number of lashes to 200.
A court source told the English-language Arab News that the judges had decided to punish the woman further for “her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media.”
Part of the concept of freedom involves people being free to SAY anything.
Rober Halfhill
No, definitely not. This is your personally held belief that freedom means you can say whatever you want, however, I believe differently, and so does the British Government who recently introduced legislation making it a criminal offence for certain things being said, and indeed some muslims have been prosecuted and are undergoing prosecution for saying whatever they feel.
Democracy does entail the right to free speech, but there has to be limits. Deciding what those limits are has to be carried out very carefully.
>the concept of freedom involves people being free to SAY anything. >
We are at a low point in history if this needs be argued again.
You could also say that it is the “first freedom” (just as “courage” is the “first virtue”) since all the rest depend on it.
“It is that men struggle not only over territory, food, and raw materials, but perhaps most of all over language. For to control the word is to be the definer: God, king, pope, president, legislator, scientist, psychiatrist, madman — you and me. God defines everything and everyone. The totalitarian leader aspires to similar grandeur.” (Thomas Szasz)
Well done Gina. Respect is due for your integrity, bravery and perseverance. Your level-headed temperate debate is crucial in our blinded, deafened and muted generation. You are and example to us all. May God bless, protect and uphold you and your family. Peace be with you.
I can say that until we walk a mile in your shoes, you are the book to what we cannot know..esp from a man’s perspective. Religion, gender, color are all suffering at the hands of such puritanical views, as this mentality gains force, many will be subjected to it wether they are a believer or not.
A non tolerant Ideology surrounded by a PC movement. For those who have not considered these victims…CNN’s “Behind the Veil.” was just a glimpse. This is NOT just an isolated belief…..read, look around.
.. may (or may not) be bogus but whatever the case that’s not the issue at stake..the issue is whether one should be free to undergo whatever treatment ~he~ believs as effective,
and/or to follow the directions of who
~he~ regards as knowledgable, despite what others (“medical experts” and Gov. legislators) think that he should do.
“Why the obsession with sexuality when we have poverty, Aids and wars to worry about?”
A fatuous question (and standard human hypocrisy).
The Church’s has 2000 years of experience with what matters, with what is of essence, about life and human nature (wars, poverty, and plagues included).
One would better get a pause and learn from such historically distilled to basics conclusions. Learn where he should direct his efforts.
For instance Islam would quickly fall to pieces if one were somehow to force
them accepting to alter woman’s status in their culture.
[..] psychiatry’s inability to settle on a discrete list of disorders that can remain impervious to fads and fashions, that is an embarrassment only to clear academic thinkers [..]
Psychiatry is diagnosing people’s behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs.
Bad becomes mad, false become delusional, moral-judgement becomes diagnosing.
The (changing) mores, and corresponding expectations for proper behavior and belief, of a given period become codified in its edition of DSM.
For years there has been an artist here in New York designing various cartoons of Jesus, the devil, and the Christians who love/hate them (http://normalbobsmith.com). It’s kind of obvious what will happen when satirists are attacked for their work, so I wasn’t surprised when Normal Bob Smith took a break from “Jesus Dress-up” to join in the ruckus with his two cents (“Dress Up Muhammad the Prophet” http://www.muhammaddressup.com/).
For better or worse, and whether it meets with anger, revolt, reason, or humor, art will always be with us to show us who we are. In these times of shrinking liberties–and with an almost institutional suppression of cultural understanding–there remains so little space to say so much.
The battle of Armageddon draweth nigh! I just never thought it would be between religion and cartoons.
Troops have been deployed in the Indian city of Calcutta after protests over a controversial writer turned into riots.
Police using tear gas and baton charges were unable to control crowds calling for Bangladeshi feminist writer Taslima Nasreen to leave India.
[BBC says the crowds are calling for Nasreen to “leave the country,” even though there was a very specific death fatwa issued for her]
Rioters blocked roads and set cars alight. At least 27 people were hurt. More than 100 arrests have been made. …
Wednesday’s trouble in the state capital began after the predominantly Muslim All-India Minority Forum called for blockades on major roads in the city.
The group said Ms Nasreen had “seriously hurt Muslim sentiments”. Many Muslims say her writing ridicules Islam.
Police arrived in strength to disperse the demonstrators. Violence then broke out in Ripon Street in the north of the city and spread to Park Circus, Moulali and many other areas of central Calcutta. …
The All-India Minority Forum says Taslima Nasreen’s Indian visa should be revoked and she should be forced to leave the country. Critics say she called for the Koran to be changed to give women greater rights, but she vehemently denied making the comments.
the risks of infidelity, never cheat your religion
BAGHDAD – Three suspected al Qaeda militants, including two sisters, beheaded their uncle and his wife, forcing the couple’s children to watch, Iraqi police said on Friday.
The militants considered that school guard Youssef al-Hayali was an infidel because he did not pray and wore western-style trousers, they told police interrogators after being arrested in Diyala province northwest of Baghdad.
Although a skeptic could be ignorant, skepticism itself does not imply ignorance.
On the issue of anthropogenic global warming, there are many experts who are skeptics. These are people who know the science but disagree with the implications of it.
I’m don’t share the characterization of Leon Kass’s entire career as worthless. In my opinion, his conservative bioethics should be more widely discussed. It is unfortunate that, more recently, Kass has focused on defense of belief (e.g., his April 2007 Commentary essay). This is something he shares with Dinesh D’Souza, and it’s not only depressing but aggravating, because I don’t think that either writer believes in anything supernatural. Near as I can tell, what Kass is now writing is all about social control, which makes it, well, unethical.
“Mother Nature is incredibly complex, and to think we mortals are so clever and so perceptive that we can create computer code that accurately reproduces the millions of processes that determine climate is hubris (think of predicting the complexities of clouds).
“Of all scientists, climate scientists should be the most humble…
“Answering the question about how much warming has occurred because of increases in greenhouse gases and what we may expect in the future still holds enormous uncertainty, in my view.”
> how much warming has occurred because of increases in greenhouse gases and what we may expect in the future still holds enormous uncertainty…>
The hysteria over (would be) man-made global warming has little to do with science and much with an old, recurrent, topic of mass psychopathology.
It suffices that it might be true for those who feel the need to sacrifice something dear for atonement — (pain themselves somehow, as Abraham intended
by killing his son, as supplication ).
In these secular times they need first a veneer of rationalization for its necessity.
People in the West are well aware that it is due to the industrial revolution, to science and technology, that humanity has achieved its, previously unthinkable, present level of comfort and well being. Now they feel guilty for eating tasty apples and they will made themselves suffer again by passing laws forcing everybody to turn the lights, cars, and the heating systems off for a while.
If some disaster strucks before the CO2 laws to be enforced– say a plague or something– they will interpret it as punishment for living for themselves, for pleasure, for not living for the sake God.
Is George Felis arguing that only “experts” should be allowed to be skeptical? Who decides who the experts are then? If we look at a field like education, how often have its “experts” been right? Oh, I forgot — failure to be right in the past is merely a sign that one is more likely to be right now.
Seriously, the questions of uninformed skeptics provide an opportunity to disseminate a) facts, and b) an informed opinion of those facts. And telling people who disagree with you to just shut up doesn’t work unless you’re brandishing a weapon when you tell them.
Yes, a wonderful rant by George Felis, who seems quite worked up and perhaps for good reason.
However, I will note regarding “climate change skeptics” that it really depends on who you include in that group and the reasons for their skepticism. Those who extend doubt beyond reason because they don’t like the conclusions reached are, rightly, to be deplored.
My skepticism is of a different sort and is not based on doubting the science involved (which I’m no doubt unqualified to assess fully). Rather, it is doubt about the political conclusions being insisted on by many along the lines of “the science indicates fact ‘a’ therefore, scientifically, you must take political action ‘Z'”.
I’m happy enough accepting the scientific finding but don’t see how it is valid to assert that political conclusions follow directly from scientific facts, and attempt to invoke the “authority of science” to do so.
My other concern (regarding “ice age then, versus global warming now”) is not that different scientific conclusions are being drawn from new or different facts. Rather it is that the same political conclusions seem to be being drawn from completely different science-based predictions. When the same political conclusions arise from what appear to be mutually contradictory scientific understandings, I can’t help but wonder if its politics and ideology that are driving matters, using science to bolster arguments only when it seems convenient.
Don’t in any way conclude that I am denying that climate change is happening or that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would be anywhere from helpful to vital. Its just that my “skepticism” button gets pushed every time someone claims that their own political ideas follow automatically from ANY scientific conclusion, and that we should all shut up and do as we’re told because “science says so”.
There’s a simple (and therefore possibly wrong) explanation for the problem. It’s that a lot of people live by the “Competence Does Not Exist, Except Mine” theory.
“Anybody who says they’re an expert is just pretending, like Mr. so-called Gemologist here. This subject is *soooo* complicated that *nobody* understands it, and therefore he doesn’t *really* know anything at all, and so my opinion is just as good. Better, in fact, because I’ve can remember Important Facts about it.”
The definitive example is when somebody, on hearing that the person beside them is a physicist, takes gently pity and tries to explain and enlighten as to Where Einstein Got It Wrong.
Of course, to protect this mindset, they cannot themselves actually study anything at all, because that would imply that competence can exist (if not, why are they working at it?), which is not to be admitted, and therefore Not True.
And anyway, Einstein clearly stole his best ideas from Nikola Tesla, and forced his wife do all the really hard math bits.
>Einstein clearly stole his best ideas from Nikola Tesla
Tesla was skeptical about Einstein’s relativity theory, at least the ‘general’-one :
“..I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view…”
Ah, but you only have a BA in Theology. You’re not qualified to criticise believers unless you have at least a PhD.
*Cough!*
Sorry. Just trying to help the poor beleaguered god-botherers out. :-)
Great post.
Reply to HF
> guess who is racist
The University of Delaware so to speak.
Ok. Do I fail or do I pass?
A short reply to Mr. Landbeck…
The point always was, that if what anyone says about anything is verifiable, replicatable etc, in other words, stand up to scientific scrutiny, then so be it. I can see nothing in your paper which will do this. You start from the wrong end as it were “Believe first then I’ll prove it to be true”, instead of the proper way; present a testible hypthethis.
Good try Sir but your argument goes nowhere.
Best wishes
Ian
saving men from emotional abuse
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — Malaysia’s Muslim men are suffering sleepless nights and cannot pray properly because their thoughts are distracted by a growing number of women who wear sexy clothes in public, a prominent cleric said.
Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, the spiritual leader of the opposition Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party, said he wanted to speak about the “emotional abuse” that men face because it is seldom discussed, the party reported Wednesday.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306658,00.html
In Focus: Women Under Theocracy:
All true. But you paint an overly-pretty picture of the lot of women in industrialized coutries.
The normalising of pornography has led to a tolerance, even assumption of ‘right’ to the sexual abuse and assault of women. ‘Rough sex’ is the favoured euphemism.
It also ignores the fact that unless Western girls come from stable, child-first homes which provide a good education and health-care, they are as likely to wind up being treated just as badly as women in the developing world, vis-a-vis prostitution and abusive relationships.
Domestic violence and rape may be illegal, but the conviction rates are risible. Stranger-violence is taken far more seriously, as is theft of property. Nor do children abused by parents – especially (and typically) fathers – have much legal redress once they’re over eighteen: institutions are held accountable the way parents are not.
That’s not to demean the very real realites of third-world misogyny. It’s just that we shouldn’t be too complacent, much less triumphalist about the lot of women in the West.
This cartoon seems a perfect complement to this article:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/
Be sure to use the arrows at the top to scroll through the previous cartoons. They are all hilarious!
Finally! Thank you for that article.
Thanks, Espadre. The relevance of the cartoon is no accident – look below it and you’ll see a link to the article. The cartoonist (she said modestly) is a big fan of B&W (and B&W returns the compliment).
States likely to delay executions until ruling
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20071102/ts_csm/ainjection;_ylt=AkqDqk6PQlB5MbBN9Hyp7OSyFz4D
The Nov 4 NYTimes Magazine article on Dr A. Flew and his ideas and beliefs or non-beliefs, as the case may be, sent me to the web looking for a copy of the old essay, “Theology and Falsification,” which I read with — dare I admit it, a touch of boredom. I expected something like paragraph four (“Now to assertr that such…”), which is pure OxBridge word fencing. And there it all is in its barren nothingness.
There is a reason why the logical positivists and school of B. Russell and the math-osophers such as Ludwig
Wittgenstein has fallen into disuse and disregard, and why by 1935 Schopenhauer had mounted the throne. (Any more, not even the throne exists.)
In fact I am struck that Dr Flew’s
paragraph four is a classic example of chop logic (he would be horrified!), born out of a quagmire of unspoken and unacknowledged assumptions on which the propositions are postulated, as well as the top layer of stated assumptions. No space here for in-depth details, but anyone who is interested in philosophy/
theology need only read the little Flew essay to see how pointless it all is. The rhetoric of this kind of thinking is endlessly tedious and can be disputed forever because of the ‘if this’ or ‘but what if’ and so on. I am not sure the kinds of questions that A. F., and by extension, your essay into his current situation, bring up even exist to be asked. If there are no questions for an answer, does the answer even exist? But now I am sounding like Flew & Co., and I don’t really mean to. “Judge, I move the case dismissed, the question does not even exist, and in any case is irrelevant!” >
JIM/SantaFe
mrmyster@comcast.net
>The Nov 4 NYTimes Magazine article on Dr A. Flew and his ideas and beliefs or non-beliefs..>
weak, shaky, belief is not faith, is heresy..honestly doubting God, even for the sake of testing arguments, is positing ‘reason’ not ‘God’ as ultimate and thus itself not faith but blasphemy
Breaking news shake all our knowledge of history
>Muslim scientists have made all discoveries of the current age, said University of Columbia’s Arabic and Islamic Studies prof George Saliba at a seminar at the Government College University (GCU) on Monday.
The seminar, titled The Problems of Historiography of Islamic Science, was held at Fazl-e-Hussain Hall.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C11%5C06%5Cstory_6-11-2007_pg13_4
Re: Professor R. Joseph Hoffmann, “The Turning”
What need for parody? The conversion of Antony Flew deserves serious consideration. The conversion of an intelligent and learned person to religious belief poses a problem that calls for serious study, especially as it is not unexampled. I think that the conversion or reversion of an atheist to religion in most cases comes when the ex-atheist had bound his atheism too closely to materialism in one or another of its many metamorphoses. S/he then finds that atheism leaves her/him with an impoverished life. They seek the remedy in religion. In my opinion the true remedy is in an idealism that acknowledges the reality of spiritual values and is free of any taint of supernaturalism or revelation.
D. R. Khashaba
http://khashaba.blogspot.com
http://www.Back-to-Socrates.com
D R Khashaba makes a good point, unfortunately not one relevant to the one being satirized. The exploitation of a confused philosopher hardly represents a case study worthy of “serious consideration,” unless consideration be given to the cynical motives of the exploiters who want to make him look foolish and inconsistent in old age. Antony Flew did not “convert” to religion; he fumbled his way onto a playing field he could no longer negotiate. There is irony and sadness in that.
As an Atheist, I am sympathetic to your account of the harm religion, including Islam, does. However, when you speak of Muslims using our democracy to incite hatred against the West, you give the impression of coming very near to saying that some hateful, anti Western statements by Muslim should be against the law.
Part of the concept of freedom involves people being free to SAY anything. It is only when their hateful opinions impel them to engage in ACTIONS that hurt others that the law is justified in stopping them.
The English utilitarian, John Stuart Mill, pointed out in ON LIBERTY that humans were most likely to arrive at true opinions by studying ALL views, no matter how odious, as presented by a sincere adherent of those views. Having something like a college of Jesuits to tell us about all the “wrong” views and why they are “wrong” won’t give our minds the full benefit of hearing a free exchange of all views. Such a college is more likely to present a superficial account of the “wrong” views and miss giving us the full force of the arguments when given by a sincere believer.
If were need to consider the arguments for all views presented by a sincere adherent of those views to have the greatest probability of arriving at conclusions nearest to the truth, we can’t do it if the adherents of some views are forbidden to speak.
The progress of civilization depends on free inquiry so I sefinitely disagree with you if you are saying that some Mullahs should be forbiden by law from saying certain hateful things about the West. But as an Atheist, I would be even stronger than you in denouncing the harm done by all religions.
Robert Halfhill rhalfhill@juno.com
>C. Thomas’s success owes nothing to the affirmative action he has come to despise..>
‘affirmative action’ is racism and it is rightfully rejected. It rewards and grants privileges not deservedly (i.e., because of individual worth, individual achievements) but on reason of mere belonging to a race-group (or gender).
“affirmative action rewards and grants privileges not deservedly but on reason of mere belonging to a race-group”
But the point is, if that’s what Thomas thinks, then he should have declined the appointment to the Supreme Court, which was made precisely ‘on reason of mere belonging to a race-group.’
>if that’s what Thomas thinks then he should have declined..>
Is not that simple, the wrong laws were (and are) in place and this reality changes the conclusion on “what one should do”. Had he refused it would have simply went to someone else.
All have to play by the rules before respecting the rules to make sense for each.
Have read ‘Women under Theocracy’, which I found very depressing reading. Surely there are enough enlightened men in these regimes to oppose these terrible abuses of women and start to realize that women have equal rights and deserve to be treated as equals. It would make for a happier and healthier society and probably lead to less wars
> Surely there are enough enlightened men in these regimes to oppose these terrible abuses of women ..>
Are there ? The subservient status of woman is enshrined in the religious law.
It would be like saying that are enough manifest non-believers in a theocratic regime. There are few, and typically in prison or already hanged.
“Had he refused it would have simply [gone] to someone else.”
Well obviously. But that of course doesn’t mean he couldn’t have refused; people do refuse nominations to the Court. And having accepted, he has no moral standing to rebuke other people for advancing ‘on reason of mere belonging to a race-group.’
“he has no moral standing to rebuke other people for advancing”
He doesn’t rebuke others, and himself, for this. He has come “to despise the law” not the people who have taken advantage of it in what was an already
distorted (by this very law) moral context.
The effect of Western media
the outcome of a case which made headlines few months ago :
A court in the ultra-conservative kingdom of Saudi Arabia is punishing a female victim of gang rape with 200 lashes and six months in jail, a newspaper reported on Thursday.
The 19-year-old woman — whose six armed attackers have been sentenced to jail terms — was initially ordered to undergo 90 lashes for “being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape,” the Arab News reported.
But in a new verdict issued after Saudi Arabia’s Higher Judicial Council ordered a retrial, the court in the eastern town of Al-Qatif more than doubled the number of lashes to 200.
A court source told the English-language Arab News that the judges had decided to punish the woman further for “her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media.”
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071115145104.rykb7bub&show_article=1
Part of the concept of freedom involves people being free to SAY anything.
Rober Halfhill
No, definitely not. This is your personally held belief that freedom means you can say whatever you want, however, I believe differently, and so does the British Government who recently introduced legislation making it a criminal offence for certain things being said, and indeed some muslims have been prosecuted and are undergoing prosecution for saying whatever they feel.
Democracy does entail the right to free speech, but there has to be limits. Deciding what those limits are has to be carried out very carefully.
>the concept of freedom involves people being free to SAY anything. >
We are at a low point in history if this needs be argued again.
You could also say that it is the “first freedom” (just as “courage” is the “first virtue”) since all the rest depend on it.
“It is that men struggle not only over territory, food, and raw materials, but perhaps most of all over language. For to control the word is to be the definer: God, king, pope, president, legislator, scientist, psychiatrist, madman — you and me. God defines everything and everyone. The totalitarian leader aspires to similar grandeur.” (Thomas Szasz)
Well done Gina. Respect is due for your integrity, bravery and perseverance. Your level-headed temperate debate is crucial in our blinded, deafened and muted generation. You are and example to us all. May God bless, protect and uphold you and your family. Peace be with you.
Gina,
I can say that until we walk a mile in your shoes, you are the book to what we cannot know..esp from a man’s perspective. Religion, gender, color are all suffering at the hands of such puritanical views, as this mentality gains force, many will be subjected to it wether they are a believer or not.
A non tolerant Ideology surrounded by a PC movement. For those who have not considered these victims…CNN’s “Behind the Veil.” was just a glimpse. This is NOT just an isolated belief…..read, look around.
Homeopathy
.. may (or may not) be bogus but whatever the case that’s not the issue at stake..the issue is whether one should be free to undergo whatever treatment ~he~ believs as effective,
and/or to follow the directions of who
~he~ regards as knowledgable, despite what others (“medical experts” and Gov. legislators) think that he should do.
Tutu Rebukes Church for Attitudes :
“Why the obsession with sexuality when we have poverty, Aids and wars to worry about?”
A fatuous question (and standard human hypocrisy).
The Church’s has 2000 years of experience with what matters, with what is of essence, about life and human nature (wars, poverty, and plagues included).
One would better get a pause and learn from such historically distilled to basics conclusions. Learn where he should direct his efforts.
For instance Islam would quickly fall to pieces if one were somehow to force
them accepting to alter woman’s status in their culture.
Re Islamo-fascism, the long article from June 2007 on Tariq Ramadan by Paul Berman in The New Republic on-line, is well worth reading.
Crew’s “Talking back to Prozac”
[..] psychiatry’s inability to settle on a discrete list of disorders that can remain impervious to fads and fashions, that is an embarrassment only to clear academic thinkers [..]
Psychiatry is diagnosing people’s behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs.
Bad becomes mad, false become delusional, moral-judgement becomes diagnosing.
The (changing) mores, and corresponding expectations for proper behavior and belief, of a given period become codified in its edition of DSM.
For years there has been an artist here in New York designing various cartoons of Jesus, the devil, and the Christians who love/hate them (http://normalbobsmith.com). It’s kind of obvious what will happen when satirists are attacked for their work, so I wasn’t surprised when Normal Bob Smith took a break from “Jesus Dress-up” to join in the ruckus with his two cents (“Dress Up Muhammad the Prophet” http://www.muhammaddressup.com/).
For better or worse, and whether it meets with anger, revolt, reason, or humor, art will always be with us to show us who we are. In these times of shrinking liberties–and with an almost institutional suppression of cultural understanding–there remains so little space to say so much.
The battle of Armageddon draweth nigh! I just never thought it would be between religion and cartoons.
females as humans too
Troops have been deployed in the Indian city of Calcutta after protests over a controversial writer turned into riots.
Police using tear gas and baton charges were unable to control crowds calling for Bangladeshi feminist writer Taslima Nasreen to leave India.
[BBC says the crowds are calling for Nasreen to “leave the country,” even though there was a very specific death fatwa issued for her]
Rioters blocked roads and set cars alight. At least 27 people were hurt. More than 100 arrests have been made. …
Wednesday’s trouble in the state capital began after the predominantly Muslim All-India Minority Forum called for blockades on major roads in the city.
The group said Ms Nasreen had “seriously hurt Muslim sentiments”. Many Muslims say her writing ridicules Islam.
Police arrived in strength to disperse the demonstrators. Violence then broke out in Ripon Street in the north of the city and spread to Park Circus, Moulali and many other areas of central Calcutta. …
The All-India Minority Forum says Taslima Nasreen’s Indian visa should be revoked and she should be forced to leave the country. Critics say she called for the Koran to be changed to give women greater rights, but she vehemently denied making the comments.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7105277.stm
the risks of infidelity, never cheat your religion
BAGHDAD – Three suspected al Qaeda militants, including two sisters, beheaded their uncle and his wife, forcing the couple’s children to watch, Iraqi police said on Friday.
The militants considered that school guard Youssef al-Hayali was an infidel because he did not pray and wore western-style trousers, they told police interrogators after being arrested in Diyala province northwest of Baghdad.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/iraqi.school.guard.and.wife.beheaded.as.children.watch/14826.htm
Skepticism and Ignorance, by George M. Felis
Although a skeptic could be ignorant, skepticism itself does not imply ignorance.
On the issue of anthropogenic global warming, there are many experts who are skeptics. These are people who know the science but disagree with the implications of it.
EG: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10478445&pnum=0
RE Felis, “Skepticism and Ignorance”
I’m don’t share the characterization of Leon Kass’s entire career as worthless. In my opinion, his conservative bioethics should be more widely discussed. It is unfortunate that, more recently, Kass has focused on defense of belief (e.g., his April 2007 Commentary essay). This is something he shares with Dinesh D’Souza, and it’s not only depressing but aggravating, because I don’t think that either writer believes in anything supernatural. Near as I can tell, what Kass is now writing is all about social control, which makes it, well, unethical.
Another questioning climate expert:
“Mother Nature is incredibly complex, and to think we mortals are so clever and so perceptive that we can create computer code that accurately reproduces the millions of processes that determine climate is hubris (think of predicting the complexities of clouds).
“Of all scientists, climate scientists should be the most humble…
“Answering the question about how much warming has occurred because of increases in greenhouse gases and what we may expect in the future still holds enormous uncertainty, in my view.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm
> how much warming has occurred because of increases in greenhouse gases and what we may expect in the future still holds enormous uncertainty…>
The hysteria over (would be) man-made global warming has little to do with science and much with an old, recurrent, topic of mass psychopathology.
It suffices that it might be true for those who feel the need to sacrifice something dear for atonement — (pain themselves somehow, as Abraham intended
by killing his son, as supplication ).
In these secular times they need first a veneer of rationalization for its necessity.
People in the West are well aware that it is due to the industrial revolution, to science and technology, that humanity has achieved its, previously unthinkable, present level of comfort and well being. Now they feel guilty for eating tasty apples and they will made themselves suffer again by passing laws forcing everybody to turn the lights, cars, and the heating systems off for a while.
If some disaster strucks before the CO2 laws to be enforced– say a plague or something– they will interpret it as punishment for living for themselves, for pleasure, for not living for the sake God.
It is like fasting, pre-emptive self punishment.
Son of Krakatoa should be due to emulate its daddy some time soon, so we’d better hang on to our thermal underwear. -:)
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=578
http://travel.mongabay.com/pix/krakatau_08.html
Is George Felis arguing that only “experts” should be allowed to be skeptical? Who decides who the experts are then? If we look at a field like education, how often have its “experts” been right? Oh, I forgot — failure to be right in the past is merely a sign that one is more likely to be right now.
Seriously, the questions of uninformed skeptics provide an opportunity to disseminate a) facts, and b) an informed opinion of those facts. And telling people who disagree with you to just shut up doesn’t work unless you’re brandishing a weapon when you tell them.
That was one great rant.
Your right of course. Well…until someone with better ranting skill comes along and disproves your rant through their own an better rant.
Yes, a wonderful rant by George Felis, who seems quite worked up and perhaps for good reason.
However, I will note regarding “climate change skeptics” that it really depends on who you include in that group and the reasons for their skepticism. Those who extend doubt beyond reason because they don’t like the conclusions reached are, rightly, to be deplored.
My skepticism is of a different sort and is not based on doubting the science involved (which I’m no doubt unqualified to assess fully). Rather, it is doubt about the political conclusions being insisted on by many along the lines of “the science indicates fact ‘a’ therefore, scientifically, you must take political action ‘Z'”.
I’m happy enough accepting the scientific finding but don’t see how it is valid to assert that political conclusions follow directly from scientific facts, and attempt to invoke the “authority of science” to do so.
My other concern (regarding “ice age then, versus global warming now”) is not that different scientific conclusions are being drawn from new or different facts. Rather it is that the same political conclusions seem to be being drawn from completely different science-based predictions. When the same political conclusions arise from what appear to be mutually contradictory scientific understandings, I can’t help but wonder if its politics and ideology that are driving matters, using science to bolster arguments only when it seems convenient.
Don’t in any way conclude that I am denying that climate change is happening or that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would be anywhere from helpful to vital. Its just that my “skepticism” button gets pushed every time someone claims that their own political ideas follow automatically from ANY scientific conclusion, and that we should all shut up and do as we’re told because “science says so”.
…Mike
What Mike Funnell writes ties in with some comments in the article by the atmosperic scientist John Christy that I previously cited:
>While most participants [of IPCC] are scientists and bring the aura of objectivity, there are two things to note:
>this is a political process to some extent (anytime governments are involved it ends up that way)
>scientists are mere mortals casting their gaze on a system so complex we cannot precisely predict its future state even five days ahead
>The political process begins with the selection of the Lead Authors because they are nominated by their own governments.< http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm
On “Skeptics” and Ignorance
There’s a simple (and therefore possibly wrong) explanation for the problem. It’s that a lot of people live by the “Competence Does Not Exist, Except Mine” theory.
“Anybody who says they’re an expert is just pretending, like Mr. so-called Gemologist here. This subject is *soooo* complicated that *nobody* understands it, and therefore he doesn’t *really* know anything at all, and so my opinion is just as good. Better, in fact, because I’ve can remember Important Facts about it.”
The definitive example is when somebody, on hearing that the person beside them is a physicist, takes gently pity and tries to explain and enlighten as to Where Einstein Got It Wrong.
Of course, to protect this mindset, they cannot themselves actually study anything at all, because that would imply that competence can exist (if not, why are they working at it?), which is not to be admitted, and therefore Not True.
And anyway, Einstein clearly stole his best ideas from Nikola Tesla, and forced his wife do all the really hard math bits.
>Einstein clearly stole his best ideas from Nikola Tesla
Tesla was skeptical about Einstein’s relativity theory, at least the ‘general’-one :
“..I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view…”
New York Herald Tribune (11 September 1932)