Gays & Lesbians in the Middle East.

123457

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 154
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Seperation of state from religion.

    Transparent government,

    elected by popular mandate.

    Separation of powers into wings of,

    legeslative,

    Executive,

    Judicial,

    & military.



    Islam's greatest failing is not in its theologically driven model of government ( theocracy ), but in the insistent application of Shariah law. ( it doesn't matter to me whether its interpretation is moderate or severe, it is an archaic add-on that poisons the blood of islam ).



    This, along with the demand that every convert learn arabic as the only language in which to read the Koran..is foolishly misguided.



    Islam is suffering a crisis of identity, simply because it offers simplistic solutions based on emotion as a way of living life in the complex 21century world.



    It has no realistic, hard nosed & pragmatic solutions for many of its people.



    All the while, it reacts to democracy & the opportunities that western democratic culture create, with a sort of reactionary luddite mentality.



    I stress that not all muslims are this way inclined, but this is the general picture, and the growing frustration within the borders of countries like Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, etc all help to underline such growing internal tensions.



    Islam calls the heart, Democracy & the western way of life, call the mind.



    Luckily for us in the west we found a way to seperate state & religion. So until Islam has its own revolution in this mold, it cannot begin to create a realistic future for itself or for any of its adherants.
  • Reply 122 of 154
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Fangorn

    "Homosexuality has been practiced numerous cultures throughout history." So, this somehow makes homosexuality okay and moral? What about murder, theft, adultery, rape, abuse, slavery?



    What you're doing here is equating homosexuality with murder, theft, rape and slavery. OK. So we're immediately talking prejudice rather than moral philosophy. There is no comparison to make.
  • Reply 123 of 154
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein



    In medieval time the culture of Western and Central Europe was Western-Christian with Germanic ingredients, and no longer Graeco-Roman, even if it owed much to that predecessor; and ths that culture can be accuartely called Christian culture.

    Its contemporay culture in the Roman Empire of Orient, or Byzantine, was also bound to Christianity, but only as part of the empire which defined that culture, hence Byzantine culture.



    That's all well and good, but you can pick just about any social, scientific, political, hell, even artistic foundation and trace it to individuals pre-dating christianity, primarily the greeks. As I said, while there have been other influences, the foundations saw their beginnings there. We owe everything to the ancient greeks, who consolidated everything into a basis that we really take for granted today.
  • Reply 124 of 154
    fangornfangorn Posts: 323member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    What you're doing here is equating homosexuality with murder, theft, rape and slavery. OK. So we're immediately talking prejudice rather than moral philosophy. There is no comparison to make.



    Exactly wrong. Sexual behaviour is always a moral issue. Perhaps it is personal, but it is always defined by a culture's morality.



    Second, you laid your arguement on the prevalence of a behavoir in "other" cultures, particularly "past" cultures and it isn't logical. Two prime examples: slavery (from the list) and concubinage. Both are considered anthema to Western thinking. But have been common practices just about everywhere. Based on your logic, slavery should be just fine.



    I.e., "common practice" cannot be used to justify a behavior. You have to work from something else. Which Islam does.



    Don't get me wrong. I am not a muslim and I have lots of disagreements with Islam (lots). But I approach it from a completely differently angle and the angles presented here just won't work. Not a single arguement I've seen posted would convince a single muslim to change his (or her) mind because you have offered nothing that overturns, overrides, or in any way defeats their basic understanding of man, morality, and basic reality.
  • Reply 125 of 154
    fangornfangorn Posts: 323member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    That's all well and good, but you can pick just about any social, scientific, political, hell, even artistic foundation and trace it to individuals pre-dating christianity, primarily the greeks. As I said, while there have been other influences, the foundations saw their beginnings there. We owe everything to the ancient greeks, who consolidated everything into a basis that we really take for granted today.



    Actually, if you study the rise of the West, Greek thinking was "lost" until about the 10th century (I believe). However, you cannot study the rise of the West/fall of Rome without also studying the rise of the Church. The two are inextricibly linked. I recently read a fairly thick academic albeit highly readable book on the matter. Fascinating really.
  • Reply 126 of 154
    fangornfangorn Posts: 323member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shetline

    Islamic culture in the Middle East doesn't exercise much restraint in applying its own cultural standards to the West, in deciding that we are decadent, un-Godly, worthy only of death unless we convert to Islam, etc. etc. We're the Great Satan.



    So, while there's certainly a cultural bias in the concept of what's "backward" or "foreward" -- why not apply our own Western standards when judging the Middle East? Even pretending to



    Here are a few things I'll unashamedly use my own cultural bias to call "forward" (with the intended implication that the opposite of such things is "backward"):



    (1) Separation of Church and State: I think it's clear from history that both government and religion suffer when the two are combined. Religion suffers because religion becomes the vehicle for upward social mobility, for obtaining power. The ambitious corrupt religion by merely paying lip service to it, using it as a vehicle for personal gain. Government becomes cruel and irresponsive to it's people's needs through the toxic combination of corruption and self-righteous belief in it's own divine morality.



    (2) Respect for individual liberties: I can think of no more civilizing impulse than to believe that your fellow citizens should be as free as they can be to live their own lives, with the force of law mainly limited to keeping one person's freedom from trampling on anothers, and maybe some limited demands on service to society as a whole, such as paying taxes.



    The US isn't as strong on these points as I'd like, though it's fairly close on (1), and way better than the Middle East on (2). I feel quite comfortable saying that the Islamic world today is very backwards.




    Ah, but you have to have a standard that you believe holds to all of mankind, not just people in the West. What is the basis for such a standard?
  • Reply 127 of 154
    fangornfangorn Posts: 323member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aquafire

    Seperation of state from religion.

    Transparent government,

    elected by popular mandate.

    Separation of powers into wings of,

    legeslative,

    Executive,

    Judicial,

    & military.



    Islam's greatest failing is not in its theologically driven model of government ( theocracy ), but in the insistent application of Shariah law. ( it doesn't matter to me whether its interpretation is moderate or severe, it is an archaic add-on that poisons the blood of islam ).



    This, along with the demand that every convert learn arabic as the only language in which to read the Koran..is foolishly misguided.



    Islam is suffering a crisis of identity, simply because it offers simplistic solutions based on emotion as a way of living life in the complex 21century world.



    It has no realistic, hard nosed & pragmatic solutions for many of its people.



    All the while, it reacts to democracy & the opportunities that western democratic culture create, with a sort of reactionary luddite mentality.



    I stress that not all muslims are this way inclined, but this is the general picture, and the growing frustration within the borders of countries like Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, etc all help to underline such growing internal tensions.



    Islam calls the heart, Democracy & the western way of life, call the mind.



    Luckily for us in the west we found a way to seperate state & religion. So until Islam has its own revolution in this mold, it cannot begin to create a realistic future for itself or for any of its adherants.




    Interesting points and I agree with most of what you say, except laying so much at the door of separation of Church and State. You can separate the institutions, but the state will always have religion.The State will answer to either God or Man, and where it answers is what is worships.
  • Reply 128 of 154
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Fangorn

    Actually, if you study the rise of the West, Greek thinking was "lost" until about the 10th century (I believe). However, you cannot study the rise of the West/fall of Rome without also studying the rise of the Church. The two are inextricibly linked. I recently read a fairly thick academic albeit highly readable book on the matter. Fascinating really.



    But what I am saying is that our social, scientific, political, philosophical and artistic foundations clearly were consolidated before christianity existed. These are the foundations. Everything else grew from them. The Church only built off of these.
  • Reply 129 of 154
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Any modern civilized country needs lesbians,e specially girlie lessies who crave meat poles. I find it hard to believe any suicide bombers would blow them selves up if they had regular exposure to greasy all-girl action.
  • Reply 130 of 154
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Not to mention the Duran Duran videos that would have never been made.
  • Reply 131 of 154
    fangornfangorn Posts: 323member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    But what I am saying is that our social, scientific, political, philosophical and artistic foundations clearly were consolidated before christianity existed. These are the foundations. Everything else grew from them. The Church only built off of these.



    I would disagree. Much of modern thinking does have it roots (for better or worse) in Greek thinking, but not as a finalized concept handed down intact and complete. Christianity did indeed incorporate ideas from Greco thought ( see Aquinas and Augustine for starters) but what we have is not what the Ancient Greeks had--or thought.



    You should take a look at Church history. Have you ever read Dante's Inferno ? Everything is seen working to God's purpose, particularly the rise of Rome (thus, the Holy Roman Empire). And if you read Thomas Aquinas (not something I would recommend for the weak of heart ), he is trying (success or failure is a matter of opinion) to reconcile rediscovered Greek thought with Christian thinking, his premise being that Man can use Reason to find God and that the ancient philosphers came close to doing so. Although this premise is strongly debated in the Church (being a contention between Romanists and Protestants), both agree that ALL things work together to God's purpose.



    And don't underestimate the influence of Old Testament (aka Mosiac) Law on modern thinking. Abolition of slavery was NOT based on Greco/Roman thinking.
  • Reply 132 of 154
    enaena Posts: 667member
    there is also some [alleged] cross-pollination between Greek and Jewish thought (pre Christianity)
  • Reply 133 of 154
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena

    there is also some [alleged] cross-pollination between Greek and Jewish thought (pre Christianity)



    Absolutely Ena.

    I may be wrong in saying this, but the root of the words Judge, Judgement, judicial & judiciary come from the latin version of Judaic. Ie from Juda.

    Moses was a deeply respected historical figure in ancient Greece & in Ancient Rome & his usage for establishing moral laws was an exemplar for many societies.



    I think it would make for an interesting study in comparative religions and culture.
  • Reply 134 of 154
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    That's all well and good, but you can pick just about any social, scientific, political, hell, even artistic foundation and trace it to individuals pre-dating christianity, primarily the greeks.



    The Greeks owe much to those preceding them as well, namely Egypt and the Fertile Crescent. Despite the common wisdom, civilisation didn't begin in Hellade.



    Quote:

    As I said, while there have been other influences, the foundations saw their beginnings there.



    How is that supposed to negate the existence of a Christian, Islamic, or Hindu cultures?



    Quote:

    We owe everything to the ancient greeks,?



    You perhaps, some here are of cultures pre-dating ancient Greece.
  • Reply 135 of 154
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Fangorn

    Actually, if you study the rise of the West, Greek thinking was "lost" until about the 10th century (I believe).



    It was, in the barbarian backwaters of Western Europe. In the Byzantine empire, and the Islamic cultural area (as well as the pluralist meeting point of the Norman kingdom of Sicily, which equalled the Califate of Córdoba in its tolerant coexistence of the then four main religions, as the schism between Eastern and Western chruches had already occured), it was being preserved, re-copied, and studied, as well as translated. It re-infiltrated the West from there.



    Quote:

    However, you cannot study the rise of the West/fall of Rome without also studying the rise of the Church.



    The monopoly on knowledge of the church of Rome was one of the reasons why the dark ages were that dark. It was the emergence of independent centres of knowledge; of the use of spoken languages along with and later instead of ecclesiastic Latin for culture, science, and literature; and the re-discovery of the ancient Graeco-Roman legacy, which enabled the West to enter its Renaissance. The decline of clerical dominion in the West was a significant contribution to its rise between 1500 and 2000.
  • Reply 136 of 154
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    You paint the clerics as a stiffling influence, but most centers of learning spring from clerical centers, decentralized, mingled with the vernacular, and re-introduced/interpreted. I would think of the clerics as custodians, more so than oppressors, the politics of the church, OTOH, could fit what you describe.
  • Reply 137 of 154
    enaena Posts: 667member
    good observation, Matsu.
  • Reply 138 of 154
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Fangorn

    Have you ever read Dante's Inferno ?



    Yes, in the original language. And among other things it is a scathing condemnation of many members of the church.
  • Reply 139 of 154
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    The book from Umberto Eco the name of the rose, and simply the movie from JJ Annaud with Sean Connery as principle character, explain the two faces of the catholic church at this time.



    One part of the church was interested in his power and use to live like princes (the one that Matsu call politic), others like monks where found of spirituality. The learning come essantially from clerical centers in charge of the monk. They had a great influence in the re-discovering of ancient books, and made a lot of traductions of greek books.
  • Reply 140 of 154
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu

    You paint the clerics as a stiffling influence, but most centers of learning spring from clerical centers, decentralized, mingled with the vernacular, and re-introduced/interpreted.



    However, it is after the appearance of independent learning centres, as well as non-clerical book production that one can see the beginning of Renaissance. Moreover the Church opposed the use of vernaculars in publications of science and high culture (although the roman courtoiswas tolerated) as well the official use of spoken idioms.

    By the time of the Renaissance, that opposition is largely overcome.



    Quote:

    I would think of the clerics as custodians, more so than oppressors,?



    They were both, jealously keeping what little knowledge they had from the prying eyes of outside scholars, and they were often suspicious of knowledge from outside source. One only has to observe tenth century Paris, Cologne, and Milan, and then compare with Córdoba, Constantinople, and Isphahan, to see where knoweldge was more stifled, and to see where ancient classical legacy had been better preserved.



    However, as the clerical clout recedes in the West, exploration, experimentation, and culture more and more expressed in spoken languages rather than dead ones, begin to thrive in Western Europe. Meanwhile, the Arab/Islamic world increasingly adopts the approach forsaken by Europe. In 1600, the Ottoman empire is still mighty, but it is lagging behind culturally and technically. There are printing presses to be found then within the imperial boundaries, but they are all owned and operated by Christians and Jews.
Sign In or Register to comment.