 sj |
||
|
||
Salman Rushdie - Outrage.
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Jun 07 - 05:26 AM I haven't met a single person (or a married one come to think of it "Right, chaps, next up is this Rushdie bloke." "Who?" Y'know, the one we had to hide for ten years from that Ayatollah feller?" "Oh, him. Thought he was dead. Anyone ever read his books?" "Nah. Bloody unreadable I've heard. Anyway, I didn't know he'd written more than one." "Yeah. Got a list of things here that he's won. Booker this, literary award that, Whitbread the other. Usual trendy bullshit stuff that no-one really takes much notice of, let alone ever agrees with. Think Oscars and Baftas and all that other self-aggrandising stuff. A lot of 'em seem to be foreign awards. Switzerland, Austria, Italy. Must be bloody masochists - it's hard enough to read his stuff in English! Even one from the US. Probably got that for getting up Iran's nose - heheh!" "Yeah, that's a thing though, innit. Things are a bit delicate again there at the minute. What if we give him this and it causes a bit of bother?" "We should give it him or not give it him on pure literary merit, nowt else! If it gets up I'm-in-a-dinner-jacket's nose, TOUGH!" "Mind you..." |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: CarolC Date: 26 Jun 07 - 03:31 AM Someone else showed that there are others who might have deserved it more, who even still live in the UK, Keith A of Hertford, but didn't get it. Your list doesn't impress me. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: Ebbie Date: 26 Jun 07 - 02:37 AM As long as you don't know their language, John Hardly, you don't know the Amish. Nothing personal nor am I putting them down - or you. They have many good qualities- I used to say that as a lifestyle, it was ideal, but to raise a kid in it was a crime. There is/was no way to win- if a kid rebelled against the parents or questioned the religion they were rebelling against God. It's a very patriarchal religion. And that's just part of it. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 26 Jun 07 - 02:05 AM Carol, I have provided a list of his achievements. These make him better qualified for recognition than most recipients of honours. There is no reason to come up with an ulterior motive because none is needed. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: CarolC Date: 25 Jun 07 - 11:53 PM My OPINION is that it was Muslim-baiting. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: Ron Davies Date: 25 Jun 07 - 09:57 PM Carol-- Good to see your clear statement--blessedly free from any allegation of "Moslem-baiting"-- that killing somebody for what he writes is totally unacceptable. Now, perhaps you'd like to enlighten us as to the mysterious reason the UK knighted Rushdie--since you don't seem to accept the idea that it was entirely for literary merit. Though, based on the acclamation he has already had--as in the recent list--his literary merit seems clearly established. Perhaps you have some new source you'd like to share. I'm sure we'd all be interested in your unique revelation. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: Riginslinger Date: 25 Jun 07 - 04:52 PM Yeah, tolerance of any faith at all seems like a really bad idea to me. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jun 07 - 04:31 PM A) Tolerance of other faiths to the extent of accepting that other people believe and practise differently. B) Relaxation or elimination of state control of religion or state religion. C) Acceptance (or toleration) of the methods and results of the scientific approach. Maybe we've got around to thinking that way now - but it certainly wasn't what the Reformation was about. And the Reformers would be turning in their grave at the notion that that was what they were trying to bring about. It took a good few centuries after that before those kind of ideas got too much of a hearing. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: CarolC Date: 25 Jun 07 - 01:10 PM Surely the civilized world should not have to pander to such foolish religious antics or perceived insult! If this statement is addressed to me, I would have to assume that you haven't actually read any of my posts in this thread other than perhaps the ones on this page. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: Riginslinger Date: 25 Jun 07 - 11:09 AM Booker Prize for Fiction James Tait Black Memorial Prize (Fiction) Arts Council Writers' Award English-Speaking Union Award Booker of Bookers or the best novel among the Booker Prize winners for Fiction Prix du Meilleur Livre Etranger Whitbread Novel Award (twice) Writers' Guild of Great Britain Award for Children's Fiction Kurt Tucholsky Prize (Sweden) Prix Colette (Switzerland) State Prize for Literature (Austria) Author of the Year (British Book Awards) Author of the Year (Germany) Mantua Prize (Italy) Premio Grinzane Cavour (Italy) Hutch Crossword Fiction Prize (India) India Abroad Lifetime Achievement Award (USA) Outstanding Lifetime Achievement in Cultural Humanism (Harvard University) Aristeion Prize (European Union) That's quite a list! |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: GUEST,dax Date: 25 Jun 07 - 09:02 AM I would suppose that if Rushdie is a British subject the government has a right to bestow state honours upon him. I didn't read anywhere that it was a result of a specific book that he wrote. I seems that it is no business of countries such as Iran and Pakistan. Surely the civilized world should not have to pander to such foolish religious antics or perceived insult! |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: John Hardly Date: 25 Jun 07 - 06:05 AM "John, they don't come much more fundamentalist than the Amish. Want to try arguing their side?" If you're questioning my familiarity with the Amish, you're barking up the wrong tree. Grace College (my alma mater) is Grace Brethren -- from the same Anabaptist tradition as Mennonite and Amish. That, coupled with the facts that I regularly play music with a bunch of Mennonites, and live in the biggest Amish community in Indiana (one of the bigger ones in the country) that stretches from here in Warsaw (S) to Shipshewana (N) to LaGrange (E) to Nappanee (W), I have more than a passing acquaintance. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Jun 07 - 04:45 AM Awards that Rushdie has won include the following: Booker Prize for Fiction James Tait Black Memorial Prize (Fiction) Arts Council Writers' Award English-Speaking Union Award Booker of Bookers or the best novel among the Booker Prize winners for Fiction Prix du Meilleur Livre Etranger Whitbread Novel Award (twice) Writers' Guild of Great Britain Award for Children's Fiction Kurt Tucholsky Prize (Sweden) Prix Colette (Switzerland) State Prize for Literature (Austria) Author of the Year (British Book Awards) Author of the Year (Germany) Mantua Prize (Italy) Premio Grinzane Cavour (Italy) Hutch Crossword Fiction Prize (India) India Abroad Lifetime Achievement Award (USA) Outstanding Lifetime Achievement in Cultural Humanism (Harvard University) Aristeion Prize (European Union) |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: CarolC Date: 24 Jun 07 - 11:17 PM Ad hominem, dax? Got nothing better to offer? Freedom of expression is a fine thing, as long as it isn't outweighed by certain other kinds of considerations, like for instance, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, and things like that. Rushdie had a right to publish his book. No one had a right to threaten his life because of it. I just am not of the opinion that this "honour" was bestowed for reasons having anything to do with "freedom of expression", or even necessarily his contributions to literature in the UK. But as I said, that's my opinion. You may feel differently. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: GUEST,dax Date: 24 Jun 07 - 10:48 PM For someone with nothing more to say CarolC seems to suffer from verbal overload. Perhaps she would want to show her colours by stating her views on freedom of expression. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: Riginslinger Date: 24 Jun 07 - 09:53 PM That's the issue that interests me. Is Rushdie really worth reading, or is he simply talked about in literary circles because of the timely death threats surrounding "Satanic Versus?" Threats which could have been fabricated pretty easily, by the way. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: GUEST, hi lo Date: 24 Jun 07 - 08:02 PM two points, many people are outraged for the wrong reason,some who should be outraged are silent, secondly, snd this is only my opinion, Mr. Rushdie is not really a very good writer. He is famous for all of the wrong reasons. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Jun 07 - 07:46 PM Beardedbruce is Pontius Pilate! I knew it! |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: GUEST,Ingrowing Toenail Date: 24 Jun 07 - 01:18 PM Agreed it was wrong to issue a fatwah against him, but which mudcatter would you issue one against ! Come on there has to be a thread in this one. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: CarolC Date: 24 Jun 07 - 01:17 PM Almost forgot, they also want capital punishment for anyone who doesn't believe as they do. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: CarolC Date: 24 Jun 07 - 01:15 PM All of your points have been realized by the majority of Christians, robomatic (but not all, by any stretch of the imagination), but there are factions that grow more politically powerful every day who are trying to reverse all of that. They are working very hard to reverse all of your criteria, and they are making progress toward that goal. Their goal is nothing less than a (right-wing) Christian theocracy in the US (with capital punishment for everything from adultery to apostasy to striking a parent). Google "Christian Reconstructionism" and "Dominionism". |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Jun 07 - 07:45 AM 5) "Why has stem cell research been curtailed?" How has it been curtailed? The US Government has decided not to fund it, but private funds are certainly legal to use. Are you claiming that anything NOT funded by the government is thus being curtailed????? If so, I have a number of examples that are not presently being funded, in spite of the fact I think they are things we shouls be doing. 6) "Why are women denied the choice of abortion?" Are they being denied the choice, or just US Government funding for that choice. Are YOU ( or rather, the US citizen who objects to something) to be forced to PROVIDE something by the use of taxes), just because anyone else wants it? We have a process by which, if the MAJORITY of people want the government to pay for something, they can elect a like minded administration and Congress. But should that mean the enforced provision ( by those tax dollars paid to support the government) of those things that some object to? |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: Teribus Date: 24 Jun 07 - 07:04 AM HELLO! Dianavan, I believe that Robomatic was referring to the situation as exists today when he stated: A) Tolerance of other faiths to the extent of accepting that other people believe and practise differently. B) Relaxation or elimination of state control of religion or state religion. C) Acceptance (or toleration) of the methods and results of the scientific approach. - Robomatic So your questions are irrelevant and only serve to show how the west has progressed. 1) "If the west is so enlightened and/or reformed, why did the Christian Brothers sexually abuse all those heathen Indian kids? Why was it unlawful to practice the ghost dances?" Note use of past tense - "why did" and "why was" 2) "Why were the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland fighting?" Fallacy, the fighting in Ireland was deliniated not by religion but by political aspiration - Nationalist/Republican V Unionist. I have met and known both Protestants and Catholics who were supporters of both sides. 3) "Why did the holocaust occur?" Again past tense, and exactly how many of them has there been? 4) "Why is polygamy outlawed?" In and around Salt Lake City Dianavan how many wives can a Morman have? 5) "Why has stem cell research been curtailed?" Stem cell research has been curtailed where dianavan? Throughout the western world? How much stem cell research is being carried out in Islamic countries? Is it ultimately being carried out to benefit mankind? 6) "Why are women denied the choice of abortion?" Are women throughout the western world denied the choice of abortion? Somehow don't think so dianavan, certainly not on this side of the pond 7) "Why are homosexuals denied same-sex marriage?" Are they? Now then dianavan take a look at the state of things in all those wonderfully enlightened Islamic countries and come back to us on the points made by Robomatic and yourself. Dianavan I bet the number of homosexuals who got stoned in sunny California, or down there in Florida at anyone time was quite high. A number of them also got stoned in Saudi Arabia and Iran - but it was not quite the same thing. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 24 Jun 07 - 02:35 AM HELLO! A) Tolerance of other faiths to the extent of accepting that other people believe and practise differently. B) Relaxation or elimination of state control of religion or state religion. C) Acceptance (or toleration) of the methods and results of the scientific approach. - Robomatic If the west is so enlightened and/or reformed, why did the Christian Brothers sexually abuse all those heathen Indian kids? Why was it unlawful to practice the ghost dances? Why were the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland fighting? Why did the holocaust occur? Why is polygamy outlawed? Why has stem cell research been curtailed? Why are women denied the choice of abortion? Why are homosexuals denied same-sex marriage? |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: robomatic Date: 24 Jun 07 - 02:12 AM I believe the term "Enlightenment" and possibly also "Reformation" has some definite meanings which are important to the points I've been trying to bring to the fore: A) Tolerance of other faiths to the extent of accepting that other people believe and practise differently. B) Relaxation or elimination of state control of religion or state religion. C) Acceptance (or toleration) of the methods and results of the scientific approach. Only recently has there been this development in the West, and it was long and bloody in coming. This has definitely not penetrated the Islamic world anything close to the West, and if the history of the West is anything to go by, the Islamic world has a long way to go. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: Ebbie Date: 23 Jun 07 - 10:58 PM John, they don't come much more fundamentalist than the Amish. Want to try arguing their side? "I betcha dollars to donuts I can tell you what most, if not all, of those interdenominational/interchurch/innerchurch disagreements are, and I betcha those same donuts I could argue either side and, though I'm pretty rusty on doing so, I betcha the donut holes that I could even give you the main prooftexts that either side would use in their side of the debate." |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: CarolC Date: 23 Jun 07 - 10:03 PM I won't say I understand it, but I know what the fundamentals are, and I know what the fundamentalist Christians I've spent time with believe. But he was a salesman before he was your savior. That is, if we are to accept your premise that those who prosletize are salesmen. According to your holy book that's what he devoted most of his life to right up until the time of his death. I'll tell you what I think the fundamentals of your religion are, and you tell me if I'm wrong. The fundamentals of your religion are that Jesus Christ is the son of God, that he died for your sins, and that a personal relationship with God and Jesus Christ, and acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal savior are the requirements for salvation. Am I close? Pretty much all of the fundamentalist Christians I have encountered hold those beliefs as the fundamentals of their religion. However, as I said before, the belief I have been talking about with regard to the second coming has never been presented as one of the fundamentals of the religion of those fundamentalist Christians who believe it. I don't need to understand them or their religion to know what they themselves have said they believe. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: John Hardly Date: 23 Jun 07 - 09:28 PM "He was your first salesman, wasn't he?" If you think that, then you really don't understand fundamentalism. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: CarolC Date: 23 Jun 07 - 09:21 PM Anyway, my car's not broken. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: CarolC Date: 23 Jun 07 - 09:19 PM John, try to trivialize my experiences all you want. It doesn't change the facts. And as I've said, my experience covers the whole spectrum. Listening to the prosletyzers, listening to adherents discussing, debating and arguing amongst themselves, as well as discussing, debating and arguing with them myself. I know what the fundamentalist Christians I've spent a large portion of my life with believe. And if we can't trust your salesmen, what does that say about your savior? He was your first salesman, wasn't he? |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: John Hardly Date: 23 Jun 07 - 08:52 PM Yeah. Good rule of thumb -- you need to get your car fixed, the salesman's the guy to take it to. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: CarolC Date: 23 Jun 07 - 08:20 PM I've lived it too, John. I've had them prosletizing at me for just about as long as I can remember. That's religious training, even if it's not formal church training. You learn a lot about a religion from being prosletyzed at. And although I'm pretty sure I know what you consider the fundamentals of your religion, and you probably aren't all that different from my mother in that regard, nevertheless there are many people who are self-described fundamentalist Christians who believe that there are certain things that need to happen in the Middle East in order to create the conditions that will allow the second coming of Christ. I seriously doubt that any of them would describe that belief as being one of the fundamentals of their religions, but they do believe it, and their votes reflect that belief. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 Jun 07 - 08:17 PM There are plenty of fundamentalist Christians about. Quite a lot of them swan around in cassocks or other such impractical vestments, eschew sex and marriage (at least officially ;-) )and preach to the world about the "evils" of masturbation/contraception/sex before marriage/the right of women to choose whether or not to have abortions. Oddly, most of the more influential of these happen to be men. Had it not been for increased knowledge and scientific advance, I'm certain that they'd still be propagating the message that wanking would not only consign you to hellfire but would also make you blind and give you hairy palms. Steve (short-sighted and, well, wanna shake hands? :-D ) |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: John Hardly Date: 23 Jun 07 - 08:12 PM Not far from truth at all. I betcha dollars to donuts I can tell you what most, if not all, of those interdenominational/interchurch/innerchurch disagreements are, and I betcha those same donuts I could argue either side and, though I'm pretty rusty on doing so, I betcha the donut holes that I could even give you the main prooftexts that either side would use in their side of the debate. I'm telling you... I don't just know about this stuff. I LIVED in the midst of it for forty years. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: CarolC Date: 23 Jun 07 - 08:00 PM I've spent enough time (several decades) listening to fundamentalist Christians of many different denominations and varieties argue and debate with one another to know that what you're saying is far from the truth, John. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: CarolC Date: 23 Jun 07 - 07:58 PM I don't adhere to any particular religion myself, Steve, and I'm also not an atheist. I have to agree with you to the extent that I think the term "enlightenment" is highly subjective. My use of it in this thread is using the meaning that I understand others to be using for that term. To me "enlightenment" means something entirely different than the way it's being used in this discussion. And from my perspective, there are no current established religions have gotten to that point. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: John Hardly Date: 23 Jun 07 - 07:51 PM Oh, I'm pretty comfortable that I'm knowledgeable enough about why a Christian would refer to themselves as "fundamentalist" to assume a pretty predictable set of "fundamentals" of them. And I'm knowledgeable enough to know when a group is rather "fringe". You pick up on these little details when you've had theology classes for 25 years of your life. I'm not denominational. I am officially part of what the fundies used to refer to as the "unchurched". If you want my history of church attendance and affiliation I could give it. But as little as you know of Christianity, it wouldn't mean much to you. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 Jun 07 - 07:49 PM As an atheist I am constantly amused by this idea of one religion having gone through "an enlightenment" but not the other. The only true enlightenment for anyone of a religious persuasion is the sudden realisation that you'd actually better stand on your own two feet for once instead of invoking some "deity" or other to bale you out, and be prepared to turn into nowt more than compost in the fullness of time! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: CarolC Date: 23 Jun 07 - 07:37 PM John, I think you are as aware as I am that there are many, many branches and different kinds of fundamentalist Christianity. You are familiar with the kind you grew up with. Clearly there are many kinds with which you are not familiar. There's lots and lots of them, and to try to suggest that the particular kind you come from is typical is pretty disingenuous. What is the name of your denomination? How many adherents are there in your particular denomination? |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Jun 07 - 07:18 PM The thing is that the term "fundamentalist" covers a whole range of different varieties, both in Christianity and in Islam. The mistake people fall into is to lump them all in together. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: heric Date: 23 Jun 07 - 06:53 PM lol I revoke the fatwah on you. And I DO speak for the fathwahnians of Bakersfield. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: John Hardly Date: 23 Jun 07 - 06:34 PM You must have missed this... "I went to a fundamentalist elementary school. I went to a fundamentalist junior high. I went to a fundamentalist high school. I went to a fundamenmtalist college. I attended fundamentalist seminary classes" I don't "speak for" all fundamentalists. Don't claim to. But I doubt that anyone here has had more experience than I with being on the inside of Fundamentalist Christianity, nor more education in fundamentalist Christian theology. There may be someone else here, but they have, at this point anyway, kept that under their hat. But if I'm interested in technogeek stuff, I ask John from Kansas or any number of other tech geeks here. When I'm interested in physics questions, I ask the physics geeks here. When I have a guitar question, I ask M. Ted or Mooh. I never thought to ask Mooh or M. Ted what gives them the right to speak for all guitar players. I'll have to ask them next time. Now you've got me kinda pissed at the HUBRIS of Mooh and M. Ted. The NERVE of those guys! |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: CarolC Date: 23 Jun 07 - 06:20 PM BTW, what is your denomination, John, and on what basis do presume to speak for all fundamentalist Christians, or even the majority of them? |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: CarolC Date: 23 Jun 07 - 06:12 PM oh yeah, those guys. There's lots and lots of them. Sometimes it's really, really difficult to get away from them, like for instance when driving a car in any number of rural areas, particularly here in the US South, when it isn't possible to get other kinds of stations. They're pretty ubiquitous. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: CarolC Date: 23 Jun 07 - 06:10 PM Oops... missed this part: ...and a charismatic Presbyterian, while maybe not a cult, would hardly be typical or exemplary of "fundamentalism" My mother and her congregation would disagree with you on that point. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: John Hardly Date: 23 Jun 07 - 06:10 PM oh yeah, those guys. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: CarolC Date: 23 Jun 07 - 06:08 PM which "radio preachers" do you listen to? Just random ones while flipping around the dial from time to time. |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: John Hardly Date: 23 Jun 07 - 05:57 PM Ebbie, there is nothing -- even residual -- that resembles the Baptist theology of the past several hundred years in what Moyers believes. Moyers claim to "baptist" is like the old guy who claims he bought George Washington's hatchet at an auction. Sure, the handle's been replaced 7 times and the head's been replaced twice in the past two hundred years -- but he SWEARS it's still George Washington's hatchet. ...and a charismatic Presbyterian, while maybe not a cult, would hardly be typical or exemplary of "fundamentalism". |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: Ebbie Date: 23 Jun 07 - 05:30 PM John Hardly, you call a Baptist minister ant-christian? |
|
Subject: RE: Salman Rushdie - Outrage. From: John Hardly Date: 23 Jun 07 - 05:26 PM which "radio preachers" do you listen to? |
| Share Thread: |
