a fish at little green footballs?...
abelard
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=14695_British_Dhimmitude_Watch#comments
" Religious Education students in Britain must now include the letters
"pbuh" ("peace be upon him") in parentheses every time they write the
name
of Mohammed, according to teacher David Holford."
289 comments
having smelled a fish....i investigated further...
http://www.holford.org.uk/mt/archives/000650.html
"the underlying information was related to me by a work colleague as
being
how she was told to inform students in response to my query about this, I
have not had an opportunity to check this further with my department or
with
OCR. As this is half-term, I may not be able to confirm this for a few
days."
....
anybody definitive info on the claim concerning this exam board?
http://www.ocr.org.uk/OCR/WebSite/docroot/qualifications/qualificationhome/showQualification.do?qual_oid=2068&site=OCR&oid=2068&server=PRODUKTION
haven't had room to follow up further...
regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,150,913 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Glynn
> http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=14695_British_Dhimmitude_Watch#comments
> " Religious Education students in Britain must now include the letters
> "pbuh" ("peace be upon him") in parentheses every time they write the
> name
> of Mohammed, according to teacher David Holford."
>
> 289 comments
>
> having smelled a fish....i investigated further...
>
> http://www.holford.org.uk/mt/archives/000650.html
>
> "the underlying information was related to me by a work colleague as
> being
> how she was told to inform students in response to my query about this, I
> have not had an opportunity to check this further with my department or
> with
> OCR. As this is half-term, I may not be able to confirm this for a few
> days."
>
> ....
> anybody definitive info on the claim concerning this exam board?
> http://www.ocr.org.uk/OCR/WebSite/docroot/qualifications/qualificationhome/showQualification.do?qual_oid=2068&site=OCR&oid=2068&server=PRODUKTION
> haven't had room to follow up further...
>
> regards...
>
On seeing your post I followed the question up by phoning OCR -- 01223
553311 -- and asking them.
Their official response is that the story's rubbish. They've had a lot
of calls about it, apparently.
They say that they customarily put an Arabic colophon meaning 'peace be
upon him' after Mohammed's name in course materials relating to Islam,
just as they refer to 'G-d' in course materials relating to Judaism.
They do this out of respect to the sensibilities of Muslim or Jewish
students and teachers but they most certainly don't expect candidates to
do the same.
I've tried posting this info to 'littlegreenfootballs' but you need to
be registered with them so to do and they aren't accepting registrations
at the moment. If anyone is registered with them I'm sure they'd
welcome the correction.
Steve
abelard
<stephe...@ntlworld.com>
typed:
>abelard wrote:
>> http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=14695_British_Dhimmitude_Watch#comments
>> " Religious Education students in Britain must now include the letters
>> "pbuh" ("peace be upon him") in parentheses every time they write the
>> name
>> of Mohammed, according to teacher David Holford."
>>
>> 289 comments
>>
>> having smelled a fish....i investigated further...
>>
>> http://www.holford.org.uk/mt/archives/000650.html
>>
>> "the underlying information was related to me by a work colleague as
>> being
>> how she was told to inform students in response to my query about this, I
>> have not had an opportunity to check this further with my department or
>> with
>> OCR. As this is half-term, I may not be able to confirm this for a few
>> days..
>> ....
>> anybody definitive info on the claim concerning this exam board?
>> http://www.ocr.org.uk/OCR/WebSite/docroot/qualifications/qualificationhome/showQualification.do?qual_oid=2068&site=OCR&oid=2068&server=PRODUKTION
>> haven't had room to follow up further...
>On seeing your post I followed the question up by phoning OCR -- 01223
>553311 -- and asking them.
>
>Their official response is that the story's rubbish. They've had a lot
>of calls about it, apparently.
>
>They say that they customarily put an Arabic colophon meaning 'peace be
>upon him' after Mohammed's name in course materials relating to Islam,
>just as they refer to 'G-d' in course materials relating to Judaism.
>They do this out of respect to the sensibilities of Muslim or Jewish
>students and teachers but they most certainly don't expect candidates to
>do the same.
thank you....you are most helpful and useful.....
>I've tried posting this info to 'littlegreenfootballs' but you need to
>be registered with them so to do and they aren't accepting registrations
>at the moment. If anyone is registered with them I'm sure they'd
>welcome the correction.
similar reason for me, i don't do registrations...
j...@somewhere.com
wrote:
>>They say that they customarily put an Arabic colophon meaning 'peace be
>>upon him' after Mohammed's name in course materials relating to Islam,
>>just as they refer to 'G-d' in course materials relating to Judaism.
>>They do this out of respect to the sensibilities of Muslim or Jewish
>>students and teachers but they most certainly don't expect candidates to
>>do the same.
>
>thank you....you are most helpful and useful.....
Too bad you couldn't have done a little bit of research first, par for
the course with you though.
But I suppose you think your "post" served your anti-muslim agenda.
JRP
Stephen Glynn
That's a bit unfair. Abelard said he thought it sounded fishy and asked
if anyone could investigate. Since he's in France, or somewhere in the
Himalayas or is, in fact, a valve computer, it's not so easy for him to
check so he wanted someone over here to do it.
Steve
j...@somewhere.com
<stephe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>j...@somewhere.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:25:29 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>They say that they customarily put an Arabic colophon meaning 'peace be
>>>>upon him' after Mohammed's name in course materials relating to Islam,
>>>>just as they refer to 'G-d' in course materials relating to Judaism.
>>>>They do this out of respect to the sensibilities of Muslim or Jewish
>>>>students and teachers but they most certainly don't expect candidates to
>>>>do the same.
>>>
>>>thank you....you are most helpful and useful.....
>>
>>
>> Too bad you couldn't have done a little bit of research first, par for
>> the course with you though.
>>
>> But I suppose you think your "post" served your anti-muslim agenda.
>>
>> JRP
>
>That's a bit unfair. Abelard said he thought it sounded fishy and asked
>if anyone could investigate.
Why couldn't he have done so himself?
> Since he's in France, or somewhere in the
>Himalayas or is, in fact, a valve computer, it's not so easy for him to
>check so he wanted someone over here to do it.
I suppose you personally popped down to their office?
JRP
Energumen
news:37eki8F...@individual.net...
There is still a potential issue there though. Should school textbooks wish
blessings on anyone if they are to be objective and impartial? What next?
Are newsreaders going to say peace be upon him if they mention him? We still
need to draw some lines here and have a debate about this.
Stephen Glynn
As I said, I phoned them. If they'd been in France I wouldn't have
bothered because that would have cost. My landline calls in the UK are
all covered by my monthly line rental with NTL.
Steve
abelard
<stephe...@ntlworld.com>
typed:
>j...@somewhere.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:25:29 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>They say that they customarily put an Arabic colophon meaning 'peace be
>>>>upon him' after Mohammed's name in course materials relating to Islam,
>>>>just as they refer to 'G-d' in course materials relating to Judaism.
>>>>They do this out of respect to the sensibilities of Muslim or Jewish
>>>>students and teachers but they most certainly don't expect candidates to
>>>>do the same.
>>>
>>>thank you....you are most helpful and useful.....
>> Too bad you couldn't have done a little bit of research first, par for
>> the course with you though.
>>
>> But I suppose you think your "post" served your anti-muslim agenda.
>That's a bit unfair. Abelard said he thought it sounded fishy and asked
>if anyone could investigate. Since he's in France, or somewhere in the
>Himalayas or is, in fact, a valve computer, it's not so easy for him to
>check so he wanted someone over here to do it.
i'm interested in why you bother with jerky...
he's obviously the officially registered nominal village idiot allocated
by oldnewoldlabour in pursuit of their equal opportunities
legislation...
be assured i pay less heed to him than to a cat flea......
i just spray him with illegal ddt to watch him jump when i get bored!
i did put it out to uem.....which the idiot has removed and i have now
restored....i hoped one of them would know off hand....
i didn't even think about phoning them but perhaps of finding time to go
through the syllabus if i got time later....i saw about a meg of pdf
and quailed....
you must be aware i am constantly strapped to the grindstone :-)
however some people take an interest in researching items close to
their areas....i quite often do that for people who come near to my
own interests....as do some others yourself included.....
i'm spelling this out a bit because i didn't realise anyone would take
any notice of jerky's persistent dishonesty and triviality....
that i should have to explain to anyone above the level of the
aforementioned cat flea that i have more regard for islam than i
could ever muster for socialism is risible.....
as you immediately understood i checked the item for the very reason
it looked implausible...
though possibly not to cat fleas!
regards...and thanx again....
(note line one of my reply...i am seriously interested in that bit!)
j...@somewhere.com
But, but, but lardy makes great play on his research capabilities. A
call to the UK would have been a small price to pay to keep such a
lofty record intact.
JRP
abelard
typed:
ok...i'll nibble if not bite.....
if someone writes a book how they express themselves is their concern....
if someone buys a book (for a school)...surely that is also their
concern.
if a parent objects that is their concern.....
where exactly do you have difficulty/problems
regards....
j...@somewhere.com
wrote:
>i did put it out to uem.....which the idiot has removed and i have now
> restored....
I use Agent and it strips cross-posts, as all good usenetters should.
JRP
abelard
typed:
look you 6 pound house brick....
oh why bother...you're too dumb to crawl in a straight line....
j...@somewhere.com
wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:09:12 +0000, j...@somewhere.com
>
> typed:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:59:43 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>i did put it out to uem.....which the idiot has removed and i have now
>>> restored....
>>
>>I use Agent and it strips cross-posts, as all good usenetters should.
>
>look you 6 pound house brick....
Tut, tut lardy, you live in France, can we have that in Kilos.
>oh why bother...you're too dumb to crawl in a straight line....
LOL, oh dear, lardy is getting all petulant again. I see you for what
you are and spotted right away the reasoning behind you starting this
thread.
Does it sting?
JRP
Energumen
news:47l411tjilbigng7b...@4ax.com...
I have a concern in that the teaching of facts about history and the claims
of those who follow a "religion" are presented to schoolchildren in an
objective and dispassionate way. Ie. Muhammad did this, Muhammad said this,
Buddha sat under a tree (all allegedly) etc. It is not the place for an
academic article about Muhammad to put a blessing at the end of the person's
name every time it mentions it. I would not expect to see "Muhammad (pbuh)"
written in the Daily Mail or the Guardian or the FT or an article in the
Economist so what is the justification of putting it in a school textbook?
abelard
typed:
continuing to nibble...
the fossil media is overwhelmed by tripe....
what of the teacher who refers to 'the great darwin'?
what is a 'blessing'?....in some sense it looks innocuous to me.....
compare it with...
what of 'jesus was a good man'?
or
becket wrote brilliant plays?
of father christmas comes down the chimney?
or the space girls are brill?
how do these expressions differ from a 'blessing'?
i'm trying to get a handle on where you have a problem
or where you start in a backward culture...and why 'there'
regards...
Stephen Glynn
We're talking not about school textbooks but about OCR's course
materials, by which I mean syllabi and the like.
On the more general point, schools can use -- or not -- whatever
textbooks they want. A good teacher will in any subject, I would hope,
but particularly in something like religious studies, draw attention to
potential bias in the texts used. In any case, I'd have thought
students of this subject would have to get used to the fact that some
people conventionally put 'p.b.u.h.' after Mohammed's name, just as some
people conventionally write 'G-d' and rather more write 'He' and 'His'
when referring to God or Jesus, wherever the pronouns appear in the
sentence. They'd better, since these people will quite frequently be
the authors of the textbooks and would quite possibly object if someone
at the publishers started editing those particular conventions for them.
I don't see why it's a problem in this context, and I don't believe in
making problems for their own sake. Life's too short and there are
better things to do with your time.
Steve
Stephen Glynn
> i'm interested in why you bother with jerky...
<snip>
>
> regards...and thanx again....
> (note line one of my reply...i am seriously interested in that bit!)
>
Because I'd hoped, though admittedly in no great expectation of success,
that I might help prevent yet another endless thread of bickering
between you two.
Steve
Energumen
I don't have a problem with a particular teacher, in a particular school, on
a particular occasion saying that he thinks that Muhammad was a great man as
such, though children should generally be taught to think critically about
such things and not take their teachers word as gospel on such matters. I
would have a problem with a policy of placing this after his name at all
occasions in an academic text for general consumption, including a school
textbook. I would have a problem with placing "the good man" after Jesus
name whenever it occurred too. It is an indicator of impartiality. It is
completely out of place.
If Muslims cannot abide reading a text in which pbuh does not appear after
his name on every occasion then that's their problem, just as it is
creationists' problem if a biology textbook has a chapter on evolution. I
would actually not support the phrase "Darwin was a great man" as being
particularly appropriate in a biology textbook either (not that I would care
of an occasional such reference as with above). It is not relevant to the
study of biology, apart from anything else. Hailing Mohammed in the
(alleged) afterlife is not an appropriate thing to place throughout a
textbook which is a secular study *of* what Islam believes.
Energumen
It is not appropriate for a supposedly impartial secular study of what Islam
*is* to keep wishing him well in the afterlife (notwithstanding the "course
materials" angle you brought up). Would you support a position that BBC
newsreaders would have to say "peace be upon him" after every time his name
is mentioned because you "don't believe in making problems for their own
sake"? Where are you drawing your line and why?
Stephen Glynn
Back in the dim and distant days when I did RE A level (not my initial
choice, but given that I wanted to do English and Latin, that the
timetable meant my third choice had to be RE or History and that the
head of the History department and I loathed each other there wasn't
much alternative -- and a very interesting A level it was, too) it was
accepted that the textbooks weren't going to impartial. Neither, come
to that, was the RE teacher, who, since he was in holy orders in the C
of E, presumably had his own view on the subject.
By the time someone's studying at A level you hope they'll be able to
read texts for bias, in RE or History or Economics or anything else.
You'd hope, too, that they can distinguish between a simple
typographical courtesy to some readers and a more general bias in the
content.
No, I wouldn't support BBC newsreaders being forced to say 'peace be
upon him' every time Mohammed's name is mentioned, not least because so
to do would make unnecessary problems. Since it's hardly an issue I
don't waste much time worrying about it. Has anyone suggested they should?
Steve
Stephen Glynn
Out of interest, does this affect your enthusiasm for blogs vs the
'fossil media' at all?
I ask because here's a story that appeared on one blog, the result, it
now transpires, of the blogger being misinformed by a colleague. It's
been picked up by at least one other blog, and 250-odd people who've
seen it have apparently believed it enough to post to the blog saying
how much they disapprove of this.
One of the fossil media (except, possibly, The Sun) would at least have
phoned the examination board for a comment before going into print, thus
probably avoiding a great deal of misunderstanding.
Steve
Energumen
You miss the point. The fact that textbooks should be watched for
impartiality does not excuse an impartial policy. The fact that pedestrians
have a right of way at zebra crossings but that even so it is still wise to
look and see if any traffic is coming before stepping onto one does not
excuse a policy of allowing drivers to choose not to stop when someone is
crossing provided their name is Nigel.
>
> No, I wouldn't support BBC newsreaders being forced
I never mentioned the word "forced". This is not an issue about personal
freedom of choice as such (which is possibly why abelard seems a wee bit
perplexed about it so far).
> to say 'peace be upon him' every time Mohammed's name is mentioned, not
> least because so to do would make unnecessary problems. Since it's
> hardly an issue I don't waste much time worrying about it. Has anyone
> suggested they should?
>
It only takes one person to suggest it and then it's an issue. Did any
Muslims suggest that pbuhs be put on syllabi or pbuhs be put in RE
textbooks? Suppose someone did protest at newsreaders not saying pbuh after
Muhammed's name. What would you say on the matter? I'm sure I could find at
least one Muslim who would complain if I put the idea in their head. If you
are pro pbuhs in RE textbooks but against pbuhs on BBC news broadcasts, what
exactly is your distinction between the two contexts? Is it that nobody has
complained about it *yet*? What kind of a position is that? Can I complain
about it's inclusion and have my views equally weighed in the balance?
abelard
<stephe...@ntlworld.com>
typed:
>abelard wrote:
be assured that any 'bickering is one way...i do not bicker with bricks...
bickering is a necessary human skill that i even teach those who can
learn! especially for couples....
what replies you see from me are more of the nature of poking a brick
in order to test an illusion that it moved when it is in a class that
isn't usually listed as sentient.....
a bit like wandering down a dark lane and reading shapes of objects
where there are none....it seriously fascinates me to test such
illusions....
i do wish sensible people would not watch.....
i feel like an astronomer looking into deep space....every so often
wondering if that blamed object over there winked at me!
and people watching fascinated over my shoulder and wondering
if i'm all there!
they might even believe i really saw it wink....i know damned well i
didn't but constant testing to make sure my cpu is still stable is
part of the job.....
regards....
abelard
<stephe...@ntlworld.com>
typed:
>Out of interest, does this affect your enthusiasm for blogs vs the
>'fossil media' at all?
not really....
http://www.abelard.org/technology/register-not.php
look at the notes on bugmenot....
the noise/signal level on fossil media is generally much higher than on
judiciously selected blogs.....
reading the best blogs you can find is like reading quality writers of
small groups of writers who do it for dedication rather than to meet
deadlines or a publication party line.....
the best tend to write only what they think necessary and when
rather than tear the desired no of words out by the yard....
>I ask because here's a story that appeared on one blog, the result, it
>now transpires, of the blogger being misinformed by a colleague. It's
>been picked up by at least one other blog, and 250-odd people who've
>seen it have apparently believed it enough to post to the blog saying
>how much they disapprove of this.
this is no different from the fossil media and the gullibility of the
great majority of the population....
a few weeks back i correct a false stt from a major fossil source
to a blog....i didn't bother with the originator claimed as a
professor of appropriate physics....
the whole society is stuffed to the rafters with it.....
that is a great deal of my purpose being here and running my site....
the 'logic' is so bad and far ranging that occasional letter do not hack
it....mostly they do not get read or printed.....
as planck said....they are old and set in their ways...i must teach a new
generation of scientists....
working here and on the web under my own control is much more efficient...
i developed my methods prior to coming here....
it is not mainly by correcting errors...it is by teaching people to think
with clarity that improves the situation...
that is best done on a one to one basis as every person speaks a different
language....
it is also best done by putting up a sign and letting those who will learn
walk in....
it is not done best by forcing people to attend lectures....
it is not done best by working on committees with a bunch of egos
most of whom are striving for fame or promotion......
i was reading of hoyle the other day...one of the great minds of the
century....he walked out of cambridge because of the politics....
you will find every innovator gets these problems.....
this way i can get on with my work in my own way and keep away
from the tossers....
>One of the fossil media (except, possibly, The Sun) would at least have
>phoned the examination board for a comment before going into print, thus
>probably avoiding a great deal of misunderstanding.
i don't agree...i have had plenty of dealing with the fossil media...
they invent quotes and the lie copiously if you talk to them.....
the worst of them have batches of lawyers to advise them how they
can hint without putting themselves on the line.....
quote from a bbc crew when i asked them about their behaviour...
'we are taught first to seek out the baddy...and then construct the
story around that'
the fossil media is widely corrupt....
they will even edit film and sound track to get the results they want....
that is why most politician and public eye sophisticates insist on live
interviews only.....
even then during the interviews they readily break agreements they
have made just prior to the interview.....
how many times have you heard the following deliberately and dishonestly
quoted by the media as 'there is no such thing as society'?
"I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given
to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to
cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m homeless, the
government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem on society. And,
you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and
women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except
through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to
look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People
have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations.
There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an
obligation."
Margaret Thatcher, 3 October 1987
it is endemic....you cannot sensibly trust *anything* emanating from the
reptiles....
you may see it all over the 'reporting' from irak.....and much more....
there is only one sensible way to deal with the reptiles....
don't speak to them.....
this media is breaking their power.....and about time too.....
the fact the public are gullible sheep if much of what i intend to correct
that is what the blogs are doing....
they are also starting to force honesty on the fourth estate....
it is reasonable they also keep each other clean.....
that was my reason for dealing with the little green footballs item....
i have every confidence it will get back to them and they will be more
careful in future.....
i want others to learn to start to smell the fish....
that is what will eventually limit the power of idiots....
regards....
abelard
typed:
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>> continuing to nibble...
>> the fossil media is overwhelmed by tripe....
>> what of the teacher who refers to 'the great darwin'?
>>
>> what is a 'blessing'?....in some sense it looks innocuous to me.....
>>
>> compare it with...
>> what of 'jesus was a good man'?
>> or
>> becket wrote brilliant plays?
>> of father christmas comes down the chimney?
>> or the space girls are brill?
>>
>> how do these expressions differ from a 'blessing'?
>>
>> i'm trying to get a handle on where you have a problem
>> or where you start in a backward culture...and why 'there'
>I don't have a problem with a particular teacher, in a particular school, on
>a particular occasion saying that he thinks that Muhammad was a great man as
>such, though children should generally be taught to think critically about
>such things
ok...that is also my view....but it is only my view....other clearly act
otherwise...
>and not take their teachers word as gospel on such matters. I
>would have a problem with a policy of placing this after his name at all
>occasions in an academic text for general consumption, including a school
>textbook. I would have a problem with placing "the good man" after Jesus
>name whenever it occurred too. It is an indicator of impartiality. It is
>completely out of place.
ok.....how about mister x....nobel prize winner....or doctor dope?
>If Muslims cannot abide reading a text in which pbuh does not appear after
>his name on every occasion then that's their problem,
i'm not arguing....just nibbling around the edges of your stts....
do you want politically correct schools?
can a muslim go to a school where such a ritual is de rigueur?
> just as it is
>creationists' problem if a biology textbook has a chapter on evolution. I
>would actually not support the phrase "Darwin was a great man" as being
>particularly appropriate in a biology textbook either (not that I would care
>of an occasional such reference as with above). It is not relevant to the
>study of biology, apart from anything else. Hailing Mohammed in the
>(alleged) afterlife is not an appropriate thing to place throughout a
>textbook which is a secular study *of* what Islam believes.
you may say that....i could not possibly comment!
well maybe a bit....
the big bang theory interests me somewhat...god created the universe in
300 seconds or what ever....and there was light!
where does darwin fit in?
jesus, mahom and many other helped teach social codes for better living
together....
this is still close by in the shadows, human superstition and magic.....
i am wary of forcing conformity....
i am way of forcing secular conformity when i note the incredible social
damage perpetrated by socialism....
baybee and bathwater replaced by 666!
i'm still fishing around for clarification of your position on this stuff.
regards....
Energumen
It's not a matter of "what should be allowed" it's a matter of what is
appropriate for the purpose of use. Just because I think that it's
inappropriate to be bare-chested on a snowy winter day does not necessarily
mean that I wish to ban it.
You seem to be falling into the same trap as Stephen Glynn here, ie.
assuming that "should" means "should be forced to" and trying to turn it
into a libertarian type issue. I don't believe that there should be knitting
patterns in a chemistry textbook, but that doesn't automatically mean that I
want to ban such a thing. There is no other sensible position than a secular
approach when we are talking about teaching Muslims and non-Muslims together
in the same class. I am against state funding for non-secular schools but if
parents or whoever wishes to have schools which include religious or
political indoctrination then that should be allowed provided they are not
indoctrinating people into criminality against their fellow citizens. Islam
is at least a grey area in that regard. Many Mosques do preach criminality
for example. It's a tricky subject which needs further debate and clear
information before we can make judgements.
abelard
typed:
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>> i am wary of forcing conformity....
>> i am way of forcing secular conformity when i note the incredible social
>> damage perpetrated by socialism....
>> baybee and bathwater replaced by 666!
>
>You seem to be falling into the same trap as Stephen Glynn here, ie.
>assuming that "should" means "should be forced to" and trying to turn it
>into a libertarian type issue.
no traps...just trying to understand why it causes you a problem....
the next stage is to ask you what you want done about as you seem
to regard it as 'a problem'....
> I don't believe that there should be knitting
>patterns in a chemistry textbook, but that doesn't automatically mean that I
>want to ban such a thing. There is no other sensible position than a secular
>approach when we are talking about teaching Muslims and non-Muslims together
what is 'a secular approach'?
does it mean treating mohamad as a detached entity apart from what he
taught....or what?
>in the same class. I am against state funding for non-secular schools but if
this will become a sub-issue....
1)i'm none to keen on governments stealing my wherewithal under threat....
2)i'm none to keen on the state funding schools....
why should they take money from me in order to fund just those schools
of which you approve.....
>parents or whoever wishes to have schools which include religious or
>political indoctrination then that should be allowed provided they are not
>indoctrinating people into criminality against their fellow citizens.
a standard part of authoritarian religions is to teach the victims that
the religion is correct.....and everyone else is a raving idiot....
are you claiming this is legitimate?
> Islam
>is at least a grey area in that regard. Many Mosques do preach criminality
>for example. It's a tricky subject which needs further debate and clear
>information before we can make judgements.
that is in part why i am trying to understand your position....
or get you to clarify it....
Energumen
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:23:33 -0000, "Energumen" <ener_...@yahoo.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>
>>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>
>>> i am wary of forcing conformity....
>>> i am way of forcing secular conformity when i note the incredible social
>>> damage perpetrated by socialism....
>>> baybee and bathwater replaced by 666!
>>
>>You seem to be falling into the same trap as Stephen Glynn here, ie.
>>assuming that "should" means "should be forced to" and trying to turn it
>>into a libertarian type issue.
>
> no traps...just trying to understand why it causes you a problem....
> the next stage is to ask you what you want done about as you seem
> to regard it as 'a problem'....
All I want is for people to "wise up" basically.
>
>> I don't believe that there should be knitting
>>patterns in a chemistry textbook, but that doesn't automatically mean that
>>I
>>want to ban such a thing. There is no other sensible position than a
>>secular
>>approach when we are talking about teaching Muslims and non-Muslims
>>together
>
> what is 'a secular approach'?
> does it mean treating mohamad as a detached entity apart from what he
> taught....or what?
No simply stating what it was that he taught, what muslims believe, what it
says in the Koran etc. Without teaching that any of it is true and certainly
without constantly wishing him well in the afterlife every time his name is
mentioned.
>
>>in the same class. I am against state funding for non-secular schools but
>>if
>
> this will become a sub-issue....
> 1)i'm none to keen on governments stealing my wherewithal under threat....
> 2)i'm none to keen on the state funding schools....
>
> why should they take money from me in order to fund just those schools
> of which you approve.....
Not me, the country. Ie. the group of people who legitimately own the land
you are standing on and permit you to be a citizen in their "polis", of
which you are a part. As you no doubt know I am against taking away people's
earnings ie. what they have exchanged freely with others for their labour,
but capital and land returns are a "tribal" property. We have a half-baked
mixed economy system which muddles through this ethical dichotomy, but both
free market capitalism and command socialism are unethical and in breach of
people's rights (they both get it "half right" if you like). It'll have to
make do for the moment.
>
>>parents or whoever wishes to have schools which include religious or
>>political indoctrination then that should be allowed provided they are not
>>indoctrinating people into criminality against their fellow citizens.
>
> a standard part of authoritarian religions is to teach the victims that
> the religion is correct.....and everyone else is a raving idiot....
> are you claiming this is legitimate?
In the sense that I should be allowed to tell someone a load of bollocks,
yes. But others should be equally permitted to tell the person that I'm
talking bollocks too. In particular there is not enough honest discussion in
"the media" about the theology underpinning Islam. It should get, and
deserves, serious criticism, particularly wrt it's incompatibility with the
basic human rights which are part of this nation's culture.
>
>> Islam
>>is at least a grey area in that regard. Many Mosques do preach criminality
>>for example. It's a tricky subject which needs further debate and clear
>>information before we can make judgements.
>
> that is in part why i am trying to understand your position....
> or get you to clarify it....
>
I am opposed to Islam. I see it as being analogous to Nazism. By "Islam" I
simply mean that which is written in the Koran and Hadiths, ie. NOT
necessarily the group of people who choose to call themselves "Muslims",
though obviously there is a connection between the two things. This does not
mean that I wish to ban Islam, nor indeed that I wish to ban Nazism, for the
same reasons in both cases. If the ideology grows to a sufficient degree
however violent defense of the principles of freedom and democracy will be
neccessary, as it was 50 years ago against Nazism. At the moment I see it as
much better to simply keep the confrontation at the level of strong debate.
I have absolutely no problem, and in fact support, denying potential
immigrants citizenship of this country on the grounds of their beliefs in
respect of them being Muslim, either directly or indirectly.
abelard
typed:
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:5rl611p3kvfvpb1sh...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:23:33 -0000, "Energumen" <ener_...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>>
>>>> i am wary of forcing conformity....
>>>> i am way of forcing secular conformity when i note the incredible social
>>>> damage perpetrated by socialism....
>>>> baybee and bathwater replaced by 666!
>>>
>>>You seem to be falling into the same trap as Stephen Glynn here, ie.
>>>assuming that "should" means "should be forced to" and trying to turn it
>>>into a libertarian type issue.
>>
>> no traps...just trying to understand why it causes you a problem....
>> the next stage is to ask you what you want done about as you seem
>> to regard it as 'a problem'....
>
>All I want is for people to "wise up" basically.
as must any sane person....however devils and details....
how do you propose to achieve this....?
especially how do you propose to do this through laws?
>>> I don't believe that there should be knitting
>>>patterns in a chemistry textbook, but that doesn't automatically mean that
>>>I
>>>want to ban such a thing. There is no other sensible position than a
>>>secular
>>>approach when we are talking about teaching Muslims and non-Muslims
>>>together
>>
>> what is 'a secular approach'?
>> does it mean treating mohamad as a detached entity apart from what he
>> taught....or what?
>
>No simply stating what it was that he taught, what muslims believe, what it
>says in the Koran etc. Without teaching that any of it is true and certainly
>without constantly wishing him well in the afterlife every time his name is
>mentioned.
:-) ok for the mo'
but the detail remain!
>>>in the same class. I am against state funding for non-secular schools but
>>>if
>>
>> this will become a sub-issue....
>> 1)i'm none to keen on governments stealing my wherewithal under threat....
>> 2)i'm none to keen on the state funding schools....
>>
>> why should they take money from me in order to fund just those schools
>> of which you approve.....
>
>Not me, the country. Ie. the group of people who legitimately own the land
>you are standing on and permit you to be a citizen in their "polis", of
>which you are a part. As you no doubt know I am against taking away people's
>earnings ie. what they have exchanged freely with others for their labour,
>but capital and land returns are a "tribal" property. We have a half-baked
>mixed economy system which muddles through this ethical dichotomy, but both
>free market capitalism and command socialism are unethical and in breach of
>people's rights (they both get it "half right" if you like). It'll have to
>make do for the moment.
well....sort of....
i am proposing that wealth generated by past generations (ie industrial
techniques) should be 'tribal' more than land.....
land that is not owned is subject to tragedy of the commons....
also i 'd rather tribes had legal sub-writ over smaller areas of what is
presently called 'a country'.....
and the nation government be highly limited....
>>>parents or whoever wishes to have schools which include religious or
>>>political indoctrination then that should be allowed provided they are not
>>>indoctrinating people into criminality against their fellow citizens.
>>
>> a standard part of authoritarian religions is to teach the victims that
>> the religion is correct.....and everyone else is a raving idiot....
>> are you claiming this is legitimate?
>
>In the sense that I should be allowed to tell someone a load of bollocks,
>yes. But others should be equally permitted to tell the person that I'm
>talking bollocks too.
the problem reduces to 'who owns the child?'....
how do you cope with insular communities/familes/tribes where only
one version of bollox is permitted.....
i include, i suspect in your case, the bollox of 'secularism'
> In particular there is not enough honest discussion in
>"the media" about the theology underpinning Islam. It should get, and
>deserves, serious criticism, particularly wrt it's incompatibility with the
>basic human rights which are part of this nation's culture.
more or less ok....
the fossil media is heavily fiction....
it conveys 'a' mass delusion/myth.....
>>> Islam
>>>is at least a grey area in that regard. Many Mosques do preach criminality
>>>for example. It's a tricky subject which needs further debate and clear
>>>information before we can make judgements.
>>
>> that is in part why i am trying to understand your position....
>> or get you to clarify it....
>I am opposed to Islam. I see it as being analogous to Nazism.
certainly jihadism is another death cult like socialism...national or
otherwise...
> By "Islam" I
>simply mean that which is written in the Koran and Hadiths, ie. NOT
>necessarily the group of people who choose to call themselves "Muslims",
>though obviously there is a connection between the two things.
but there is much legal interpretation build upon that base as there
is in western law built upon christianism....
>This does not
>mean that I wish to ban Islam, nor indeed that I wish to ban Nazism, for the
>same reasons in both cases. If the ideology grows to a sufficient degree
>however violent defense of the principles of freedom and democracy will be
>neccessary, as it was 50 years ago against Nazism.
imv tolerance of intolerance is idiocy of the first water....
> At the moment I see it as
>much better to simply keep the confrontation at the level of strong debate.
>I have absolutely no problem, and in fact support, denying potential
>immigrants citizenship of this country on the grounds of their beliefs in
>respect of them being Muslim, either directly or indirectly.
and saudi denying immigration on the base of christianism or your
definition of secularism?
my enemy is fundamentalists/m not this weeks particular 57 varieties....
imv most of the world is mad to the point of living believing myths
and dogma instead of dealing with reality....
i regard fundamentalism in any form as mental disease.....
James Hammerton
wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:23:33 -0000, "Energumen" <ener_...@yahoo.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>
>>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>
>>> i am wary of forcing conformity....
>>> i am way of forcing secular conformity when i note the incredible social
>>> damage perpetrated by socialism....
>>> baybee and bathwater replaced by 666!
>>
>>You seem to be falling into the same trap as Stephen Glynn here, ie.
>>assuming that "should" means "should be forced to" and trying to turn it
>>into a libertarian type issue.
>
>no traps...just trying to understand why it causes you a problem....
>the next stage is to ask you what you want done about as you seem
> to regard it as 'a problem'....
>
>> I don't believe that there should be knitting
>>patterns in a chemistry textbook, but that doesn't automatically mean that I
>>want to ban such a thing. There is no other sensible position than a secular
>>approach when we are talking about teaching Muslims and non-Muslims together
>
>what is 'a secular approach'?
>does it mean treating mohamad as a detached entity apart from what he
> taught....or what?
>
>>in the same class. I am against state funding for non-secular schools but if
>
>this will become a sub-issue....
>1)i'm none to keen on governments stealing my wherewithal under threat....
Arranging things so that doesn't happen might take a while...
>2)i'm none to keen on the state funding schools....
>
>why should they take money from me in order to fund just those schools
> of which you approve.....
>
>>parents or whoever wishes to have schools which include religious or
>>political indoctrination then that should be allowed provided they are not
>>indoctrinating people into criminality against their fellow citizens.
>
>a standard part of authoritarian religions is to teach the victims that
> the religion is correct.....and everyone else is a raving idiot....
>are you claiming this is legitimate?
If you say it is not legitimate what, in your view, should be done
about it? And what sort of govt intervention, if any, would you
suggest?
ISTR you arguing in favour of greater educational choice on the part
of parents and pupils, how would that fit in with not allowing
religious schools?
James
James Hammerton
wrote:
How do you propose to achieve a situation where such wealth is in
practice shared across the "tribe"?
>land that is not owned is subject to tragedy of the commons....
Indeed.
What about the atmosphere?
>also i 'd rather tribes had legal sub-writ over smaller areas of what is
> presently called 'a country'.....
Balkanization?
>and the nation government be highly limited....
Agreed...
>>>>parents or whoever wishes to have schools which include religious or
>>>>political indoctrination then that should be allowed provided they are not
>>>>indoctrinating people into criminality against their fellow citizens.
>>>
>>> a standard part of authoritarian religions is to teach the victims that
>>> the religion is correct.....and everyone else is a raving idiot....
>>> are you claiming this is legitimate?
>>
>>In the sense that I should be allowed to tell someone a load of bollocks,
>>yes. But others should be equally permitted to tell the person that I'm
>>talking bollocks too.
>
>the problem reduces to 'who owns the child?'....
Do you have a position wrt this question?
>how do you cope with insular communities/familes/tribes where only
> one version of bollox is permitted.....
That's a toughie... Can one ensure exposure to outside influences
without laws forcing them into it?
What is the best way of not tolerating intolerance?
I guess it all depends on the situation...
James
abelard
<jamesha...@yahoo.co.uk>
typed:
>On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:31:11 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>this will become a sub-issue....
>>1)i'm none to keen on governments stealing my wherewithal under threat....
>
>Arranging things so that doesn't happen might take a while...
:-)
>>2)i'm none to keen on the state funding schools....
>>
>>why should they take money from me in order to fund just those schools
>> of which you approve.....
>>
>>>parents or whoever wishes to have schools which include religious or
>>>political indoctrination then that should be allowed provided they are not
>>>indoctrinating people into criminality against their fellow citizens.
>>
>>a standard part of authoritarian religions is to teach the victims that
>> the religion is correct.....and everyone else is a raving idiot....
>>are you claiming this is legitimate?
>
>If you say it is not legitimate what, in your view, should be done
>about it? And what sort of govt intervention, if any, would you
>suggest?
imv there should be central national laws that ensure awareness of
the mainstream social advances are mandatory for the education of
the young....
ie...they can read and calculate....they know how to use libraries and
have easy access....
imv various interests should at least have some access to classrooms...
eg scientists, religious scholars, probably political parties.....
that reasoning is taught from early on.....
probably that tv and web links are pretty freely available.....
i want a general curriculum as outlined
http://www.abelard.org/civil/civil.htm
one day i may even get the resources to fill in more detail!
i don't like the current institution much at all......the idea of
'subjects' is primitive and the engineered passivity of the
system is a cultural disgrace....
>ISTR you arguing in favour of greater educational choice on the part
>of parents and pupils, how would that fit in with not allowing
>religious schools?
i have no great objection to religious schools.....
as long as they are seriously open....that they teach study...not dogma...
that they teach reason not authoritarianism.....
i also want parenting as part of the citizenship programme...and as you
realise, franchise by examination......
i regard the knee-jerk anti religion of the left as the special pleading
of a shallow cult religion....
it seems to me it often hides behind the term 'secularism'.....
socialism is probably the most dangerous cult around.....
most sophisticated religions teach social behaviour......throwing that
out in favour of socialism is imv madness.....
i quote sommat maje used to put about
Religion has its own work, which is to educate people who are too dull to
understand philosophy, or too untutored to be amenable to its teaching.
This is why religion is necessary, for what it preaches is fundamentally
the same as what philosophy teaches, and, unless common men believed what
it preaches, they would behave like beasts. But theologians should preach,
not teach, just as philosophers should teach, not preach. Theologians
should not attempt to demonstrate, because they cannot do it, and
philosophers must be careful not to get belief mixed up with what they
prove, because then they can no longer prove anything. Now, to preach
creation is just a handy way to make people feel that God is their Master,
which is true even though, as is well known by those who truly
philosophize, nothing of the sort ever happened. [Etienne Gilson, Being
and Some Philosophers, p. 52]
you will never develop satori through socialism....
socialism is the religion of the anthill or the farmyard...
this is complicated while addressing poorly educated westerners
abelard
<jamesha...@yahoo.co.uk>
typed:
>On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:12:17 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>well....sort of....
>>i am proposing that wealth generated by past generations (ie industrial
>> techniques) should be 'tribal' more than land.....
>
>How do you propose to achieve a situation where such wealth is in
>practice shared across the "tribe"?
administratively via the limitation of inheritance....
through setting a citizen's wage/dividend.....
the fine details don't much concern me.....i wish to increase steadily the
independence of franchised citizens in accord with the general wealth
of society....
my first aim is the requirement for a *minimal* std of living...ie no
allowance for 'extras'.....somewhere to sleep....adequate food....
basic clothing....
>>land that is not owned is subject to tragedy of the commons....
>
>Indeed.
>
>What about the atmosphere?
ration carbon and allow a market...for individuals as well as companies...
>>also i 'd rather tribes had legal sub-writ over smaller areas of what is
>> presently called 'a country'.....
>
>Balkanization?
more like hierarchy of laws....see also other post....
>>and the nation government be highly limited....
>
>Agreed...
>
>>>>>parents or whoever wishes to have schools which include religious or
>>>>>political indoctrination then that should be allowed provided they are not
>>>>>indoctrinating people into criminality against their fellow citizens.
>>>>
>>>> a standard part of authoritarian religions is to teach the victims that
>>>> the religion is correct.....and everyone else is a raving idiot....
>>>> are you claiming this is legitimate?
>>>
>>>In the sense that I should be allowed to tell someone a load of bollocks,
>>>yes. But others should be equally permitted to tell the person that I'm
>>>talking bollocks too.
>>
>>the problem reduces to 'who owns the child?'....
>
>Do you have a position wrt this question?
i don't believe in 'equality'.....i believe in franchise by examination...
therefore i have no belief in forcing intelligent capable parents to
conform to 'laws' designed for the feckless....
see recent item on my news....
>>how do you cope with insular communities/familes/tribes where only
>> one version of bollox is permitted.....
>
>That's a toughie... Can one ensure exposure to outside influences
>without laws forcing them into it?
i'm happy to see such laws developed.....
but not the lock-step or imposed curriculum outside 'basics'.....
also see other post...
>>imv tolerance of intolerance is idiocy of the first water....
>
>What is the best way of not tolerating intolerance?
>
>I guess it all depends on the situation...
indeed...judgement is always necessary...i'm in favour of local courts to
resolve difficulties among *peers*....
i'm in favour of supervision for the incapable.....
this links strongly to the hierarchy of law i'm suggesting in
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/iqedfran.htm
please iterate where i'm unclear
regards...
Energumen
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:36:07 -0000, "Energumen" <ener_...@yahoo.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>
>>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>>news:5rl611p3kvfvpb1sh...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:23:33 -0000, "Energumen" <ener_...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>
>>> typed:
>>>
>>>>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> i am wary of forcing conformity....
>>>>> i am way of forcing secular conformity when i note the incredible
>>>>> social
>>>>> damage perpetrated by socialism....
>>>>> baybee and bathwater replaced by 666!
>>>>
>>>>You seem to be falling into the same trap as Stephen Glynn here, ie.
>>>>assuming that "should" means "should be forced to" and trying to turn it
>>>>into a libertarian type issue.
>>>
>>> no traps...just trying to understand why it causes you a problem....
>>> the next stage is to ask you what you want done about as you seem
>>> to regard it as 'a problem'....
>>
>>All I want is for people to "wise up" basically.
>
> as must any sane person....however devils and details....
> how do you propose to achieve this....?
> especially how do you propose to do this through laws?
I don't. Except that those expressing criminal views can be denied, for
example, permission to construct buildings for the purpose etc.
To me that's another kind of "muddling through" type of solution, and I'm
not sure it can be put on a mathematically non-arbitrary level. How do you
work out the actual figures? Quite possibly no worse than the current
situation though, and possibly better, I don't know.
> land that is not owned is subject to tragedy of the commons....
Not necessarily, it depends on how you define the rights of ownership.
Rights of ownership can be split and divided, they don't all have to be in
one bundle. We've discussed this before, "non-Euclidean capitalism" as I
called it.
>
> also i 'd rather tribes had legal sub-writ over smaller areas of what is
> presently called 'a country'.....
It's really the decision of the people involved what "tribe" they want to
belong to as such, IMO, not you or me. The direction currently is, in
general, to smaller units.
> and the nation government be highly limited....
>
>>>>parents or whoever wishes to have schools which include religious or
>>>>political indoctrination then that should be allowed provided they are
>>>>not
>>>>indoctrinating people into criminality against their fellow citizens.
>>>
>>> a standard part of authoritarian religions is to teach the victims that
>>> the religion is correct.....and everyone else is a raving idiot....
>>> are you claiming this is legitimate?
>>
>>In the sense that I should be allowed to tell someone a load of bollocks,
>>yes. But others should be equally permitted to tell the person that I'm
>>talking bollocks too.
>
> the problem reduces to 'who owns the child?'....
> how do you cope with insular communities/familes/tribes where only
> one version of bollox is permitted.....
A) You avoid them being citizens of your country in the first place, to the
extent possible.
B) You argue against them whenever the opportunity presents itself, and also
argue against the "multiculturalist" racist moral relativists who would seek
to protect them from sharp debate.
C) If all else fails and they choose to impose their views on others then
you go to war against them to expel them from your national area (or at
least retain as much territory as you can). If they keep to themselves and
don't try to impose themselves on others I don't much care (though above a
certain population % this becomes a risk even with those with otherwise
relatively benign intentions). When war is appropriate is a tricky question,
both for international and intranational wars.
> i include, i suspect in your case, the bollox of 'secularism'
>
>> In particular there is not enough honest discussion in
>>"the media" about the theology underpinning Islam. It should get, and
>>deserves, serious criticism, particularly wrt it's incompatibility with
>>the
>>basic human rights which are part of this nation's culture.
>
> more or less ok....
>
> the fossil media is heavily fiction....
> it conveys 'a' mass delusion/myth....
>
>>>> Islam
>>>>is at least a grey area in that regard. Many Mosques do preach
>>>>criminality
>>>>for example. It's a tricky subject which needs further debate and clear
>>>>information before we can make judgements.
>>>
>>> that is in part why i am trying to understand your position....
>>> or get you to clarify it....
>
>>I am opposed to Islam. I see it as being analogous to Nazism.
>
> certainly jihadism is another death cult like socialism...national or
> otherwise...
What, however is the difference between "jihadism" and Islam though?
>
>> By "Islam" I
>>simply mean that which is written in the Koran and Hadiths, ie. NOT
>>necessarily the group of people who choose to call themselves "Muslims",
>>though obviously there is a connection between the two things.
>
> but there is much legal interpretation build upon that base as there
> is in western law built upon christianism....
Just because something is Christian, indeed just because something is
Muslim, that doesn't make it wrong. Christianity was just a unifying
mish-mash of largely Graeco-Roman ideas with Judaic monotheism shoved into
it. Neither Jesus nor Paul/Saul sat and made it up from scratch. It had
antecedence. Islam is basically just Christianity with a violent conquest
element thrown in order to trump Christianity in terms of being a meme set
which will spread, though it also has many of the stupid superstitous ritual
elements of Judaism which Christianity all but totally abandoned (but in
some branches of Christianity others were reinvented). Thankfully the
pacifistic elements of Christianity were not enough to prevent the defense
of Europe from the spread of Islam, and it's pagan-derived elements and
political flexibility uneasily allowed the Enlightenment to develop, after
much tribulation. To me we should be moving things forward with a "second
enlightenment" if you like, cutting away the dead wood of superstitions
which remains or was latterly accumulated since then. Unfortunately Islam is
in conquest mode again in a different form so this may have to be postponed,
but perhaps we can do both at the same time (?).
>
>>This does not
>>mean that I wish to ban Islam, nor indeed that I wish to ban Nazism, for
>>the
>>same reasons in both cases. If the ideology grows to a sufficient degree
>>however violent defense of the principles of freedom and democracy will be
>>neccessary, as it was 50 years ago against Nazism.
>
> imv tolerance of intolerance is idiocy of the first water....
it's a matter of degree though.........unfortunately.
>
>> At the moment I see it as
>>much better to simply keep the confrontation at the level of strong
>>debate.
>>I have absolutely no problem, and in fact support, denying potential
>>immigrants citizenship of this country on the grounds of their beliefs in
>>respect of them being Muslim, either directly or indirectly.
>
> and saudi denying immigration on the base of christianism or your
> definition of secularism?
It's not my concern unless they threaten citizens of this country. If a
country is not controlled by those representing it's citizens however then a
war on their behalf *may* be justified, but is not obliged.
>
> my enemy is fundamentalists/m not this weeks particular 57 varieties....
> imv most of the world is mad to the point of living believing myths
> and dogma instead of dealing with reality....
>
> i regard fundamentalism in any form as mental disease.....
>
What is fundamentalism? The inability to change your mind when presented
with evidence?
abelard
typed:
your comment is not clear to me...
>> well....sort of....
>> i am proposing that wealth generated by past generations (ie industrial
>> techniques) should be 'tribal' more than land.....
>
>To me that's another kind of "muddling through" type of solution, and I'm
>not sure it can be put on a mathematically non-arbitrary level. How do you
>work out the actual figures? Quite possibly no worse than the current
>situation though, and possibly better, I don't know.
1)i'm in favour of a degree of muddling through...
2)i'm proposing a start at a low level and gradually rising as any
market repercussions show....eg inability to fill jobs....
'mathematically' i'm talking about a flat rate with absolutely no
variations...therefore administratively simple....
>> land that is not owned is subject to tragedy of the commons....
>
>Not necessarily, it depends on how you define the rights of ownership.
>Rights of ownership can be split and divided, they don't all have to be in
>one bundle. We've discussed this before, "non-Euclidean capitalism" as I
>called it.
which then gets complicated and requires detailed analysis and
negotiation...
>> also i 'd rather tribes had legal sub-writ over smaller areas of what is
>> presently called 'a country'.....
>
>It's really the decision of the people involved what "tribe" they want to
>belong to as such, IMO, not you or me. The direction currently is, in
>general, to smaller units.
a natural tribe tends to be <200....but tribal associations are
also possible....
as for which tribe...yes, that is entirely their own choice....
well organised tribes are more efficient that individuals...but the
current alienation and lack of experience is considerable for most
people
>> and the nation government be highly limited....
>>
>>>>>parents or whoever wishes to have schools which include religious or
>>>>>political indoctrination then that should be allowed provided they are
>>>>>not
>>>>>indoctrinating people into criminality against their fellow citizens.
>>>>
>>>> a standard part of authoritarian religions is to teach the victims that
>>>> the religion is correct.....and everyone else is a raving idiot....
>>>> are you claiming this is legitimate?
>>>
>>>In the sense that I should be allowed to tell someone a load of bollocks,
>>>yes. But others should be equally permitted to tell the person that I'm
>>>talking bollocks too.
>>
>> the problem reduces to 'who owns the child?'....
>> how do you cope with insular communities/familes/tribes where only
>> one version of bollox is permitted.....
>
>A) You avoid them being citizens of your country in the first place, to the
>extent possible.
i think the global village is getting to small to make that work in a
context of ever increasing individual power....
for shorthand...eg aum shrinriko or jihadi groups...
>B) You argue against them whenever the opportunity presents itself, and also
>argue against the "multiculturalist" racist moral relativists who would seek
>to protect them from sharp debate.
they are nutz and intellectually shallow
>C) If all else fails and they choose to impose their views on others then
>you go to war against them to expel them from your national area (or at
>least retain as much territory as you can). If they keep to themselves and
>don't try to impose themselves on others I don't much care (though above a
>certain population % this becomes a risk even with those with otherwise
>relatively benign intentions). When war is appropriate is a tricky question,
>both for international and intranational wars.
sure....but i don't think you can any longer tolerate these primitive
atavistic tribes....other than on controlled reservations....
>>>I am opposed to Islam. I see it as being analogous to Nazism.
>>
>> certainly jihadism is another death cult like socialism...national or
>> otherwise...
>
>What, however is the difference between "jihadism" and Islam though?
i would have to ask individuals that question.....
it is a matter of individual choice...
this fundamentalism was rife in the west until quite recently....
i am far more sanguine than many that islam can also adjust....the
problems are time and numbers....
>>> By "Islam" I
>>>simply mean that which is written in the Koran and Hadiths, ie. NOT
>>>necessarily the group of people who choose to call themselves "Muslims",
>>>though obviously there is a connection between the two things.
>>
>> but there is much legal interpretation build upon that base as there
>> is in western law built upon christianism....
>
>Just because something is Christian, indeed just because something is
>Muslim, that doesn't make it wrong. Christianity was just a unifying
>mish-mash of largely Graeco-Roman ideas with Judaic monotheism shoved into
>it. Neither Jesus nor Paul/Saul sat and made it up from scratch. It had
>antecedence. Islam is basically just Christianity with a violent conquest
>element thrown in order to trump Christianity in terms of being a meme set
>which will spread, though it also has many of the stupid superstitous ritual
>elements of Judaism which Christianity all but totally abandoned (but in
>some branches of Christianity others were reinvented). Thankfully the
>pacifistic elements of Christianity were not enough to prevent the defense
>of Europe from the spread of Islam, and it's pagan-derived elements and
>political flexibility uneasily allowed the Enlightenment to develop, after
>much tribulation. To me we should be moving things forward with a "second
>enlightenment" if you like, cutting away the dead wood of superstitions
>which remains or was latterly accumulated since then.
mostly no problems with that lot....though as you say the paganism
has left room for flexibility....
are you equating some meaning of 'paganism' with superstition as rome
does?
>Unfortunately Islam is
>in conquest mode again in a different form so this may have to be postponed,
>but perhaps we can do both at the same time (?).
the latter is my best hope....
we do have a modern world and communication system.....
socialist russia tried to keep their sheep passive and uninformed...it
didn't work for them...
it is also breaking down in china....
>>>This does not
>>>mean that I wish to ban Islam, nor indeed that I wish to ban Nazism, for
>>>the
>>>same reasons in both cases. If the ideology grows to a sufficient degree
>>>however violent defense of the principles of freedom and democracy will be
>>>neccessary, as it was 50 years ago against Nazism.
>>
>> imv tolerance of intolerance is idiocy of the first water....
>
>it's a matter of degree though.........unfortunately.
ok...maybe....
>>> At the moment I see it as
>>>much better to simply keep the confrontation at the level of strong
>>>debate.
>>>I have absolutely no problem, and in fact support, denying potential
>>>immigrants citizenship of this country on the grounds of their beliefs in
>>>respect of them being Muslim, either directly or indirectly.
>>
>> and saudi denying immigration on the base of christianism or your
>> definition of secularism?
>
>It's not my concern unless they threaten citizens of this country. If a
>country is not controlled by those representing it's citizens however then a
>war on their behalf *may* be justified, but is not obliged.
we cannot possibly allow the oil supplies to come under a dictatorship
that trades oil for nukes or oil for global power....
it is vital this is not lost under the inundation of left wing fluff....
>> my enemy is fundamentalists/m not this weeks particular 57 varieties....
>> imv most of the world is mad to the point of living believing myths
>> and dogma instead of dealing with reality....
>>
>> i regard fundamentalism in any form as mental disease.....
>What is fundamentalism? The inability to change your mind when presented
>with evidence?
i'll accept that until it becomes a problem....
putting 'beliefs' ahead of real world data....
our god is better than your god....get out the rack and thumbscrews....
i think you may have a problem with me if you regard *unexamined* a set of
social teachings as a dogma...
'thou shalt not kill' has real world merits just as much as hydrogen and
oxygen form water.....
regards...
Energumen
I don't wish to criminalise opinions, but when public approval is required
for a project it is appropriate that it is denied.
>
>>> well....sort of....
>>> i am proposing that wealth generated by past generations (ie industrial
>>> techniques) should be 'tribal' more than land.....
>>
>>To me that's another kind of "muddling through" type of solution, and I'm
>>not sure it can be put on a mathematically non-arbitrary level. How do you
>>work out the actual figures? Quite possibly no worse than the current
>>situation though, and possibly better, I don't know.
>
> 1)i'm in favour of a degree of muddling through...
As am I, but I believe that my interpretation has a fundamental basis in
ethics, while also being mathematically quantifiable.
> 2)i'm proposing a start at a low level and gradually rising as any
> market repercussions show....eg inability to fill jobs....
> 'mathematically' i'm talking about a flat rate with absolutely no
> variations...therefore administratively simple....
It *could* approximate my view of an economially just society, though until
I see it, frankly I doubt it. A reformation to a just society would entail,
for example, that wealth was not distributed on a Pareto distribution. Would
your system create that situation? I have my doubts.
>
>>> land that is not owned is subject to tragedy of the commons....
>>
>>Not necessarily, it depends on how you define the rights of ownership.
>>Rights of ownership can be split and divided, they don't all have to be in
>>one bundle. We've discussed this before, "non-Euclidean capitalism" as I
>>called it.
>
> which then gets complicated and requires detailed analysis and
> negotiation...
No, it is defined by basic rights. There is no "complicated" nor
"negotiation" about it. But this is a sidetrack.
>
>>> also i 'd rather tribes had legal sub-writ over smaller areas of what is
>>> presently called 'a country'.....
>>
>>It's really the decision of the people involved what "tribe" they want to
>>belong to as such, IMO, not you or me. The direction currently is, in
>>general, to smaller units.
>
> a natural tribe tends to be <200....but tribal associations are
> also possible....
A tribe is what it is. It is not for you or me to put upper limits on
numbers, it is for people collectively to decide.
Nonsense. We can choose to cut immigration (at least immigration granting
citizenship and voting rights) to zero tommorrow. I hold no allegience to
any "global village". Any "global villager" who finds himself geographically
in this country without permission can f off, or at the very least can be
denied a vote, until he meets the acceptance of current tribe members.
> for shorthand...eg aum shrinriko or jihadi groups...
>
>>B) You argue against them whenever the opportunity presents itself, and
>>also
>>argue against the "multiculturalist" racist moral relativists who would
>>seek
>>to protect them from sharp debate.
>
> they are nutz and intellectually shallow
>
>>C) If all else fails and they choose to impose their views on others then
>>you go to war against them to expel them from your national area (or at
>>least retain as much territory as you can). If they keep to themselves and
>>don't try to impose themselves on others I don't much care (though above a
>>certain population % this becomes a risk even with those with otherwise
>>relatively benign intentions). When war is appropriate is a tricky
>>question,
>>both for international and intranational wars.
>
> sure....but i don't think you can any longer tolerate these primitive
> atavistic tribes....other than on controlled reservations....
I am willing to act the "missionary" for the time being. If the threat
becomes real then I will not hesitate to kill others in defense of freedom,
but *if* we restrict immigration I still think that a significant number can
be "converted". Of course this depends on the "multiculturalist" idiots
relinquishing their power to an extent.
>
>>>>I am opposed to Islam. I see it as being analogous to Nazism.
>>>
>>> certainly jihadism is another death cult like socialism...national or
>>> otherwise...
>>
>>What, however is the difference between "jihadism" and Islam though?
>
> i would have to ask individuals that question.....
> it is a matter of individual choice...
Here is were I disagree. Islam is different, because it says that a book is
the word of God. To me someone who believes in human rights and democracy
and who calls themselves a Muslim is a hypocrite. Perhaps he supports human
rights and misunderstands the nature of Islam, I don't discount that
possibility, but to me when properly understood the two things are
incompatible.
>
> this fundamentalism was rife in the west until quite recently....
> i am far more sanguine than many that islam can also adjust....
*Muslims* may be able to adjust, *Islam* cannot. Remember IMO Islam is not
"the group of people who call themselves Muslims" but rather "that which is
written in the Koran and the Hadiths". I really think that you need to
understand the difference, because so many do not, often wilfully.
No, I really mean pre-Christian Roman beliefs. In this context Platonism,
Stoicism and Epicureanism in particular.
Maybe, maybe not.
> it is vital this is not lost under the inundation of left wing fluff....
>
>>> my enemy is fundamentalists/m not this weeks particular 57 varieties....
>>> imv most of the world is mad to the point of living believing myths
>>> and dogma instead of dealing with reality....
>>>
>>> i regard fundamentalism in any form as mental disease.....
>
>>What is fundamentalism? The inability to change your mind when presented
>>with evidence?
>
> i'll accept that until it becomes a problem....
> putting 'beliefs' ahead of real world data....
> our god is better than your god....get out the rack and thumbscrews....
>
> i think you may have a problem with me if you regard *unexamined* a set of
> social teachings as a dogma...
> 'thou shalt not kill' has real world merits just as much as hydrogen and
> oxygen form water.....
In many situations killing is perfectly appropriate. Perhaps I didn't
understand your point.
abelard
typed:
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:5fm711hg4hu0du72e...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:15:03 -0000, "Energumen" <ener_...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>I don't. Except that those expressing criminal views can be denied, for
>>>example, permission to construct buildings for the purpose etc.
>>
>> your comment is not clear to me...
>
>I don't wish to criminalise opinions, but when public approval is required
>for a project it is appropriate that it is denied.
i still find your mind set to grasp....
what does 'required' mean re 'public opinion'? some one makes up
this 'required' bit.....
>>>> well....sort of....
>>>> i am proposing that wealth generated by past generations (ie industrial
>>>> techniques) should be 'tribal' more than land.....
>>>
>>>To me that's another kind of "muddling through" type of solution, and I'm
>>>not sure it can be put on a mathematically non-arbitrary level. How do you
>>>work out the actual figures? Quite possibly no worse than the current
>>>situation though, and possibly better, I don't know.
>>
>> 1)i'm in favour of a degree of muddling through...
>
>As am I, but I believe that my interpretation has a fundamental basis in
>ethics, while also being mathematically quantifiable.
i have talked to you previously about logical and market problems
with your georgian approach.....i don't think you have resolved
those problems....
ethics is in part a matter of taste....i'd rather see you axioms...
>> 2)i'm proposing a start at a low level and gradually rising as any
>> market repercussions show....eg inability to fill jobs....
>> 'mathematically' i'm talking about a flat rate with absolutely no
>> variations...therefore administratively simple....
>
>It *could* approximate my view of an economially just society, though until
>I see it, frankly I doubt it. A reformation to a just society would entail,
>for example, that wealth was not distributed on a Pareto distribution. Would
>your system create that situation? I have my doubts.
certainly not in the short run....i am very wary of unintended
consequences....
my impression is you should concentrate a bit on the meaning of
'economics'
especially distinguish between consumer money and power money....
eg....what difference if power is linked to money or to political
position or even to shamanistic rituals?
why do you not accept present power arrangements unless you
yearn for a piece of the action....and then what piece and why?
>>>> land that is not owned is subject to tragedy of the commons....
>>>
>>>Not necessarily, it depends on how you define the rights of ownership.
>>>Rights of ownership can be split and divided, they don't all have to be in
>>>one bundle. We've discussed this before, "non-Euclidean capitalism" as I
>>>called it.
>>
>> which then gets complicated and requires detailed analysis and
>> negotiation...
>
>No, it is defined by basic rights. There is no "complicated" nor
>"negotiation" about it. But this is a sidetrack.
see above...and i'm more than content to ignore this as a 'sidetrack'....
i'm just trying to see where you are at....where you are headed...why...
how much of it is logical etc...
>>>> also i 'd rather tribes had legal sub-writ over smaller areas of what is
>>>> presently called 'a country'.....
>>>
>>>It's really the decision of the people involved what "tribe" they want to
>>>belong to as such, IMO, not you or me. The direction currently is, in
>>>general, to smaller units.
>>
>> a natural tribe tends to be <200....but tribal associations are
>> also possible....
>
>A tribe is what it is. It is not for you or me to put upper limits on
>numbers, it is for people collectively to decide.
sure...i'm just quoting an approximate number for a group that can
interact on an acquaintance basis....
after that your tribe require representatives and changes structure...
sound like you're a collectivist....who has the place to decide who has
membership...you?
how do you stop another group invading now in a world of nukes on
sticks, fishing out the oceans....polluting the air etc....
i think you have an illusion of control in a nice little backwater which
is now unrealistic and getting more so by the week....
>>>C) If all else fails and they choose to impose their views on others then
>>>you go to war against them to expel them from your national area (or at
>>>least retain as much territory as you can). If they keep to themselves and
>>>don't try to impose themselves on others I don't much care (though above a
>>>certain population % this becomes a risk even with those with otherwise
>>>relatively benign intentions). When war is appropriate is a tricky
>>>question,
>>>both for international and intranational wars.
>>
>> sure....but i don't think you can any longer tolerate these primitive
>> atavistic tribes....other than on controlled reservations....
>
>I am willing to act the "missionary" for the time being. If the threat
>becomes real then I will not hesitate to kill others in defense of freedom,
>but *if* we restrict immigration I still think that a significant number can
>be "converted".
ok..
> Of course this depends on the "multiculturalist" idiots
>relinquishing their power to an extent.
what does that mean?
>>>>>I am opposed to Islam. I see it as being analogous to Nazism.
>>>>
>>>> certainly jihadism is another death cult like socialism...national or
>>>> otherwise...
>>>
>>>What, however is the difference between "jihadism" and Islam though?
>>
>> i would have to ask individuals that question.....
>> it is a matter of individual choice...
>
>Here is were I disagree. Islam is different, because it says that a book is
>the word of God. To me someone who believes in human rights and democracy
>and who calls themselves a Muslim is a hypocrite. Perhaps he supports human
>rights and misunderstands the nature of Islam, I don't discount that
>possibility, but to me when properly understood the two things are
>incompatible.
come off it...christianists were even killing each other on your doorstep
in the name of religion until very recently...
the guy in rome still just knows he is right....
so do the socialists.....
where are you at! i can't see the whites of your eyes....
>> this fundamentalism was rife in the west until quite recently....
>> i am far more sanguine than many that islam can also adjust....
>
>*Muslims* may be able to adjust, *Islam* cannot. Remember IMO Islam is not
>"the group of people who call themselves Muslims" but rather "that which is
>written in the Koran and the Hadiths". I really think that you need to
>understand the difference, because so many do not, often wilfully.
words in a book are just marks on paper.....
they have no personality....it is people who read them and
interpret them.....and each person differently.....
you can't have a discussion with a book....
until recently rome was holding out against galileo and still at times
against darwin....
this is the real world....
you give a strong scent of believing what you want to believe rather
than working from reality....
tell me i'm misconstruing you!
>> mostly no problems with that lot....though as you say the paganism
>> has left room for flexibility....
>> are you equating some meaning of 'paganism' with superstition as rome
>> does?
>
>No, I really mean pre-Christian Roman beliefs. In this context Platonism,
>Stoicism and Epicureanism in particular.
ok....and the gods bits?
>>>Unfortunately Islam is
>>>in conquest mode again in a different form so this may have to be
>>>postponed,
>>>but perhaps we can do both at the same time (?).
>>
>> the latter is my best hope....
>> we do have a modern world and communication system.....
>> socialist russia tried to keep their sheep passive and uninformed...it
>> didn't work for them...
>> it is also breaking down in china....
>>>>> At the moment I see it as
>>>>>much better to simply keep the confrontation at the level of strong
>>>>>debate.
>>>>>I have absolutely no problem, and in fact support, denying potential
>>>>>immigrants citizenship of this country on the grounds of their beliefs
>>>>>in
>>>>>respect of them being Muslim, either directly or indirectly.
>>>>
>>>> and saudi denying immigration on the base of christianism or your
>>>> definition of secularism?
>>>
>>>It's not my concern unless they threaten citizens of this country. If a
>>>country is not controlled by those representing it's citizens however then
>>>a
>>>war on their behalf *may* be justified, but is not obliged.
>>
>> we cannot possibly allow the oil supplies to come under a dictatorship
>> that trades oil for nukes or oil for global power....
>
>Maybe, maybe not.
rather you than me!
i don't want to learn arabic at present....
>> it is vital this is not lost under the inundation of left wing fluff....
>>
>>>> my enemy is fundamentalists/m not this weeks particular 57 varieties....
>>>> imv most of the world is mad to the point of living believing myths
>>>> and dogma instead of dealing with reality....
>>>>
>>>> i regard fundamentalism in any form as mental disease.....
>>
>>>What is fundamentalism? The inability to change your mind when presented
>>>with evidence?
>>
>> i'll accept that until it becomes a problem....
>> putting 'beliefs' ahead of real world data....
>> our god is better than your god....get out the rack and thumbscrews....
>>
>> i think you may have a problem with me if you regard *unexamined* a set of
>> social teachings as a dogma...
>> 'thou shalt not kill' has real world merits just as much as hydrogen and
>> oxygen form water.....
>
>In many situations killing is perfectly appropriate.
i'm not talking 'many situations'....i'm talking about the need to get on
with life without constantly looking over the shoulder to see if ma
sawkins is creeping up behind one with a machete....
>Perhaps I didn't
>understand your point.
that makes 2 of us!
Aramis Gunton
<abel...@abelard.org> writes
>>Perhaps I didn't
>>understand your point.
>
>that makes 2 of us!
When I am pointing my rifle at you just how important are your
respective points?
"Bye Bye waffling pricks!!!!"
--
Aramis Gunton