RLENT
Veteran Expediter
That would largely be our own indigenous American religious Taliban - heretical Christ-shunners (falsely) calling themselves "Christians" mostly - as well as other types of similarly-minded religious bigots ...
Modern life in Saudi Arabia.
- Thread starter aristotle
- Start date
More like this:
Attachments
For women in Saudi Arabia, it is so much more than just the inability to drive an automobile: Women in Saudi Arabia are caught in a system of gender apartheid | Globalization | DW.DE | 30.12.2013
The systemic, barbaric treatment of women living under sharia law should be of concern to everyone of goodwill. These are human rights abuses codified into law and sanctioned by government. Men living under sharia aren't much better off, but women by far get the worst of it.
Putting a spotlight on real barbarism is a counterbalance to the wretched anti-Semitism so popularly disseminated on some internet forums nowadays.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The systemic, barbaric treatment of women - for any reason, anywhere - should be of concern to everyone of goodwill.
In some instances that is certainly is true - but then "sharia law" ... and it's adoption and implementation, if any - is a rather broad, diverse, and varying matter ... not nearly as simplistic and clear-cut as some - perhaps those with a less than altruistic agenda - would have us believe.
As a really great example of that, the Government of Israel itself recognizes sharia law in matters of personal status of Muslims - if they choose a sharia court (e.g. marriage, divorce, guardianship)
In fact, the salaries of the judges who preside over such Islamic courts are paid by the State itself:
Why Islamic law is official in Israel - The Jewish Chronicle
Well I dunno where you hang out on the internet in terms of forums ... but at the places I go, I really don't see that much of it ...
Of course, if one is inclined to conflate mere criticism of the policies and conduct of the State of Israel with anti-semitism and say that the two are the same thing, then it might (wrongly) seem that anti-semitism is far more prevalent than it is.
The motivations for doing so (conflating one thing with another - and saying they are the same) might well be many, but in any event it would be, of course, a logical fallacy ...
IOW: it's "a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument."
Last edited:
Barbarism has many levels, none of them good. Islamic sharia law is hardly the only religious law that embraces barbarism on one level or another, and it's hardly the only religious law codified into law.
Real barbarism? Is that some sort of a level of barbarism to which you find unacceptable, but lesser levels are OK? Or are you suggesting that non-sharia barbarism isn't real?
As for the Antisemitism found on some Internet Web forums, while it's certainly true that it's on those forums, I'm at a loss as to why you feel EO is the place for that particular counterbalance, considering the fact that Antisemitism isn't disseminated here, popularly or otherwise. I can only guess that you may be one of those who thinks any criticism of anything Jewish meets the litmus test for Antisemitism, much in the same way that any criticism of Obama meets the litmus test of abhorrent racism. But more to the point, a counterbalance to Antisemitism would be anti-Antisemitism rather than negative posts about Islam and Islamic culture. It seems to me that the apartheid-esque illegal Jewish occupation of the West Bank and other lands, and the barbarism of sharia law, while both fairly barbaric, don't seem to balance each other out and are instead on the same side of the barbaric scale.
Ban the Kosher tax!
We lament the absence of a fine EO contributor, Moose, who made an eloquent appeal to end what he viewed as anti-Semitism. I associate myself with his remarks as his words cannot be improved upon. Interested parties can read Moose's last thread.
Dear Moderator, I am directly addressed by the pronoun "you" 4 times in the post above. The sage advice to address the post and not the poster rings hollow.
I find the barbaric application of sharia punishments to be a moral outrage of the first magnitude. Sharia shocks the sensibilities. Some are shocked by sharia, some are outraged by instant-replay in MLB. To each, his own.
Dear Moderator, I am directly addressed by the pronoun "you" 4 times in the post above. The sage advice to address the post and not the poster rings hollow.
I find the barbaric application of sharia punishments to be a moral outrage of the first magnitude. Sharia shocks the sensibilities. Some are shocked by sharia, some are outraged by instant-replay in MLB. To each, his own.
Just because Moose feels it is Antisemitism does not make it so. He feels that any criticism of Israel in general or any of the Israeli government's policies fall into that category, the same as there are some who feel any criticism of anything within the Obama administration is a direct racial attack on Obama himself.
I used the term "you" to directly address you because I was directly addressing you. I'm not addressing you directly as a matter for attack, I'm simply addressing you as a matter of context. You made statements which require clarification or substantiation in order to be accepted as genuine and valid. I do find it interesting that you, yes, you, would latch onto "the post and not the poster" as a method of avoiding responding to the issues raised, specifically the obviously disingenuous claim of counterbalance, as this thread's topic has far more to do with anti-Islamic culture sentiment under the cloak of anti-sharia law than is does with anti-Antisemitism.
There are several religious punishments from several religions that I find morally outrageous. There are plenty of people who find the barbaric application of US criminal punishments to be a moral outrage of the highest order. I don't know anyone who is morally outraged by instant replay, though.
I do find the statement that "sharia shocks the sensibilities" to be an interesting one, as well. The vast majority of sharia law deals with civil and family disputes, and settles them within a religious context. It's the same thing as Catholic diocesan tribunal courts do every day in the US, or the many rabbinical courts, the Presbyterian Permanent Judicial Commissions, the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church, or any of the other ecclesiastical courts including LDS Disciplinary Council and the Islamic sharia courts. Not every sharia court hands down punishments of an extreme barbaric nature. It's rather rare that they do, in fact.
Islam has 1.6 billion adherents, nearly 25% of the world's population, and there are 49 Muslim-majority countries. In 30 of those countries sharia law plays no role in the legal system. Sharia law plays a limited role in 14 countries, mostly dealing with personal or civil matters. You can count on one hand how many Muslim countries utilize strict sharia law for civil and criminal matters, and even in those the barbaric punishments are rare, despite the fact that somebody somewhere out there keeps painting an entire religion with a really large brush of stoning, beheading and honor killing. Clearly, the use of sharia law is far more of a cultural thing than it is a religious thing. It's the same with those evil face-covering burqas and hajibs and the like, where many of them are worn every day by women living in countries where sharia law plays no role whatsoever in the legal system.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Well, I'm not sure that - in hindsight - that is a door that one will ultimately be glad that they opened, when all is said and done.
But since someone saw fit to open it, I'll just walk on though (for what are surely obvious reasons) ... even though I personally find it somewhat unseemly to speculate on someone's motivations in their apparent absence ...
We can speculate all day long as to the reasons for Moose's absence ... they may - or may not - be related to what is referred to above ... and even if they are in some way related, they may not be related in the way that some (or even Moose) seem to think that they are ...
But the fact remains: until Moose himself conveys the exact reasons for his absence (at least as he understands or perceives them to be), it's all just speculation.
I don't really know Moose personally - other than my interaction with him on here - where I found him to be humorous/funny at times ... and to generally be a committed, worthy opponent in terms of our discussions/debate on the matter of Israel-Palestine.
I will admit that I personally found it irritating that he would occasionally use idiomatic terms with which I was not familiar - but that was largely a matter of my own ignorance. Seems like a nice enough guy ... and certainly no shrinking violet ...
But to address the matter of his present absence, on the presumption that it is actually related to what is referred to above, I'm going to explore a couple of perfectly logical reasons as to why that might be - which have absolutely nothing whatsoever with anti-semitism (real or imagined)
They may or may not be relevant to this particular situation.
In order to do this, it will be necessary to provide some background information.
1. Cognitive dissonance
From the Wikipedia article on same:
The above theory is tremendously useful in explaining certain behaviors of individuals - and is really only valuable to the extent that it actually does.
It - like many psychological phenomena - is, IMO, far easier to observe in others than it is to observe in one's self.
In terms of how it might be applicable to individuals, in terms of their relationship to the nation-state, we can consider the following hypothetical scenario:
An individual is born and raised in a particular country. During that time part of their experience includes - as well as a certain sheltering from some aspects of reality - an indoctrination - by both one's fellow citizens and the state - into a narrative, which is not necessarily completely accurate ... and which could include both formal education and compulsory service to the state, such as required military service.
We all certainly know that the state - as an institution - is not the purveyor of ultimate truth ... and will often lie in service of it's own agenda. Further, most reasonable people know that their fellow citizens aren't always purveyors of the ultimate truth either ... thus it is left to the individual to ascertain what constitutes "truth" in the world they live in ... as it rightly should be.
We are all, to some extent, the product of our own (mis)education into certain falsehoods ... and our own ability to overcome them.
It is not terribly difficult to imagine the discomfort an individual might feel if they were to be confronted and faced with certain facts related to their nationality which fly in the face and contradict the narrative one has adopted and come to rely on, in terms of one's world view.
And even moreso - if that confronting and facing with were to occur in the context of a group where one is more or less an outsider in some respect - say, as a foreign national - it might be even more unpleasant.
Personally - speaking in general terms, not specifically about this situation of Moose's absence - I have observed the four phenomena in others ... usually in the context of political or religious discussions.
No. 1 (change of understanding and belief) is often more rare - particularly if it is in the case where someone is very heavily invested in a certain worldview or ideology.
No. 2 and no. 3 is usually manifest by offering up additional things into the mix which serve to justify and rationalize certain factual things which pose a conflict for the individual. They often serve as deflections from the underlying issue - and the associated facts that are related to it - which is in conflict.
No. 4 is one I have observed quite often ... in my own personal experience, it usually manifests itself by individuals - who seemingly want to participate in discussions or debate - shutting down, becoming unresponsive, and ignoring certain things - even direct questions posed to them - that they would just as soon not address, look at, or confront ... it seems that they actually find these things painful to even look at ... or acknowledge the existence of ...
This latter manifestation is often actually rather amusing to observe - mostly in light of the fact that these are purportedly adults we are speaking of - and due to the amount of pseudo-intellectual contortions and other assorted mental gymnastics the individuals will go thru to justify and rationalize why they are unwilling to respond or engage.
In many cases such justifications and rationalizations involves embracing some form of victimhood (... "he was mean to me" ...) or, alternately, it involves this kind of smarmy, self-righteous superiority ... as though it is beneath their dignity to engage in conversation below the moral pedestal that they conceive themselves to be perched on ...
In any event it is as I say, at times amusing, if not also somewhat pitiable ...
There is an additional item beyond cognitive dissonance which - although unstated above - could possibly be in play in the hypothetical scenario that I outlined. It is a normal human phenomena and actually speaks to an individuals inherent humanity:
2. Shame
When one becomes apprised of certain dubious events or acts on the part of the group one is part of, or somehow associated with, one might, in certain circumstances - depending on the individual - feel some sense of embarrassment, shame, or remorse ... even if it wasn't one specifically that was involved.
So ... IOW you're going to let him make your argument for you.
Got it ...
Well, selective moral outrage is certainly another amusing phenomena as well ...
Moreover, when and if such selective moral outrage is in some way associated with the similarly selective condoning, excusing, justification, and rationalization - nay, might I say the idolatrous worship - of certain utterly barbaric acts of the state (ie. military violence and war - particularly unjustifiable wars of aggression) - which could be easily conceived to far exceed anything that sharia law might be held accountable for in terms of sheer barbarity, the level of hilarity - to say nothing of the level of hypocrisy - would border on the simply stratospheric ...
Just speaking in abstract, general terms of course ...
Last edited:
The chances of a Moose or any other individual leaving a forum due to a single person or a single issue discussed on that forum, is highly unlikely. When people stop posting on topic-themed or specialty web sites, it is invariably due to them being no longer interested in or participate in that topic or specialty. Knowing Moose as superficially as I do, he doesn't strike me as the "take my ball and glove and going home" type of guy. To assert such is kind of an insult to him.
There was an interesting conversation in progress here.....
Hijacking/derailing threads is bad enough, but challenging others to join in the rude behavior is over the line.
STOP IT.
Besides, the Ragman is an artist, and as anyone with a smidgen of artistic talent knows, they don't produce excellence upon demand.
Having spent some time chatting with him in person, he doesn't strike me as one who would do that, either.
There are all kinds of reasons for lack of participation, and Moose's absence could be due to things we know nothing about.
That said, I hope he comes back - he has a lot to add to conversations.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I should note:
If anyone needs actual examples of the phenomena referred to above to enhance their understanding, you can certainly find a number of them in this very thread ...