OT: The pope's comments

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

We all compete to survive like it or not. We compete for scarcity of resources, for mates, for jobs, for wealth, for happiness, for freedom. That's the way life is. And that's the way life should be. In fact I would argue one of the major problems of the world is that we don't compete enough. Lack of competition is creating our overpopulation problem. Read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn for some really brillant ideas on the subject.

Or, we compete too much.. creating the perception of scarcity, when, in fact, there is plenty to go around.. but, out of competition, some people hoard and do not share.. others see the imbalance and out of frustration and survival seek to acquire by force.. Competition for mates is a social disease, one where everyone desires that which may be unreasonable according to their situation.. Overpopulation is not a result of lack of competition or lack of destructive wars as the message implies.. it is a misconception, based on concentrated population centers.. again, a preference of the people to concentrate in specific areas.. there are vast open areas easily adaptable for dispersing population masses..

Competition is not the solution.. cooperative efforts administered by forward thinking sages will find and effect solutions to the world,s problems.. "Competition" as described in the quote is a path back to the dark ages.. Friendly competition toward a common goal is a great incentive, competition as a component of the philosophy of "survival of the fittest" is just a sad signature of a passing phase of evolution.. Great civilizations and huge amounts of valuable knowledge have vanished is the wake of destructive competition.. Today, we stand on the brink of world-wide conflict due to this level of thinking..

I look to a future where people work together to solve their problems, not kill each other over those problems.. if we rely on conflict to neutralize the problems they will only reappear, we must cooperatively solve them..

Be well..

[Faruq]

Though the part about the Qur'an instructing muslims to spread Islam by the sword is not correct, I have to say that I wouldn't be surprised if muslems did it anyway. But who's going to learn Arabic just to be able to speak intelligently on what Islamic texts really say? The biggest problem is how muslims today can't really differentiate between Islam, and the backward cultural practices of their individual countries.

Today you'll see practices like suppressing women (for example) promoted in muslim communities as Islam, when if you examine religious texts like Hadiths, you'll see that it's not endorsed by their holy books. In the days of the prophet Muhammad, women even came up to him cursing him out when their sons converted to Islam and he didn't have them beaten or killed though his disciples were chomping at the bit to do so, but calmly answered their curses politely. Do todays muslims follow his example though, no? And what do the religious texts really matter, if the muslims themselves don't follow them.

The problem is that no one really cares what Islam or the Qur'an really says, let alone being capable of learning second, third and fourth languages like the Europeans, or wanting to learn about Muslim culture. The few people that do bother to read usually read summaries rather than Islamic texts, often written by biased non-muslims. I would recommend a book written by a Muslim like "Conference of the Books: The Search for Beauty in Islam" by Khaled M Abou El Fadl instead. I mean would you trust Muslims to tell you the truth about Christianity? So why would you ask Christians what Islam was really about, right?

Other than that, if people were interested they'd have to look at both sides of the news stories, not just what's on network news. Books by MIT's Noam Chomsky have always been good for that, and Hamza Yusuf's Zaytuna Institute (www.zaytuna.org or www.alhambraproductions.com) has been pretty progressive in regards to it's Islamic teachings. But most people are content just repeating the misinformation they hear on the news, even if they've heard the truth about the issues from Muslims themselves. So why bother, right?

What do you cats think of the pope's comments about Islam? I don't think they are far from the true.

[Faruq]

And I might add talking to actual moslims. Though it's obviously necessary to denounce their acts, denouncing and dissmissing them hasn't resolved our problem with them. So maybe we should look to other means or resolving the world problem with terrorism. How about interfaith dinners?

Learn their culture.

Understand their people's history.

Respect them as equals (don't treat them like heathens)

Listen more to them; comment less on what they believe.

Be compassionate and caring about their needs.

Most important of all whatever you do don't turn your back towards them and be watchful.

Mantis108

[Merryprankster]

This thread changed a bit.

Faruq - Noam Chomsky would be a good resource if he didn't base his arguments on out of context information and/or flat out poor research. Further, he enters his arguments already assuming the sorts of things he his trying to prove, which basically means that he's always looking to read his agenda into the information he presents, instead of trying to figure out what the information actually means.

Basically, he's Ann Coulter with a better education and more mastery of detail, and far less entertainment factor. When he preaches, only the choir listens.

Point being: We should use information to form our opinions, not interpret every piece of information with the assumption that our opinions are correct. I've changed my mind on several occasions, as new information comes to light, even on issues some might find as "fundamental" to a particular ideological bent.

I've yet to see Noam Chomsky do anything like that, which suggests to me that he is hidebound. So much for academic responsibility...

Edward Said is a MUCH better person for this sort of thing, especially on this topic. He gets his story straight, and still makes intelligence commentary.

Corwin - the three pillars of power in traditional international theory are: Military, Economic, Population. Cultural and Moral are two others that have been accepted, and I'm inclined to agree with them. The danger in sending the "wrath of Rome" down on the offending party is this:

The military is a blunt instrument, and its use ****es off many many people, which reduces your moral authority. If you do not demonstrate complete mastery in the military realm, then what you wind up doing is actually demonstrating the limits of your power. When you show them the limits of your power, they think they might be able to beat you - or at least resist - and if you've sacrificed a good chunk of your moral suasion, there is a strong chance they will. Please see Iraq for a textbook case of this in action.

Iran's defiance is a case in point. Anybody who thinks they are looking for a peaceful nuclear program is an absolute fool, and yet they continue to thumb their nose at the international community because they know the United States has lost its moral leadership (for now) and can't build strong international consensus with a will to act, AND because they know that the United States has cashed in its reserve of international goodwill in Iraq, which makes us highly less likely to unilaterally use force in Iran - since indications are that a quick missile strike will NOT make the capability go away.

TWS - please tell me how WE created the terrorists. Firstly, define we. Secondly, by using the word created, you are suggesting that certain conditions are being met or exist - what are those conditions and how did they come about? Finally, what about terrorism makes it "the" choice, so to speak. For instance, if I go to an ice cream store and really want ice cream and they have only vanilla, then I better take vanilla. But if I go and they've got 30 other flavors, then I don't have to choose vanilla.

I'm not jumping on your **** (yet), I'm trying to determine what you are basing your opinion on - not that your opinion is baseless, just asking what information you have used to build your opinion.

[Royal Dragon]

And I might add talking to actual moslims. Though it's obviously necessary to denounce their acts, denouncing and dissmissing them hasn't resolved our problem with them. So maybe we should look to other means or resolving the world problem with terrorism. How about interfaith dinners?

Reply]
How about turning them all to glass?

[mantis108]

And I might add talking to actual moslims. Though it's obviously necessary to denounce their acts, denouncing and dissmissing them hasn't resolved our problem with them. So maybe we should look to other means or resolving the world problem with terrorism. How about interfaith dinners?

Checked! Interfaith dinner is a good suggestion. So whose bringing the homus?

Mantis108

[Faruq]

If you could do it, it'd be acceptable. But since you can't, what're you going to do? What we've been doing hasn't ended the problem, so what now?

And I should add, you're honesty as far as your feelings is admirable. Most people feign a liberal position, which doesn't allow them to voice and resolve their real feelings toward muslems. I would think your sentiment would reflect that of most Americans. I mean look at what our own politicians are doing:

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/20...ant&frame=true

I mean even I have been hurt by what the terrorists did, though not as tragically as my fellow citizens who were in New York on 9/11. In no other country in the world can one change their social and economic status as you can in America, and the great competitive entrepreneurial spirit is one of the things that has made America so great. But because of the terrorists, I experience much more hinderance as far as prejudice and distrust on the part of the people I have to do business with. And as a Black man, I can tell you I don't take kindly to anyone messing with my money, as the terrorists have.

The terrorists seem to want to destroy America, we want to destroy them, and since we haven't really be able to do it in one fell swoop, I really can't see any simple resolution to our problem. It's a sad and tragic situation.

And I might add talking to actual moslims. Though it's obviously necessary to denounce their acts, denouncing and dissmissing them hasn't resolved our problem with them. So maybe we should look to other means or resolving the world problem with terrorism. How about interfaith dinners?

Reply]
How about turning them all to glass?

[Faruq]

I see you don't like Noam. Touche. I like him, and haven't seen him base any arguments on out of context information and/or flat out poor research. And of you and him, I like his credentials better, and believe him over you. But we're all entitled to our preferences and opinions.

This thread changed a bit.

Faruq - Noam Chomsky would be a good resource if he didn't base his arguments on out of context information and/or flat out poor research. Further, he enters his arguments already assuming the sorts of things he his trying to prove, which basically means that he's always looking to read his agenda into the information he presents, instead of trying to figure out what the information actually means.

Basically, he's Ann Coulter with a better education and more mastery of detail, and far less entertainment factor. When he preaches, only the choir listens.

Point being: We should use information to form our opinions, not interpret every piece of information with the assumption that our opinions are correct. I've changed my mind on several occasions, as new information comes to light, even on issues some might find as "fundamental" to a particular ideological bent.

I've yet to see Noam Chomsky do anything like that, which suggests to me that he is hidebound. So much for academic responsibility...

Edward Said is a MUCH better person for this sort of thing, especially on this topic. He gets his story straight, and still makes intelligence commentary.

Corwin - the three pillars of power in traditional international theory are: Military, Economic, Population. Cultural and Moral are two others that have been accepted, and I'm inclined to agree with them. The danger in sending the "wrath of Rome" down on the offending party is this:

The military is a blunt instrument, and its use ****es off many many people, which reduces your moral authority. If you do not demonstrate complete mastery in the military realm, then what you wind up doing is actually demonstrating the limits of your power. When you show them the limits of your power, they think they might be able to beat you - or at least resist - and if you've sacrificed a good chunk of your moral suasion, there is a strong chance they will. Please see Iraq for a textbook case of this in action.

Iran's defiance is a case in point. Anybody who thinks they are looking for a peaceful nuclear program is an absolute fool, and yet they continue to thumb their nose at the international community because they know the United States has lost its moral leadership (for now) and can't build strong international consensus with a will to act, AND because they know that the United States has cashed in its reserve of international goodwill in Iraq, which makes us highly less likely to unilaterally use force in Iran - since indications are that a quick missile strike will NOT make the capability go away.

TWS - please tell me how WE created the terrorists. Firstly, define we. Secondly, by using the word created, you are suggesting that certain conditions are being met or exist - what are those conditions and how did they come about? Finally, what about terrorism makes it "the" choice, so to speak. For instance, if I go to an ice cream store and really want ice cream and they have only vanilla, then I better take vanilla. But if I go and they've got 30 other flavors, then I don't have to choose vanilla.

I'm not jumping on your **** (yet), I'm trying to determine what you are basing your opinion on - not that your opinion is baseless, just asking what information you have used to build your opinion.

[Merryprankster]

I see you don't like Noam

I don't know anything about him, personally. I might quite like to have a beer with him, for all I know.


My distrust of his work comes from the fact that numerous people have not taken issue with his argument, but his facts. I don't jump on the "he said the Khmer Rouge wasn't so bad!!!" bandwagon, like a lot of people, nor do I have a problem, necessarily, with an anti-American bent.

I have strong concerns about his fact-checking and research. Many, many people have the same concerns. There is reportedly a disconcerting tendency to eliminate vital bits of contextual information.

He's entitled to his opinions, just not his personal set of facts.

This is why I prefer commentators, like I said, such as Edward Said, or Khalid Rashidi. They have the same ideological bent - especially as regards perceptions of Western oppression of the ME - but at least their facts are generally not in dispute.

Incidentally, I do have a couple of Noam Chomsky books laying around - so I'm not speaking totally blind here.

But, as you say - to each their own.

[unkokusai]

I don't know anything about him, personally. I might quite like to have a beer with him, for all I know.


My distrust of his work comes from the fact that numerous people have not taken issue with his argument, but his facts. I don't jump on the "he said the Khmer Rouge wasn't so bad!!!" bandwagon, like a lot of people, nor do I have a problem, necessarily, with an anti-American bent.

I have strong concerns about his fact-checking and research. Many, many people have the same concerns. There is reportedly a disconcerting tendency to eliminate vital bits of contextual information.

He's entitled to his opinions, just not his personal set of facts.

This is why I prefer commentators, like I said, such as Edward Said, or Khalid Rashidi. They have the same ideological bent - especially as regards perceptions of Western oppression of the ME - but at least their facts are generally not in dispute.

Incidentally, I do have a couple of Noam Chomsky books laying around - so I'm not speaking totally blind here.

But, as you say - to each their own.

He's a brilliant linguist and just another silly old hysterical extremist when it comes to politics.

[Mr Punch]

And I might add talking to actual moslims. Though it's obviously necessary to denounce their acts, denouncing and dissmissing them hasn't resolved our problem with them. So maybe we should look to other means or resolving the world problem with terrorism. How about interfaith dinners?

Reply]
How about turning them all to glass?

How about a racist ***** calling for the genocide of a number of peoples? My, that's funny. And don't accuse me of having sand in my vagina... to paraphrase Chris Rock:

First I was seeing all these bumper stickers, these flags with 'Support America - Against Terrorism'... I thought that's cool... support America against terrorism... (redneck voice) support America against terrorism... then it changed see... it became (redneck voice) support America against Arabs... support America against Islam... then I's a-got a bit jumpy... I'm looking round for (redneck voice) n!ggers and Jews next!

Ban this turd!