<strong>I think I've hit on the solution to the Israel/Palestinian problem: Israel gives the West Bank back to Jordan (who had it before 1967). Then all the Palestinians are Jordan's problem to deal with. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Heh. I always love it when the rolleyes come out. You know for sure you've won an argument when the other side trots out the rolleyes.
You were apparently trying to make some deep point about why Catholics and Protestants don't kill each other in the US.
In fact, it's really very straightforward. It's not just a religious conflict - it's a religious conflict tied up in the politics of a particular region.
It's still not clear what your point was about comparing Irish Protestants and Catholics to American ones. Perhaps you could explain.
I look forward to your response, Mr. "Kill Every Single Palestinian."</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you: especially the sentance : it's a religious conflict tied up in the politics of a particular region. Same applies in France, today a conflict between Catholics and protestants will be irreal, this was not the case in the past, because the conflict was not strictly about religious behavior, but about politics and way of life.
Your sugestion is sort of like giving the whole area back to England... They created the mess, let them sort it out... Since the have so much experience with these kind of conflicts, I mean...
You speak of the palestinians as a ball you can just toss around. I think you should have noticed that the palestinans have gotten fed up with beeing tossed around...
I've lived half my life on military bases around the world, and it has shown me one thing: idiots are idiots here, and idiots are idiots there. . . idiots are idiots on the road and off . . . they still see only what they want to see and never seem to grow from 'worldly' experiences.... are you proof of such an observance?!?.
Palastinians are people that are treated like shit and then some of them do very very very stupid things to try to solve their problems, or, out of hatred . . . they are wrong for what they are doing, but killing all the Palastinians is just plain idiotic.
If you dig a bit you'll find sects and holy text in every religion that are "disturbing" to say the least. The old testament is filled with "barbaric" punishments and prophicies. The Talmud has quite a few "unsympatetic" decriptions on how to deal with "none jews".
Right wing Christians are in the western world reponsible for several "religious murdes" each year, attacks on abortion-supportes etc.
These are the sad realities of all practice of religion in its most extreem forms.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
New,
Millions of people were murdered in Russia due to communism.
Here in America, we've killed over 40 million unborn babies.
As you can see, killing can be done equally as well by people who have no religious beliefs.
<strong>Your sugestion is sort of like giving the whole area back to England... They created the mess, let them sort it out... Since the have so much experience with these kind of conflicts, I mean...
You speak of the palestinians as a ball you can just toss around. I think you should have noticed that the palestinans have gotten fed up with beeing tossed around...</strong><hr></blockquote>
It was meant to be a joke - note the big smile at the end.
Actually, the 6-day war of 1967 was one of the best things that ever happened to Jordan in this regard. The Black September group which was involved in the massacre of the Israeli olympic team in Munich took its name from an incident with Jordan refusing to give in to terrorist demands earlier (Jordanian troops storming a hijacked plane and killing all the terrorists, IIRC). If you've noticed over the years that while Syria has demanded the Golan Heights back and Egypt demanded (and got) the Sinai back, Jordan has never once suggested that they want the West Bank back. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Just a few years ago israel offered to give jordan the West Bank. They turned the offer down. Can you blame them?...........................................
I think that it is an intrinsic problem with human belief systems that they move to try and 'explain' and encapsulate every other possible perspective: I think that it is the inherent totalitarianism of systematic thought that finds its most basic expression in religious fundamentalism.
Best seen when a complex issue is reduced to a 'fact' and the social forces are mobilized according to the simplistic reading of the said fact: such as 'all abortions are murder' or 'all religions are stupid'
its a tricky issue, because we always interpret the world utilizing systems... what we need is open sytematic/non-systematic thought that is pragmatic to the point of near relativism yet grounded on the insistence of openness. . . . .got it?!?!
<strong>Back to topic: Yes fundamentalism is everywhere.
I think that it is an intrinsic problem with human belief systems that they move to try and 'explain' and encapsulate every other possible perspective: I think that it is the inherent totalitarianism of systematic thought that finds its most basic expression in religious fundamentalism.
Best seen when a complex issue is reduced to a 'fact' and the social forces are mobilized according to the simplistic reading of the said fact: such as 'all abortions are murder' or 'all religions are stupid'
its a tricky issue, because we always interpret the world utilizing systems... what we need is open sytematic/non-systematic thought that is pragmatic to the point of near relativism yet grounded on the insistence of openness. . . . .got it?!?!</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you will end up with something that means nothing. Got it...
[quote]They don't. They just spent the last few years trying to get Arafat to take it back............... <hr></blockquote>
Yes, I can see how they are currently giving Ramalah back to the palestinians. Did you know that during the late 1980's and 1990's almost a 100 000 new settlers moved to gaza and the west bank... Why was that?
[quote] I think that it is an intrinsic problem with human belief systems that they move to try and 'explain' and encapsulate every other possible perspective: I think that it is the inherent totalitarianism of systematic thought that finds its most basic expression in religious fundamentalism. <hr></blockquote>
well, much fundamentalism is "modern". It is a reaction to "failed" religious practice... Fundamentalism is actually "reformist" in it's goals...
Here's what I don't understand: If the Palistinians simply stopped their suicide bombings then Israel would stop moving in on Palistinian territorries. The Israelis have shown they are willing to negotiate and comprimise. on the other hand the Palistinians ruin all negotiations with bombings. Ask yourself, what would YOUR country do if they were in the Israeli situation? Fold over and cave in? Maybe...
[quote] And you will end up with something that means nothing. Got it.<hr></blockquote>
If you need to ground your ethics on your fundamentalist reading of what you say are 'devine' texts then I wouldn't expect you to actually understand how what I have described is not only a workable ethics, but is, in fact, an important idea underpinning our judicial system (and constitution).
First I would say that my ethics are closely alligned with the Judaic Theologian and philosopher Emmanuel Levinas: who states that Ethics precede Ontology (systematic defining of the 'essences' of phenomena) in that our relationship to the Other actually conditions and precedes our ideas of essences...
this is wordy and complicated, but: this means that, in our relations with Otherness we can either start from an ontology and thus prescribe the way in which that Other should be, ie: to enclose it in our definition> Or, we can start from the face-face encounter with that Other and allow a dialogue to ensue, where essences are in the flow of the ethical responce to that other. How we relate to Otherness (others and Otherness as in 'what is not us') is our ultimate ethical relationship even to the 'essences' of the world.
This is an Ethics of openness, grounded in the reality of the responcibility to the dialogue with Otherness: a responcibility to see that what faces you in a dialogue with the Other, is always beyond facile systematizing.
Needless to say that the 'Other' stands for more than simply a 'person' . (G-d?). though a person-person dialogue is the implicit point of departure . . after all that is the arena for the ethical situation . . and implicit in there, since our understanding of ourselves and the world are related to this primary moment of relating to the absolute Other: we find ourselves in a relationship of Otherness to ourselves as well. so, this Ethcs is also about how we relate to ourselves, the other within.
humdee hodee ho.....
[quote] Fundamentalism is actually "reformist" in it's goals... <hr></blockquote>
that may seem so, but just as with that other historical 'reformist' platform of Fascism, fundamentalism attempts to erase complexity with a nastalgic vision of a simple past or a simple understanding from an era that we 'just don't get anymore'.
Also, it may appear 'modernist' because fundamentalism stands in relationship to 'secular' alternatives but really there has always been religiouse fundamentalisms: its just that in the past it wasn't seen as a separate competing alternative perspectives but rather just different peoples. Meaning that you were either a Catholic or a protestant, or, Muslim or Christian... they weren't seen as alternatives . . . it wasn't comprehensible to be able to be beyond these catagories . . .and this is what now characterizes the nastalghia of fundamentalism: they long for that clear simplicity.
Unless you meant that 'Modernism' was also a form of fundamentalism: I would agree here: Communism, Nazism. Maooism, ... all forms of Modernism that are also fundamentalisms....
Comments
<strong>I think I've hit on the solution to the Israel/Palestinian problem: Israel gives the West Bank back to Jordan (who had it before 1967). Then all the Palestinians are Jordan's problem to deal with.
If only it were that easy...
[edit] reread the post, deleted a bunch[/edit]
[ 03-30-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>
(ehem)
His Dudeness is an Evil, Raciest, Nazi **** who knows nothing of the world except what he sees growing on his own ass!!
Ok now we can continue.
<strong>Heh. I always love it when the rolleyes come out. You know for sure you've won an argument when the other side trots out the rolleyes.
You were apparently trying to make some deep point about why Catholics and Protestants don't kill each other in the US.
In fact, it's really very straightforward. It's not just a religious conflict - it's a religious conflict tied up in the politics of a particular region.
It's still not clear what your point was about comparing Irish Protestants and Catholics to American ones. Perhaps you could explain.
I look forward to your response, Mr. "Kill Every Single Palestinian."</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you: especially the sentance : it's a religious conflict tied up in the politics of a particular region. Same applies in France, today a conflict between Catholics and protestants will be irreal, this was not the case in the past, because the conflict was not strictly about religious behavior, but about politics and way of life.
You speak of the palestinians as a ball you can just toss around. I think you should have noticed that the palestinans have gotten fed up with beeing tossed around...
<strong>Since no one has said it yet I feel compelled to do so,
(ehem)
His Dudeness is an Evil, Raciest, Nazi **** who knows nothing of the world except what he sees growing on his own ass!!
Ok now we can continue.
Are you losers happy now?
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
This is a bold statement seeing as how, after being in the Navy for 14 years and seeing more of the world than you.........
Palastinians are people that are treated like shit and then some of them do very very very stupid things to try to solve their problems, or, out of hatred . . . they are wrong for what they are doing, but killing all the Palastinians is just plain idiotic.
<strong>
If you dig a bit you'll find sects and holy text in every religion that are "disturbing" to say the least. The old testament is filled with "barbaric" punishments and prophicies. The Talmud has quite a few "unsympatetic" decriptions on how to deal with "none jews".
Right wing Christians are in the western world reponsible for several "religious murdes" each year, attacks on abortion-supportes etc.
These are the sad realities of all practice of religion in its most extreem forms.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
New,
Millions of people were murdered in Russia due to communism.
Here in America, we've killed over 40 million unborn babies.
As you can see, killing can be done equally as well by people who have no religious beliefs.
<strong>
This is a bold statement seeing as how, after being in the Navy for 14 years and seeing more of the world than you.........
Oh great he knows how to shot a gun to!!
<img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />
I just hope you never got above swaping the deck.
Yea you have seen more of the wold. More Navy bases, more water, more people to kill...
Great good for you.
<strong>but killing all the Palastinians is just plain idiotic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You'll have no argument on that one from me.
<strong>Your sugestion is sort of like giving the whole area back to England... They created the mess, let them sort it out... Since the have so much experience with these kind of conflicts, I mean...
You speak of the palestinians as a ball you can just toss around. I think you should have noticed that the palestinans have gotten fed up with beeing tossed around...</strong><hr></blockquote>
It was meant to be a joke - note the big smile at the end.
Actually, the 6-day war of 1967 was one of the best things that ever happened to Jordan in this regard. The Black September group which was involved in the massacre of the Israeli olympic team in Munich took its name from an incident with Jordan refusing to give in to terrorist demands earlier (Jordanian troops storming a hijacked plane and killing all the terrorists, IIRC). If you've noticed over the years that while Syria has demanded the Golan Heights back and Egypt demanded (and got) the Sinai back, Jordan has never once suggested that they want the West Bank back. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>
Oh great he knows how to shot a gun to!!
<img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />
I just hope you never got above swaping the deck.
Yea you have seen more of the wold. More Navy bases, more water, more people to kill...
Great good for you.
Gee thanks, I guess. Actually, I'm a Cryptologist. Pretty cool job. Subs, cruises, aircraft carriers, amphibs... Pretty awesome job.
[ 03-31-2002: Message edited by: New ]</p>
I think that it is an intrinsic problem with human belief systems that they move to try and 'explain' and encapsulate every other possible perspective: I think that it is the inherent totalitarianism of systematic thought that finds its most basic expression in religious fundamentalism.
Best seen when a complex issue is reduced to a 'fact' and the social forces are mobilized according to the simplistic reading of the said fact: such as 'all abortions are murder' or 'all religions are stupid'
its a tricky issue, because we always interpret the world utilizing systems... what we need is open sytematic/non-systematic thought that is pragmatic to the point of near relativism yet grounded on the insistence of openness. . . . .got it?!?!
<strong>so why do Israel want it so bad now...?
[ 03-31-2002: Message edited by: New ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
They don't. They just spent the last few years trying to get Arafat to take it back...............
<strong>Back to topic: Yes fundamentalism is everywhere.
I think that it is an intrinsic problem with human belief systems that they move to try and 'explain' and encapsulate every other possible perspective: I think that it is the inherent totalitarianism of systematic thought that finds its most basic expression in religious fundamentalism.
Best seen when a complex issue is reduced to a 'fact' and the social forces are mobilized according to the simplistic reading of the said fact: such as 'all abortions are murder' or 'all religions are stupid'
its a tricky issue, because we always interpret the world utilizing systems... what we need is open sytematic/non-systematic thought that is pragmatic to the point of near relativism yet grounded on the insistence of openness. . . . .got it?!?!</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you will end up with something that means nothing. Got it...
Yes, I can see how they are currently giving Ramalah back to the palestinians. Did you know that during the late 1980's and 1990's almost a 100 000 new settlers moved to gaza and the west bank... Why was that?
[quote] I think that it is an intrinsic problem with human belief systems that they move to try and 'explain' and encapsulate every other possible perspective: I think that it is the inherent totalitarianism of systematic thought that finds its most basic expression in religious fundamentalism. <hr></blockquote>
well, much fundamentalism is "modern". It is a reaction to "failed" religious practice... Fundamentalism is actually "reformist" in it's goals...
If you need to ground your ethics on your fundamentalist reading of what you say are 'devine' texts then I wouldn't expect you to actually understand how what I have described is not only a workable ethics, but is, in fact, an important idea underpinning our judicial system (and constitution).
First I would say that my ethics are closely alligned with the Judaic Theologian and philosopher Emmanuel Levinas: who states that Ethics precede Ontology (systematic defining of the 'essences' of phenomena) in that our relationship to the Other actually conditions and precedes our ideas of essences...
this is wordy and complicated, but: this means that, in our relations with Otherness we can either start from an ontology and thus prescribe the way in which that Other should be, ie: to enclose it in our definition> Or, we can start from the face-face encounter with that Other and allow a dialogue to ensue, where essences are in the flow of the ethical responce to that other. How we relate to Otherness (others and Otherness as in 'what is not us') is our ultimate ethical relationship even to the 'essences' of the world.
This is an Ethics of openness, grounded in the reality of the responcibility to the dialogue with Otherness: a responcibility to see that what faces you in a dialogue with the Other, is always beyond facile systematizing.
Needless to say that the 'Other' stands for more than simply a 'person' . (G-d?). though a person-person dialogue is the implicit point of departure . . after all that is the arena for the ethical situation . . and implicit in there, since our understanding of ourselves and the world are related to this primary moment of relating to the absolute Other: we find ourselves in a relationship of Otherness to ourselves as well. so, this Ethcs is also about how we relate to ourselves, the other within.
humdee hodee ho.....
[quote] Fundamentalism is actually "reformist" in it's goals... <hr></blockquote>
that may seem so, but just as with that other historical 'reformist' platform of Fascism, fundamentalism attempts to erase complexity with a nastalgic vision of a simple past or a simple understanding from an era that we 'just don't get anymore'.
Also, it may appear 'modernist' because fundamentalism stands in relationship to 'secular' alternatives but really there has always been religiouse fundamentalisms: its just that in the past it wasn't seen as a separate competing alternative perspectives but rather just different peoples. Meaning that you were either a Catholic or a protestant, or, Muslim or Christian... they weren't seen as alternatives . . . it wasn't comprehensible to be able to be beyond these catagories . . .and this is what now characterizes the nastalghia of fundamentalism: they long for that clear simplicity.
Unless you meant that 'Modernism' was also a form of fundamentalism: I would agree here: Communism, Nazism. Maooism, ... all forms of Modernism that are also fundamentalisms....