Obit: More Muslim intolerance?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:18 PM

CarolC, my whole point is that the British did not experience widespread terrorism in the independence struggle - only 60 years ago

This is your whole point? I suspect it was not intended to be your "whole" point, but you are now realizing how little you actually do know about history, and you don't want me to post any more information that will show you to be the ignorant person you really are.

However, you have been consistantly maintaining that this:

Islam IS more prone to fanaticism than other religions

...is your only real point. So do you now concede that the above statement by you about Islam being more prone to fanaticism than other religions is bullshit? Or shall we have at it some more?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:32 PM

While you'r googling away I would like to aswer another point of yours, one especially offensive to one as fond of India and Indians as I am. This is that I am wilfully ignoring Hindu fundamentalism/terrorism because it doesn't suit my argument that 'only Muslims are terrorists' (where have I argued this? What were the IRA but terrorists? However this thread is concerned with whether Islam is more prone to terrism, or whether this is a misrepresentation), because it doesn't affect Westerners and because 'I don't give a shit' (what kind of talk is that?). Let me point out some differences between violence perpetrated between Hindus and Islam.
(1) Hindi fundamentalism certainly exists, but (I wearily re-iterate)the proportion of practitioners is higher in Islam than in Hinduism. Proof of this is that the Hindu Nationalist BJP had just been quietly removed from power in India by peaceful democratic means. No fundamentalist Islamic regime has ever been removed from power by peaceful democratic means. This is NOT because of 'western interference'; as Wolfgang has pointed out above, the whole way of thinking of fundamentalist Islam is opposed to democracy.
(2)Hindu terrorism and communal violence was almost unknown before the Muslim invasion of India, to which it is a historical response. The peaceful co-existence, merging and blurring between Hinduism, Jainism, Animism, tribal religions and Buddhism are familiar to even the most casual student of Indian history. From the start Islam has been rigid and dogmatic (with the honorable exception of the Sufis and other mystical sects, who were and are frequently persecuted). For most of its history Islam has sought to convert, kill or keep in subservience other religions in its orbit, exactly like medieval Christianity. The difference is that where Muslims are in a large majority this is still observable today - quite unlike Hindu India.
(3)Most Hindu violence is short term, localised and directly caused by rabble-rousing local politicians for personal short-term political gain. The Muslim violence is far more widely directed (heard of what's going on in Sudan at the moment?) but mostly is part of a massive, coldly planned and executed campaign aimed at all aspects of the 'corrupt', 'decadent' west, quite apart from more reasonable reactions against direct western interference (please note, again, I was firmly against the Iraq war and am a solid Palestinian supporter). This brings us right back to the murdered Dutchman with which the thread started.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 04:38 PM

OK CarolC, since you insist on me spelling it out, I meant my 'whole point' in mentioning that I had been to India and studied it - something you know perfectly well.

Now who's the troll?

Martin Gibson, I would be more impressed with your praise if you opposed CarolC with some kind of cogent argument of your own instead of constant foul abuse.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 05:20 PM

OK CarolC, since you insist on me spelling it out, I meant my 'whole point' in mentioning that I had been to India and studied it - something you know perfectly well.

Nope. I do not know that perfectly well. I am not going to try to read your mind. It's far too convoluted, and not at all interesting.

So are you now saying that you do not maintain that Islam is more prone to fanaticism than any other religion, or are you still saying that it is more prone to fanatacism than any other religion?

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 05:23 PM

It's more fun to cheer you on, Oooh Ahhh.

It's also that I don't feel like wasting my time arguing with a wench who thinks she knows it all like you are doing.

It's just not worth it. Time is precious.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Com Seangan
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 05:35 PM

We are all inclined to listen more to ourselves tahn anyone else. Yes, me included. If we stand back a bit maybe we have much more in common than we are prepared to admit.

I feel sure of one thing. Given the human condition, the people in power are reluctant to share that power with those whom they want to keep inferior. May I give Northern Ireland as an example? There would be still discrimintaion against Catholics getting jobs and Catholics getting housing were not people prepared to stand up and challenge and fight. That is the sad reality. It is not really a Protestant/Catholic thing. It is a poer thging. Like the Crusades was a power thing.

REligion is used as a tool.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 06:06 PM

Ok then, let's start with this one right here:

(3)Most Hindu violence is short term, localised and directly caused by rabble-rousing local politicians for personal short-term political gain. The Muslim violence is far more widely directed (heard of what's going on in Sudan at the moment?) but mostly is part of a massive, coldly planned and executed campaign aimed at all aspects of the 'corrupt', 'decadent' west, quite apart from more reasonable reactions against direct western interference (please note, again, I was firmly against the Iraq war and am a solid Palestinian supporter). This brings us right back to the murdered Dutchman with which the thread started.

You clearly know nothing about either the Sudan, nor Hindu terrorism and what it is meant to accomplish.

In Sudan, both of the warring sides are Muslims in the Darfur region. That conflict is not Muslims against non-Muslims. Now, the southern rebels are a mixture of Christians and Muslims. But those rebels are acting against the establised government. So if countries like the US and Britain were backing the Sudanese government (which they are not... they want Sudan's oil resources for themselves), the US and Britain would be labeling the southern rebles as "terrorists".

The Hindu terrorists have a much more long term and cold blooded goal than you seem to realize. Their goal is to make India an all Hindu country. I can show you many cases where the tactics being used are totally cold-blooded, calculating, and highely organized acts that are designed to promote this long-term agenda.

Your idea that the real goal of all Muslim terrorism is to target the entire "West" is also bullshit. Their primary agenda (as stated by them) is to end the intereference of the West in the Muslim countries.

The practice of targeting people who criticize Muslims is not the kind of terrorism that is causing most of the problems with Islamic terrorism. And as we have established, Muslims are not the only ones who are committing those kinds of terrorist acts. In fact, I discovered an incident in which a Muslim painter was attacked for making paintings that the more fundamentalist Hindus find offensive because they portray Hindu deities in the nude.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 12:22 AM

It's true that I have been reading up on the subject of India and of Hindus and "terrorism" in India. And what I'm finding astonishes me. It shouldn't, I suppose, since I've seen the same thing with one or two other countries, but what I am seeing is that the line of reasoning you are using, Ooh-Aah2, is very much in keeping with the official version of events that is promoted by the government of India and some Hindu organizations. But there are many, many conflicting narratives of which you seem to be entirely unaware. One of which does, indeed, involve "terrorist" acts committed by Hindus during the struggle for independence from Britain.

But some of the other problems I've been encountering while trying to research the validity (or lack of validity) of your arguments, is that even terms like "Hindu" and "India", are exceedingly difficult to pin down, and the history of conflicts between different factions is equally so. For instance, one version of events I have encountered holds that the Aryans invaded India from the north and brutally repressed the Buddhists. And other sources (by far the majority) hold that the term "Hindu", in historical terms is completely meaningless because India had many, many different indigenous spiritual/religious sects, and that "Hindu" originally only referred to anyone who lived in India, or more particularly, on one side of the Indus River.

From what I have been able to gather, all of the different indigenous religions in India (plus whatever religions the Aryans brought to India with them) are grouped under the umbrella term "Hindu", while religions that traveled to India from elsewhere are called by the names they had before arriving in India.

In more recent history, the term Hindu has been defined by the government of India, but it only categorizes what can be legally considered "Hindu" in the present historical sense. It doesn't really address what was done by whom and when in the historical sense.

So to try to suggest that there is a particular tendency among Hindus (historically speaking) as compared to any other religions is very misleading, and just not true.

The other bit of misinformation you have is the idea that "Hindus" did not participate in "terrorist" acts during the struggle for independence. Again, that is the official government line, but people who were involved in revolutionary movements are saying otherwise. Interestingly, there are very few references to which religion the various participants belonged to. They just called themselves "Indians". I have had to do further research to get any idea about their religion, and also to try to deduce their religion from their names. But the idea that the people who were not Muslims (and who would be considered "Hindus" by the current legal definition) did not commit "terrorist" acts is incorrect, although the people themselves are pretty adamant that they consider what they were doing not to be "terrorist activities", but rather "revolutionary activities". Still, people got killed and buildings and other infrastructure were destroyed.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 12:40 PM

No one cares, anymore CarolC.

We are all sick of the world according to you.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:38 PM

CarolC, with a certain reluctance (it's clear your heart is in the right place) I'm starting to think that Martin Gibson may be partially right about you. Your logic-chopping and peculiar combination of wierd theories which you have laid out above re. Hinduism, is so absurd it made me shake my head in disbelief. It might interest you to know, for example, that the first 'Aryan invaders'reached India's western borders somewhere between 1600 and 1500 BCE. The Buddha lived and preached around 563-483 BCE. It would be therefore rather difficult for the arriving Aryans to 'brutally repress' the Buddhists!

I'm sorry, but I feel I have underlined your basic lack of knowledge enough to gracefully finish here. I'm confident that any fair-minded person who reads through my posts will see that I am no bigot but a liberal struggling with an awkward reality, and that I have argued my point convincingly.

Pip, pip, pip, Beeeeep.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:45 PM

Here's an interesting site belonging to an Indian Christian organization. It lists some of the Hindu fundamentalist organizations and their objectives. I don't know if the information is 100% accurate, but it gives you an idea about what the Christians in India see themselves as being up against.

Know Your Hindu Fundamentalism:Brahmanic Terrorist Organisations

No fundamentalist Islamic regime has ever been removed from power by peaceful democratic means.

This statement is meaningless, and also misleading. And the comparison is specious. It would be much more accurate to say that no fundamentalist regime of any sort has ever been removed from power by peaceful democratic means. Because India is a parliamentary democracy, it is not accurate to call the PBJ led government that recently lost power "a fundamentalist regime". And so it is equally possible to say that no fundamentalist Hindu regime has ever been removed from power by peaceful democratic means.

Your posts also do not take into account the "terrorism" that is committed against members of the lower castes and the Dalits by members of the Hindu upper castes. This accounts for quite a lot of bloodshed and is mostly at the expense of the members of the lower castes. Here are a couple of sites that deal with that issue:

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2001_09/uk/doss22.htm

http://www.saxakali.com/southasia/hindu.htm

Earlier today I was reading an article by someone who comes from a Brahmin family background, and who has been debunking some myths about the Muslim presence in India. I have lost the link, which is a shame, because it is very interesting. And not at all in keeping with the sort of rhetoric one usually sees coming from Hindus on the subject of Muslims.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:52 PM

Those are not my theories, Ooh-Aah2. Reread my post. I said that I am encountering quite a lot of conflicting narratives about the history of India coming from various groups of people there. Your account is one of them, but hardly the only one. There is even a movement within the historian/archaeological community in India that says it has debunked the "myth of the Aryan invasion". You have not supported even one of your assrtions with any credible facts or data. You have only thrown out a number of unsupported generalizations. You have nothing to back up even a single one of your assertions except the fictional novels and travelogues you have read and the biased historical accounts written by an employeed of the British government in the 1800s (who, by the way, was allegedly made an honorary Arab because of his very deep respect for the Muslim religion).

If you bow out now, it will not be gracefully. It will be with your tail between your legs in defeat.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:57 PM

You CarolC are talking/posting to dead air.

Oooh-Ahhh finally caught on. Discussing anything with you is a waste of time and is the same as talking to a box of extra-wide tampons.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 03:57 PM

LOL

In my second to last post, it should read "BJP". Not PBJ.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 11:02 PM

No one noticed. No one cared.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 01:22 AM

Some people read and learn. Some people care.

Not everyone feels compelled to post insults all of the time.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 06:47 PM

Martin Gibson is in the right of it, but I'll bite anyway. Here are some of the authors in my library with which I back up my views on India, quite apart from my studies at university and my travels. Please note I have not included the many travel writers in my collection, despite the fact that I find the words of thoughtful people who have been, seen for themselves and researched their travels infinitely more convincing than your pathetic Google-reliant flailings.

John Stewart Mill
Mark Tully (BBC correspondent in India for decades)
Nirad C. Chaudhuri
Norman Lewis (key founder of Survival International)
Geoffrey Moorhouse
Jawaharlal Nehru
Lawrence James
Ved Mehta
Rahman Azer
M.K. Gandhi
Mir Hassan Ali Khan Kirmani
Stanley Wolpert
Lord Macaulay
Christopher Hibbert
L.N. Swamy
R.V. Vernede
Bhagwan Gidwani
Prafulla Mohanti
Phillip Mason
Phillip Davies
D.P Singhal
Katherine Mayo

Unlike yourself I do not like talking rot about what I know nothing about.
'These are not your theories'? If you don't know facts as basic as the relative positions in time of the Aryan invasions and the rise of Buddhism - which is like thinking that the Europeans were in Australia before the aborigines - how can you possibly differentiate between the agendas behind the plethora of Inda-related websites?

Face it, you are stumbling in the dark. You haven't been to India, you haven't studied India, you have not had the humility to do any serious reading, and yet you think that doing a few blue clickies on sites which you are not in a position to evaluate gives you credibility.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 08:55 PM

Unlike yourself I do not like talking rot about what I know nothing about.

Yes you do. You think reading and believing propaganda is the same thing as "knowlege". It's not. What do you have to say about the contents of the links I provided?

I've been to Canada more than ten times, and I would never be so arrogant as to suggest that I am an expert on it. Hell, I've lived almost all of my life in the US, and I have studied it at the college level, and I wouldn't even try to suggest that I am an expert on that !

And unlike you, I don't claim to be an expert on India either. But apparently unlike you, I do have an enquiring and open mind, and I am willing to learn things from many different kinds of people who have spent their whole lives there (and whose ancestors have lived their whole lives there), and not just from the ones who support the British/Hindu fundamentalist point of view.

Your claim that Islam is more prone to fundamentalism than any other religion is not based on real knowlege of anything. It is a prejudiced and bigoted point of view that you learned from the Muslim-bashers amongst the British colonialists and the Hindu fundamentalists.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, an insult from Martin Gibson is a far more honorable thing to have than a complement from him. So that path of attack will accomplish nothing with me.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 10:01 PM

If you don't know facts as basic as the relative positions in time of the Aryan invasions and the rise of Buddhism - which is like thinking that the Europeans were in Australia before the aborigines - how can you possibly differentiate between the agendas behind the plethora of Inda-related websites?

Because what I do know quite a lot about is scapegoating. When you see one group of people getting all of the criticism, and another group that is never (or hardly ever) criticized, especially when the bad things done by one group are the only thing that is discussed about them, while the bad things done by another group are completely glossed over, what you have is scapegoating. And this is what you are doing with regard to Muslims and Hindus, and Muslims and the rest of the world.

When people scapegoat others, it is always in service of an agenda. Muslims are being scapegoated at this time in the history of the world. There are reasons for that. And those reasons do not really serve what is best for humanity on the whole, and in the long run. And you are contributing to that scapegoating.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 10:07 PM

Oooh-Aahh, great work. You've got her walking to the other side of the trailer looking for that box of extra wide tampons.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 10:19 PM

CarolC,

"Because what I do know quite a lot about is scapegoating. When you see one group of people getting all of the criticism, and another group that is never (or hardly ever) criticized, especially when the bad things done by one group are the only thing that is discussed about them, while the bad things done by another group are completely glossed over, what you have is scapegoating. ...

When people scapegoat others, it is always in service of an agenda."



So, you agree with me about the one-sided scapegoating of the Bush admministration by the liberals here, to advance their own agendas.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 11:07 PM

beardedbruce, have you forgotten the times when I have agreed with you that both sides are guilty of being blind to their own faults and agendas?

One last thing for this evening, Ooh-Aah2... I have spent almost my whole life being lied to by the "experts" about the history of my own country. This is, after all, the country where generations of schoolchildren have been taught that "Columbus discovered America".

You and I both know that is bullshit. Columbus accidently stumbled onto the shores of a part of the Americas, where he immediately set about enslaving the indigenous peoples. I've been fed too many lies by people we are taught to believe are the unquestioned experts on all things to be willing to ever take them just at their word. So I investigate for myself. And I cross reference. And I look underneath the surface of things. And I have uncovered a lot of lies and deceptions and also a lot of hidden truths that way.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 11:30 PM

CarolC

No, I have not forgotten- I just wanted it on the record...

I rarely agree with you, but I respect that you believe strongly in what you say, usually without the need to attack the other side on a personnal basis. I will continue to challenge your facts, but I do not challenge your intent.

Sometimes I DO agree with you!

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 11:53 PM

Thanks beardedbruce.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jan 05 - 04:34 PM

Here's the article I lost the link to before...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,678320,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,678321,00.html

The author, Pankaj Mishra, is from a Brahmin family, although I don't think he is currently a practicing Hindu. This article has some of the most balanced writing I have come across on this subject so far.

One of the recurring themes I have been encountering is the idea that the "British Orientalists" used the ancient, pre-Muslim cultures of India as a way of promoting a nationalistic feeling among India's "Hindus", and using this as a way of manipulating the upper castes to help them in their efforts to dislodge the Muslims from their positions of power in India. Mishra touches upon this theme in his article.

In any case, all of the invaders were just that, invaders. And each set of invaders imposed the cultures they brought with them onto those were there before them. And in the case of the British, the methods of divide and conquer (a method they have used in other contexts with equally disasterous results in the long run), are as much responsible for the unrest found today in India as anything else. This is not to say that the British were worse than any of the other invaders. But it is specious to suggest that they were any less destructive than any of the others. Each invading presence left its mark on the civilization of India. The Muslim presence is/was no better and no worse than the mark left by the Aryans and by the British.

I forgot to deal with this bit:

Unlike yourself I do not like talking rot about what I know nothing about.

And yet you did precisely that when you tried to suggest that the violence in Sudan is a product of Muslim fanatacism.

Many years ago, I had a very good friend who was from a wealthy upper-caste Indian Hindu family. He had come to the US to get away from his family, his father in particular. In fact, he completely repudiated his father and his father's way of life. He felt that his father's way of life was utterly wrong and that his father and people like him had the blood of a lot of people on their hands.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 28 Jan 05 - 07:02 PM

There are two kinds of internet trolls: those who post obnoxious personal abuse to get a reaction (Martin Gibson type) and those who practice 'flooding' - post after post giving no time for the other person to respond in detail unless they want to spend their lives online - you are approaching the second type, CarolC. You will notice that since this thread re-opened I have, but for once, been confining my posts to one a day, giving you plenty of time to reply to each point- -which you have conspicuously failed to do.

Please tell me where I have 'claimed' to be an expert on India. I merely think that studying it for years is more convincing than a rapid once-over of various websites, which, I repeat, you are not qualified to evaluate in a wider context.

If you knew any of the authors I mentioned you would notice that non of them are Hindu fanatics and that otherwise they represent a varied spectrum of concerns, contexts and opinions. I would suggest that means that in this instance I can ignore any suggestions of not having an open an enquiring mind.

I am very glad you mentioned scapegoating, because it reminded me of the context you are writing from. Faced with the undeniable ignorance regarding Islam of Neoconservative America, rightly disgusted by the complete failure of the administration or public at large to take into account the appalling effects of western interference in the Middle East, and refusing, like any sensible person, to take the distortions and scapegoating of the media at face value, you have simply lumped me in with the bullshit you usually experience and flown off the handle - notably with your repeated and offensive references to me as a bigot. I also understand, via Little Hawk, that people have waged unpleasant campaigns against you in the past. All this leads me to see better where you are coming from.

However there are two ways one can come to the view that Islam is more prone to fundamentalism and violence than other religions.

One is because one holds immovable anti-Islam predjudice, would like 'an enemy' to replace the defunct Soviet Union, needs an excuse to invade an oil-rich country, is a Zionist needing excuses to ignore the fact that Israel is the child of Imperialist powers which perpetrates constant abuses and imperialism of its own, is a straightforward racist, is a western chauvinist blinded to the fact that the Islamic world led the west in almost every aspect of civilised life right up to the sixteenth century and possibly beyond. With this camp I utterly dissasociate myself.

The other is a person who notes that your main theme, that western interference the reason for violence done by Muslims is partially correct, but that a higher tendency to fundamentalism nevertheless does exist apart from this, for a wide range of reasons. This is my position. You mention your liking for looking under the surface of things - a vital trait in anyone with a media as apallingly agenda-driven and limited in America. But you must look under the further layer of a blanket denial, and you must differentiate between the right-wing lunatics you repudiate and people with no particular agenda who have come to a different view of yours through legitimate study and experience. I am not scapegoating Muslims - American foreign policy has killed far more people and accomplished infinetely more damage of all kinds than all the Muslim terrorists put together multiplied by ten. However that is neither controversial or the subject of this thread.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jan 05 - 11:44 PM

Actually, Ooh-Aah2, my tone toward you in this thread is and has always been intended by me to be a mirror of the tone you, yourself have been taking toward people who disagree with you, both in this thread, as well as in threads on spiritual topics. It's not for nothing that beardedbruce noticed that I usually make my arguments without using personal attacks as a part of my argument strategy. I am perfectly happy to make my points in a neutral tone and to just deal with facts and data. I have not noticed the same tendency in you.

Having said that, I will now say that I disagree with your premise that Islam is more prone to fundamentalism than any other religion. That is my position for a variety of reasons.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 01:56 PM

CarolC -I have certainly argued in my usual robust way but your reflexive use of the word 'bigot' is quite uncalled for, and not at all reflective of the 'facts and data' I have been giving about myself. Indeed I noticed with irritation that you studiously ignored my attempts to agree with you over Israel/Palestine and my post of 30 Nov (among others) putting forward views which are certainly not characteristic of bigots. This suggested to me that you are some kind of troll determined to disagree at any cost.

With regard to the fanatic tendencies of Islam I suggest we agree to disagree. We are never going to covince each other and are rapidly becoming a two-person thread (I don't count Martin Gibson unless he uses some adult arguments and stops carrying on like a foul-mouthed 5 year old).

It would be helpful if you did not make any 'tail between the legs' comments at this point... (how provocative was that?)

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 04:03 PM

I have already agreed to disagree, Ooh-Aah2. See my last post.

So in your world it's ok to say "These people may be the bed-bugs, but Islam is the bed", and it's ok for you to call people who believe in reincarnation, "wishful thinkers who seize on second-hand stories and mystical-magical gobbledegook", but it's not ok to call you a bigot.

That's a hell of a double standard you've got there, Ooh-Aah2.

So basically, the rules according to Ooh-Aah2 are that whatever you say is ok, is ok, and whatever you say is not ok, is not ok. Nope. You're the troll. You throw out that kind of inflamatory bullshit just to get an emotional response from people. Just like this post from you after we had long since stopped talking about your being a bigot:

Just come back to this thread - can't believe CarolC is still in her flower-scented dream-world re. the Muslims are no more disposed to violent fundamentalism than anyone else - oh pleeeeze Carol, wake up or shut up (fat chance I know).

This is not "arguing robustly". It's trolling. And it's arrogant bullshit. And if you don't like people handing it back to you, don't dish it out.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-aa2
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 02:22 PM

It is too arguing robustly. Neither is it arrogant bullshit, though you are quite right to say it's designed to get a reaction - why bother to argue otherwise? The fact is that my views on reincarnation and Islam are what they are - your problem is that views other than your own must NECCESSARILY be the product of a bigoted mind. I believe reincarnation is gobbledy-gook. I believe Islam - perhaps, it is true, I should have put Islam at this point of its history - is a religion with an unusually high tendency to fundamentalism and fanaticism. I can produce arguments to back up both beliefs of mine which might be right or wrong, but the overwhelming impression I'm getting from you is outrage that I should dare to disagree with you at all. This is a tendency I notice a great deal among the primary school children I teach - complete outrage that anyone else should dare to have a different world-view, and thwarted fury when they continue to do so.

I'm quite pleased to say that 'in my world' it is QUITE OK to have free speech and robust free expression of considered opinions and yet not be called a bigot. Sorry if you can't handle that... Perhaps you should go and live in a majority Muslim country. They're not very fond of free speech either. You would love it, except maybe if it's one of the ones where you have to wear a tent to go shopping.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Dale Cunningham
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 02:53 PM

Ooh-aa2,

The archives of Mudcat are littered with countless people who have entered into arguments with CarolC on various subjects relating to terrorism, Islam, Israel and the Palestinians. They've all been worn down by her and given up trying to argue with her anti-Israel, anti-American, pro-terrorist views. What you have to realize is that arguing on Mudcat is her full time occupation (paid for, of course, with the welfare dollars of American taxpayers) and that unless you are willing to devote ten or twelve hours per day to arguing with her, you toll will be worn down and give up.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 03:26 PM

Dale Cunningham - It is blatantly unfair to accuse Carol C. of being a welfare bum. You don't know her personal circumstances. She may be anti-Israel and anti-American but I don't think you could call her pro-terrorist. I also think that personal attacks (name calling included) can be called bullying. In this case, I don't think Ooh-aa2 is a bully but you seem to be jumping up and down urging Ooh-aa2 and everyone else on Mudcat to ignore her point of view because you think she is a worthless human being.

Your comments are invalid.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 03:49 PM

dinavan, when feminist bitches like you call people names and accuse their family members of all sorts of things, that's OK, huh?

Everything you write here is man-bashing, Jew bashing, American bashing or a combination of all three.

You contribute as much as a fart in a perfume factory.

Oooh-ahh, you have way to much time on your hands. You lost the arguement because of how much time you could have been living instead of arguing with an Internet bully like CarolC.

Dale Cunningham is completely right about CarolC. At first I thought he might be related to her, but it's obvious he isn't. As in Cunningham. In her case it's cunning ham.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 04:02 PM

Dale Cunningham is either Martin Gibson, or deliberately trying to sound like Martin Gibson.

Dale Cunningham, we are living on savings that my husband very wisely put away over a period of several years (during which, he was earning a six figure annual income). We are doing it this way because we want to, for reasons of our own that are none of your business. No taxpayers are being harmed in the process of our living our lives, and no taxpayers are contributing in any way to our livelihood.

Ooh-Aah2, you see the kind of people who are defending you. I think that says more about you than anything I could say.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:51 PM

(1) Guilt by association is reprehensible.

(2) I have already told Martin Gibson to try to grow up - several times - and specifically and clearly dissasociated myself from him, and his apparent pro-Israeli blind-spot.

(3)Yet again you don't bother replying to specific points but post a general attempt to characterise my motives and views completely at variance to what I have been telling you.

(4)I have no idea who Dale Cunningham is, or what his motives are, but his characterisation of you as someone who simply wears people down by endless multiple posts rather than by clear arguments seems, by any objective standards, to be correct.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 02:50 PM

And I am not Dale Cunningham.

I wouldn't bother being him, whoever he is, but he, Oooh-Aaahh, myself, and just about everybody else have you pegged CarolC.

BTW, ooohh-Aaaahh, I believe it is you who has the blind spot about Israel, not me. As a Jew, I am automatically a citizen of that country and I take that seriously. As a non-Jew, I don't think you could ever feel for Israel what a Jew does.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:14 PM

My whole point, Ooh-Aah2 is this one. You call people names, but you don't like it when other people call you names. You don't get to make up the rules. If you don't want people calling you names, have the consideration to not be calling other people names. If not, don't complain if you get what you dish out.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Com Seangan
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 07:19 PM

Now, now. Religion. Don't waste your time.Itwill always cause controversy. . My wife is Muslim. She agrees with me.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:07 PM

CarolC., in her last post basically went "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah."

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 01:26 PM

I disagree with your premise that Islam is more prone to fundamentalism (Carol)

Premise?? It was extremely clear that Ooh-Aah2 never has had this as a 'premise' at any time. He tells why and for what reasons and in which context he comes to that observation. You may disagree with that observation, of course. But disagreeing with a premise he never has stated explicitely and, in my reading, never even once implicitely, is a bit nonsensical.

My explicit premise is that questions like whether people from one religion at one point in time, in comparison to people from other religions, are more or less prone to fundamentalism or intolerance has no ex cathedra response but is a question open to observation and empirical facts. That there is no difference between them in this respect is one possible of many outcomes.

The several 'supporters' for Ooh-Aah2 in the last couple of posts are supporters of a type I wouldn't wish anybody to have.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 02:05 PM

You are correct, Wolfgang, he said "fanaticism" and not "fundamentalism".

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Oh-Aah2 - PM
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 06:11 PM

...To summarise: Islam IS more prone to fanaticism than other religions

I notice that Ooh-Aah2 didn't disagree with my use of the word "fundamentalism" though. And I don't know what the difference is between "fanaticism" and "fundamentalism" in Ooh-Aah2's mind. But I disagree with either premise at any rate.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 02:27 PM

I think that what Wolfgang is saying is that this view is the end result of a process of observation and collection of empirical facts
and not the premise with which they started - in other words I have not gone out there specifically looking for facts and observations to support an initial view, (that Islam is more prone to fanaticism and funamentalism) but come to this view through legitimate observations and the discovery of facts. It's the difference between supporting an illogical predjudice and coming to a distinct independent view.

CarolC's premise seems to be that all religions are equally prone/not prone to fanaticism and fundamentalism, and that if you disagree with this one must be ignorant or a bigot or both. I do not think a process of observation and fact-gathering supports this view, especially if one has ever lived for 6 months with Tibetan Buddhists as I have.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 04:28 PM

I have two main premises for the purpose of this discussion..

As I have stated several times already, my use of the word "bigot" with reference to Ooh-Aah2 in this thread is intended more as an illustration of how name calling and other kinds of personal attacks, as practiced by Ooh-Aah2 in a significant percentage of his posts in the Mudcat, do not serve the interests of cogent and rational discussion or debate, than it is in service to any of the points I'm trying to make on the subject of this thread.

However, on the subject of the word "bigotry", the meaning of that term does include the practice of prejudice against certain groups of people while favoring others. To whatever extent one focuses primarily on the bad things about one group, while diverting attention away from the good things about that group, and only focuses on the good things about another group, while diverting attention away from the bad things about that group, that is prejudice, and by extension, also bigotry (and scapegoating). Ooh-Aah2 has done quite a bit of that on this thread. But it is not really important to me to try to convince Ooh-Aah2 of that. Hence my willingness to agree to disagree.

My other premise is that it is simply not possible for anyone to make a legitimate and verifiable argument about which religion or religions, if any, are more prone to any kind of tendencies whatever, and that any kind of generalization one tries to make in answer to that question will be opinion and nothing more.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 10:24 PM

What a fucking waste of time.


Blah, blah, blah.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 10:42 AM

What I have been saying, and I continue to maintain, is the fact that:

1. the percentage of reprehensible acts committed per capita by Muslims is no greater than that of any other major monotheistic religion, as well as people of no religion... (Carol)

A very successful argument could probably be made that "Christians" have committed more reprehensible acts per capita over the history of that religion than any other (Carol)

My other premise is that it is simply not possible for anyone to make a legitimate and verifiable argument about which religion or religions, if any, are more prone to any kind of tendencies whatever, and that any kind of generalization one tries to make in answer to that question will be opinion and nothing more. (Carol)

Fact, premise, opinion?? Is your first statement that comes in form of an empirically true statement just an opinion or are your premises facts or your facts premises?

I can only repeat what I have said above: I have no empirical knowledge on any relationship between religion and number of crimes but I would consider it very likely that religion, like nearly all other cultural or biological contexts, also influences the number of per capita crimes. Incidence of crimes is rarely statistically independent of age, gender, social standing of the offender. So why should it be independent in the case of religion?
And add: Something like religion that influences so deeply ethics, morals and beliefs of humans is bound to have observable influences on behaviour. To state categorically that in this case the statistical null hypothesis will be true whatever relation is studied, does not make any sense.

I think what you mean, Carol, is very noble (you will correct me, if I don't get what you mean). Even if there should be any observable difference in behaviour (criminal, or other, perhaps even recommendable) being correlated with the variable 'religion', those mentioning such a fact would most probably have sinister motives. Any data of that kind could/would be used for political manoeuvres of a despicable kind. The interpretation some might make based upon such data may be biased and just one of many possible interpretations, the interpretation of the choice being influenced by prejudices or political opportunity. Therefore you prefer shunning even the thought that there could be data showing a difference.

That's the wrong and ill-fated approach in my eyes. Data are data, even if they can be abused and have been abused. The attack must be on the sinister interpretation and not on the data. It is a fact, for instance, that in the USA IQ-data differ depending upon ethnic origin. It is of no use to attack that fact, but it is worth looking closely at (and criticising) the possible interpretations ((1) shows genetic differences in IQ (2) demonstrates culturally biased tests (3) can be explained by economic disadvantages of some groups). The problem is that if one attacks a fact when you means one possible, or even popular, interpretation one looks quite silly if the facts are corroborated beyond doubt. Even worse, the sinister interpretation seems to gain undeserved support.

One example: The criminal statistics in Germany show higher rates of some crimes in some ethnic groups (and since religion is not equally distributed among ethnic groups, of course, religion would be a statistically valid predictor as well) living in Germany. The Neonazis like to quote those statistics for their "foreigners out" agenda. One approach, we call it the 'social worker approach', is to claim that this is not true, and to mix this way statement of fact with critique of a Neonazi agenda. They mean well, but they do damage to their good cause this way. The Neonazis then make the demonstratable empirical truth of the fact their issue and in some people ("well, at least they dare to tell the truth") their interpretation gains a support it should never have.

The right approach is not to question the facts (if they are true; sometimes they just aren't, but that's a different story) but to go the more difficult way and to question the interpretation (or the motives for chosing one particular interpretation). For instance, one could point out that a variable that explains much more of the variance in the data is economic background, and that a subgroup of Germans matched with the ethnic minority on economical variables shows the same amount of criminal behaviour (if that is true; it's not always true). Or one could point out that the average age of foreigners lies below the average age of Germans (that's true) and since the variable 'age' can explain a lot of criminal behaviour (that's true; males from puberty to roughly 30 dominate the criminal statistics) an age-matched group of Germans also shows a higher incidence of criminal behaviour.

However, the I-don't-want-to-hear-any-of-this approach of closing the eyes can backfire.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 02:03 PM

GUEST 02 Feb 05 - 10:42 AM was I.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 03:48 PM

Wolfgang, thank you for putting your finger on something I have been trying but failing to articulate for this entire thread.

CarolC is clearly a nice person (if a bit boring and uneccessarily quarrelsome) and is right to suspect the motives of those who routinely bash Islam. However there is too much evidence about that Islam IS unusually prone to fanaticism and fundamentalism to dismiss it all as simply prejudice and racism.

Is this a fair summary of your last post?

(CarolC am I a bigot or not? Your last post on this subject is quite remarkably incoherent).

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 07:18 PM

Wolfgang, the reason it is not possible to use impirical data to determine whether or not any particular religions are and have been more prone to certain tendencies than others is because in order to do that, the data needs to be collected over the entire history of each religion, as well as in contexts in which data does not normally get collected and, in some cases, where the incidents of violence are deliberately kept from being reported.

One example of this would be violence committed against the Dalits in India by members of higher castes which, more often than not, does not get reported. Another example of this would be sexual molestation of children by adults working within the context of churches, temples, mosques, religios schools, etc. And also there is the problem of history being written by the victors. We can't call someone's version of "history" empirical data, because we both know that people are quite prone to manipulating historical narratives to suit their idea of posterity and what it ought to be. Plus, we have no way of counting the numbers of people who have belonged to all of the different religions throughout their histories, so a per capita equation is not possible. There is too much data that would have to be left out of any kind of examination of that sort, and for that reason, there is no way to know for sure that the results would be accurate.

Then there is the problem of defining the terms. If one would say "most prone to violence", how do we determine how to measure that? If one country wages a war against another for religious reasons, and that country kills 20 million people using a nuclear weapon, but only fifteen people were involved in making the decision to use the weapon and to launch it (and none on their side get killed), how do we compare that to a country that wages a religiously motivated war on another country in which only one million people are killed, but ten thousand people are involved in doing the killing (and five thousand of the people on their own side get killed)? I say it's not possible to measure these kinds of things without making some very arbitrary distinctions.

And then, of course, there is the problem of violence that is not really religious in nature, for instance when people commit suicide bombings in the context of a struggle for independence, but the acts are attributed to the person's religion instead. There is no way to determine how much of the reportage of this kind of violence really correctly addresses the real reason for the violent act. It would be like trying to suggest that there is a racially determined factor in the fact that in the US, a disproportionate number of prison inmates are Black, instead of suggesting (more correctly), that the majority of prison inmates in the US come from impoverished backgrounds, and that because of a history of institutionalized racism in the US, a disproportionate number of Blacks in the US come from impoverished backgrounds.

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 07:48 PM

LOL... how Freudian of me. This bit:

Wolfgang, the reason it is not possible to use impirical data to determine whether...

should read like this:

Wolfgang, the reason it is not possible to use empirical data to determine whether... (etc.)

Subject: RE: Obit: More Muslim intolerence?
From: Once Famous
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 09:32 PM

Incoherent!

That's what I've been trying to put my finger on about CarolC.'s posts here.

Thank you Oooh-Ahh.

The Incoherent World of CarolC.
Starring Abdul Mohammad as Nick Jones, Private Eye

Sounds like a good movie title.