Christian forums

[Napoleon Ier]

Was Yathrib democratic?

[Neoteny]

Was Yathrib democratic?

You're changing perspectives again. :]

[got tonkaed]

as best as i understood the concept at the time, it was typically done by religious professionals, and only the most qualified of those were accepted into whatever amounted to the offical interpretation.

Therefore its obviously subject to an immense amount of sociocultural distortion, but at least on a theorectical level does not diminsh the potential for democratic style.

Hmm... so does the potential, however great or small, for democracy take away from the society's overall totalitarian nature? I suppose a democracy could possibly be totalitarian according to my definition, but I don't think that's really how it came about. The religious professionals weren't chosen by the many, they were indoctrinated (admitted opinion) and set free to decide the Sharia. That, to me, is not democracy, even if their beliefs are representative of the whole.

id argue tangentially that our view of democracy seriously clouds the way in which we concieve of democracy coming about. The fact that our democratic revolution so to speak coincided with an equally important economic revolution which exhalted certain ways of thinking, has hopelessly clouded the way we see democracy as supposed to work.

I can understand why individuals could take the religious leaders interpreting a very monotheistic religion as totalitarian, but it would seem to be just as much a product of the fact we are dealing with societal elements that are not the same as some popular western notions (in terms of middle eastern sunni islam). There have been cases at least historically where sharia was interpreted in the cause of social justice (as more moderate thinkers do today).

[Neoteny]

as best as i understood the concept at the time, it was typically done by religious professionals, and only the most qualified of those were accepted into whatever amounted to the offical interpretation.

Therefore its obviously subject to an immense amount of sociocultural distortion, but at least on a theorectical level does not diminsh the potential for democratic style.

Hmm... so does the potential, however great or small, for democracy take away from the society's overall totalitarian nature? I suppose a democracy could possibly be totalitarian according to my definition, but I don't think that's really how it came about. The religious professionals weren't chosen by the many, they were indoctrinated (admitted opinion) and set free to decide the Sharia. That, to me, is not democracy, even if their beliefs are representative of the whole.

id argue tangentially that our view of democracy seriously clouds the way in which we concieve of democracy coming about. The fact that our democratic revolution so to speak coincided with an equally important economic revolution which exhalted certain ways of thinking, has hopelessly clouded the way we see democracy as supposed to work.

I can understand why individuals could take the religious leaders interpreting a very monotheistic religion as totalitarian, but it would seem to be just as much a product of the fact we are dealing with societal elements that are not the same as some popular western notions (in terms of middle eastern sunni islam). There have been cases at least historically where sharia was interpreted in the cause of social justice (as more moderate thinkers do today).

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that a lack of an economic surge has held back the Muslim democratic effort? I'd be remiss to disagree with that point, but I think blaming a society through which a particular religion is highly permeated without taking into account the religion would be just as negligent. I'd note that the correlation of poor countries that are totalitarian (as I see them) is perhaps as strong as Muslim countries that are totalitarian (again, as I see them) so causation is exceedingly hard to determine. However, Saudi Arabia is noticeably wealthy and (I'd say) just as noticeably authoritarian. But then you have Turkey who seems to be doing a pretty good job of being democratic (according to western principles) and the UAE hovering somewhere in between.

Long story short, who knows. But I find people who use the Qur'an in a manner to suppress personal freedom despicable, and I find that apparent in several Muslim governments. I would say the same about Christian governments, except that it doesn't seem as apparent to me (though I've become more and more worried about our good ol' US of A).

[got tonkaed]

no id agree Saudi Arabia is the fly in the ointment for the economic theory alone. The problem in a lot of ways is in order to describe these things you have to use ideal types which dont necessarily reflect reality.

In a lot of ways i see the difference between xian development and islamic development in modern sense as the coupling of enlightenment ideals to capitalistic industrialization that occur in the wave of modernity of that period. This is not to say islam could not have had these elements occur (islam was more scientifically open and had better records to show for it, during much of its early history) but the fact that many of these things occured in western europe first is a big point i believe.

In many ways i feel like some of the elements of modernity that occured in the "western world" shaped the way its religions reacted. Had the enlightenment occured for other reasons than it did (whether or not this is historically viable is left to experts greater than myself) in a differnet location, islam would be the religion that was espousing all of the western ideals and the western world would be the totalitarian one.

In as far as they are ideal types, religions do not operate independently of the socioeconomic context they are found in. Protestants who were very concerned with their salvation created a work ethic that was quickly adopted by capitalist to create a social ethic, out of which future generations of christians were taught the values of hard work. This undoubtedly occured in muslim areas as well, as those practioners were no less devoted to their desire to reach paradise. However there wasnt a social ethic that ended up getting attached to it that secularized itself and could be reappropriated by the religion.

In short, i dont think its that unrealistic to think the story could be written in the reverse.

[heavycola]

just when did this thread get all clever and stop being the usual pointless yet distractingly amusing tit-for-tat? I DEMAND to have a fatuous argument.

[Jenos Ridan]

This is the internet, all kinds of weirdos reside here. I wouldn't be surprised if that stuff are actual posts, but there are plenty of dickheaded athiests out there too. I knew a bunch of them that liked to spam christian forums with goaste and furries and didn't see anything wrong with it.

Why does that not surprise me at all? (rhetorical)

[Neoteny]

no id agree Saudi Arabia is the fly in the ointment for the economic theory alone. The problem in a lot of ways is in order to describe these things you have to use ideal types which dont necessarily reflect reality.

In a lot of ways i see the difference between xian development and islamic development in modern sense as the coupling of enlightenment ideals to capitalistic industrialization that occur in the wave of modernity of that period. This is not to say islam could not have had these elements occur (islam was more scientifically open and had better records to show for it, during much of its early history) but the fact that many of these things occured in western europe first is a big point i believe.

In many ways i feel like some of the elements of modernity that occured in the "western world" shaped the way its religions reacted. Had the enlightenment occured for other reasons than it did (whether or not this is historically viable is left to experts greater than myself) in a differnet location, islam would be the religion that was espousing all of the western ideals and the western world would be the totalitarian one.

In as far as they are ideal types, religions do not operate independently of the socioeconomic context they are found in. Protestants who were very concerned with their salvation created a work ethic that was quickly adopted by capitalist to create a social ethic, out of which future generations of christians were taught the values of hard work. This undoubtedly occured in muslim areas as well, as those practioners were no less devoted to their desire to reach paradise. However there wasnt a social ethic that ended up getting attached to it that secularized itself and could be reappropriated by the religion.

In short, i dont think its that unrealistic to think the story could be written in the reverse.

Right time, wrong place for Muslims, eh? Sounds appreciable. Either way, here's hoping that the Saudis and everyone else make headway towards the whole human rights thing. Maybe if we stopped invading places...

Ok, heavy, this thread is yours.

[2dimes]

Why is there a Muslim quote on there?

[Snorri1234]

no id agree Saudi Arabia is the fly in the ointment for the economic theory alone. The problem in a lot of ways is in order to describe these things you have to use ideal types which dont necessarily reflect reality.

In a lot of ways i see the difference between xian development and islamic development in modern sense as the coupling of enlightenment ideals to capitalistic industrialization that occur in the wave of modernity of that period. This is not to say islam could not have had these elements occur (islam was more scientifically open and had better records to show for it, during much of its early history) but the fact that many of these things occured in western europe first is a big point i believe.

In many ways i feel like some of the elements of modernity that occured in the "western world" shaped the way its religions reacted. Had the enlightenment occured for other reasons than it did (whether or not this is historically viable is left to experts greater than myself) in a differnet location, islam would be the religion that was espousing all of the western ideals and the western world would be the totalitarian one.

In as far as they are ideal types, religions do not operate independently of the socioeconomic context they are found in. Protestants who were very concerned with their salvation created a work ethic that was quickly adopted by capitalist to create a social ethic, out of which future generations of christians were taught the values of hard work. This undoubtedly occured in muslim areas as well, as those practioners were no less devoted to their desire to reach paradise. However there wasnt a social ethic that ended up getting attached to it that secularized itself and could be reappropriated by the religion.

In short, i dont think its that unrealistic to think the story could be written in the reverse.

[The Weird One]

this is...special too.
http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

[Iliad]

this is...special too.
http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

OWNED!

[Iliad]

Question, how is this description of Islam any different from Xianity?

My comment? That Xianity is a religion which, dissociated from its historical influence (any and all controversial scientific debates made during the church's power)--which are examples of the imperfect praxis, the application if you will, of Christian ideology, not the ideology in ipse, is ideologically totalitarian (promoting slavery, male dominance)--again, you've missed the point that specific reference to ideological precepts based on Mohammad's life and teachings, not those applied later are the subject of contention, unable to compatibilize with the spiritual/temporal divide, and naturally, furthermore intrinsically militarily expansionist in its proselytization (colonization of India, australia, New World)--As before, not quite answering the question of ideology vs. praxis, and of course, spiritual temporal divide is clearly recognised by Catholicism and mainstream Christanity, "render onto Caesar what is Caesar's", which, in opposition to the clear cultural/identitary dichotomy found in Atheism, imposes uni-dimensional cultural and governmental structures? -- wrong, as oppsed to Islam which is designed to be have societal base, taking the Yathrib community for example, Christianity is a religion founded upon the government of the "Kingdom of God" (spiritual) and is compatible to the extent that they are moral with governments (Romans 13)

[/quote]
Long words do not make a good debate

EDIT:

oh nappy:
In a prior debate, I identified a set of ideological premises as superordinate constructions that maintain the rhetorical context in which Napoleon is able to disarm us morally, make us rootless and defenseless, and then destroy us. I will now elaborate on three of his most crazy premises:

1. Mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues.
2. Everyone who doesn't share his beliefs is an obtrusive sybarite deserving of death and damnation.
3. We can stop vandalism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for sick megalomaniacs.

I realize that some of you may not know the particular background details of the events I'm referring to. I'm not going to go into those details here, but you can read up on them elsewhere.

Viewing all this from a higher vantage point, we can see that Napoleon's modes of thought are one of those things that will play on people's conscious and unconscious belief structures. He will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact because if he didn't, you might come to realize that his backers have been staggering around like punch-drunk fighters hit too many times -- stunned, confused, betrayed, and trying desperately to rationalize his sleazy positions. It is unquestionably not a pretty sight.

I might have been dreaming but I believe I once heard Napoleon admit, sotto voce, that he insists that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. How can he be so blind? Very easily. Basically, there's something I've observed about Napoleon. Namely, he may not know how to spell "tetraiodophenolphthalein" but he undeniably knows how to concoct a version of reality that fully contradicts real life. I've further observed that Napoleon insists that he is known for his sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates.

In effect, you shouldn't take threats made by bloody-minded astrologers too seriously. There are several logical contradictions in his position on this matter. For example, Napoleon somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that granting him complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air. I, not being one of the many dirty leeches of this world, am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. If we were to let him get away with giving rise to acrimonious, perverted nymphomaniacs, that would be a gross miscarriage of justice. Napoleon just keeps on saying, "I don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. I just want to undermine the current world order."

In the end, we have to ask, "What happened to Napoleon's common sense?" I hardly know. But I will stake the immortality of my soul that Napoleon's screeds are like an enormous anti-intellectualism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must stop Napoleon's encroachments on our heritage because wherever you look, you'll see Napoleon enforcing intolerance in the name of tolerance. You'll see him suppressing freedom in the name of freedom. And you'll see him crushing diversity of opinion in the name of diversity. The facts are in: Napoleon is a loose cannon.

[MeDeFe]

I feel that it is my duty to act as a positive role model for younger people. To start, when Iliad hears anyone say that the moral devastations that accompany his neurotic belief systems suffice to slowly but surely give lunatics control of the asylum, his answer is to support hostile governments known for human rights abuses, wrongful imprisonment, and slavery. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to celebrate knowledge and truth for the sake of knowledge and truth. Pardon my coarse language, but I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to threaten national security sooner than you think. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that what I have been writing up to this point is not what I initially intended to write in this letter. Instead, I decided it would be far more productive to tell you that just the other day, some of Iliad's fatuitous, maledicent confidants forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus described Iliad's blueprint for a world in which the worst types of censorious peddlers of snake-oil remedies there are are free to keep a close eye on those who look like they might think an unapproved thought. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket I reflected upon the way that Iliad is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his op-ed pieces.

I call upon Iliad to stop his oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery. I call upon him to be a man of manners, principles, honour, and purity. And finally, I call upon him to forgo his desire to manipulate the unseen mechanisms of society so as to promote racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. I promise you, again and again and again, that I will never befuddle the public and make sin seem like merely a sophisticated fashion. Iliad, on the other hand, is so eager to do exactly that that he's already begun making my blood curdle. The reason I'm distinguishing my actions from his here is that he is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks.

Despite some perceptions to the contrary, every time Iliad tries, he gets increasingly successful in his attempts to make our lives miserable. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well. Though disloyal, contentious extremism is not discussed in this letter, much of what I've written applies to that, as well. He occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being inconsiderate wantwits. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which he habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that the impact of his featherbrained hastily mounted campaigns is exactly that predicted by the Book of Revelation. Evil will preside over the land. Injustice will triumph over justice, chaos over order, futility over purpose, superstition over reason, and lies over truth. Only when humanity experiences this Hell on Earth will it fully appreciate that Iliad is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens build a new understanding that can transport us to tomorrow. Responsible citizens decidedly do not lead us, lemminglike, over the precipice of self-destruction.

Given the tenor of our times, anyone -- you or I or a Martian just arrived in a flying saucer -- who wants to focus on the major economic, social, and political forces that provide the setting for the expression of a balmy agenda should realize that Iliad has a vested interest in maintaining the myths that keep his cabal loyal to him. His principal myth is that he acts in the name of equality and social justice. The truth is that perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of fastidious oligarchs. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that I want to deal with the relevant facts. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé but because you may have noticed that it is difficult, if not impossible, for people to come up with an accurate conclusion if the only information Iliad has given them is false. But you don't know the half of it. For starters, sometimes I think that Iliad is simply a willing pawn of those moonstruck smut peddlers who up the ante considerably. I typically drop that willing-pawn notion, however, whenever I remember that there's an important difference between me and Iliad. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Iliad, in contrast, is willing to kill for his -- or, if not to kill, at least to commit all sorts of mortal sins -- not to mention an uncountable number of venial ones.

Iliad's projects have merged with Trotskyism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both wipe out delicate ecosystems. And both establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion. Iliad should have been removed from the gene pool before he had a chance to contaminate it. This position, in large part, parallels civil libertarianism but with particular emphasis on the fact that just because Iliad and his hangers-on don't like being labelled as "litigious crybabies" or "grungy, eccentric scalawags" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit. Until we address this issue, we will never move beyond it.

[Iliad]

There are many problems with MeDeFe's cock-and-bull stories. The one that's the most blatant, and the one that I will limit my discussion to, is related to his overt support of ruffianism. Before I launch into my rant, permit me the prelude caveat that if the people generally are relying on false information sown by reckless scamps, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation.

There are situations where certain fibs are appropriate and there are situations where they are not. What's more, if MeDeFe can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to make some changes here. This is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that several things he has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of his that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt suppress people's instinct and intellect".

You might think this is all pretty funny now but I doubt I'll hear you laughing if, within a short period of time, MeDeFe is successfully able to inject his lethal poison into our children's minds and souls. Should someone think that I am saying too much, I am not saying too much but much too little. For I am more than merely surprised by his willingness to compose paeans to jingoism. I'm shocked, shocked. And, as if that weren't enough, one of MeDeFe's confreres once said, "MeDeFe should make my stomach turn because 'it's the right thing to do'." Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that once you understand his mottos, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting MeDeFe engage in or goad others into engaging in illegal acts.

I, hardheaded cynic that I am, am a law-and-order kind of person. I hate to see crimes go unpunished. That's why I surely hope that MeDeFe serves a long prison term for his illegal attempts to parlay personal and political conspiracy theories into a multimillion-dollar financial empire. As far back as I can remember, he has pitted yobbos against loudmouths and clodpolls against shirkers. Whereas he claims that going through the motions of working is the same as working, I claim that he contends that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. Excuse me, but where exactly did this little factoid come from?

MeDeFe has stated that it is obstreperous to question his harangues. One clear inference from that statement -- an inference that is never really disavowed -- is that anyone who disagrees with him is ultimately brown-nosing. Now that's just backwards. What do you think of this: His gestapo is the blackest home of tyranny and oppression in the world? Trumpeted so many times, his calumnies have begun to feed on themselves, to generate their own publicity, to cow their opponents not by argument but by sheer repetition, and to stir up one part of the population against another. Experience should probably indicate that what I find frightening is that some academics actually believe MeDeFe's line that the media should "create" news rather than report it. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that MeDeFe's endeavors are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that if MeDeFe kicks us in the teeth we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick and they promote the mistaken idea that his machinations won't be used for political retribution. I have just enough stomach left to address one last instance of MeDeFe's vindictive imbecility: He sincerely believes that he can convince criminals to fill out an application form before committing a crime.

[MeDeFe]

In this letter I would like to respond directly to Iliad's self-satisfied rantings. However, considering his inability to cope with the truth I feel that doing so would be a great disservice to Iliad at this time. So, instead, I'll devote the rest of this letter to explaining as politely as possible how comments like that don't sit well with vulgar, dishonest malingerers. I would like to start by discussing his excuses, mainly because they scare me. The thing I'm the most frightened about is that we can't stop him overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to move as expeditiously as possible to expose some of his materialistic, petulant deeds.

This is clear to every knowledgeable observer. And here, I allege, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in Iliad's machinations. There isn't a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that people prefer "cultural integrity" and "multicultural sensitivity" to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life, so let's toss out that ridiculous argument of Iliad's from the get-go. Iliad's primary motivation is self-enrichment at our expense. Likewise, Iliad wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet he is also a big proponent of a particularly saturnine form of boosterism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that the right thing to do in this case is determined by various vectors of forces in an endless multidimensional tug-of-war involving ropes leading out in many directions. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if Iliad finds a way to attack the very fabric of this nation.

Iliad has never gotten ahead because of his hard work or innovative ideas. Rather, all of Iliad's successes are due to kickbacks, bribes, black market double-dealing, outright thuggery, and unsavory political intrigue. What's the difference between his coadjutors and shameless headlong-types (especially the immature type)? If you answered "nothing", then go to the front of the class; you're absolutely right. He has repeatedly been spotted turning hostes generis humani loose against us good citizens. When questioned about that, he either denies any knowledge of it or offers unbelievable and ludicrous explanations that only a self-indulgent authoritarian could believe. Finally, whatever your thoughts or feelings about Iliad are, I urge you to help me oppose our human vices wherever they may be found -- arrogance, hatred, jealousy, unfaithfulness, avarice, and so on.

[Neutrino]

I think someone discovered the automatic argument writer again...

[comic boy]

I think someone discovered the automatic argument writer again...

Makes a change from Nappys posts which suggest that he is talking through a dictionary wedged firmly up his arse

[MeDeFe]

I think someone discovered the automatic argument writer again...

Someone did, I just followed suite.

[Frigidus]

I think someone discovered the automatic argument writer again...

Someone did, I just followed suite.

Automatic arguments? I'm intrigued. Link?

[MeDeFe]

I think someone discovered the automatic argument writer again...

Someone did, I just followed suite.

Automatic arguments? I'm intrigued. Link?

Search for the "Complaint Letter Generator".

[Napoleon Ier]

Was Yathrib democratic?

You're changing perspectives again. :]

You're not answering any of my points again/ :]

The only person to have posted anyhting vaguely resembling a rebuttal are unriggable and maybe gt.

[unriggable]

Was Yathrib democratic?

You're changing perspectives again. :]

You're not answering any of my points again/ :]

The only person to have posted anyhting vaguely resembling a rebuttal are unriggable and maybe gt.

Because you're taking an opinion and pushing it as facts, we can't really make a rebuttal.

[Napoleon Ier]

An opinion (Islam is totalitarian, and a social movement which is indissociable to any purely spiritual principles), backed up by Mohammad's settlement and establishment in Yathrib, the non-existant spiritual/temporal divide and violence of the Koran used as law as opposed to metaphors in the Bible.

[unriggable]

An opinion (Islam is totalitarian, and a social movement which is indissociable to any purely spiritual principles), backed up by Mohammad's settlement and establishment in Yathrib, the non-existant spiritual/temporal divide and violence of the Koran used as law as opposed to metaphors in the Bible.

Most Xians take the Bible as truth, and the cities of the bible were just as bad as yathrib, maybe even worse. Their spiritual / temporal divide was just as nonexistent, maybe more so since the citizens of these countries rely on their god to tell them what to do.