Islamic nations call on UN to condemn gays for ‘abnormal sexual behaviour’

[Brian]

From: Gay News Network (Australia)
By: Serkan Ozturk

A bloc of Islamic nations including Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, Pakistan and Malaysia, has written to the UN to decry extending human rights protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity, while declaring its opposition to a UN Human Rights Council panel forum this week to discuss discrimination and violence against LGBT people.

In a letter by Pakistani Ambassador to the UN, Zamir Akram, on behalf of all 57 countries aligned with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the group claims that the UN would be promoting “abnormal sexual behaviour” at the meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 7 in Geneva.

“The OIC States are deeply concerned by the introduction in the Human Rights Council of controversial notions like ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’.

More... (http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/northern-territory/5272-islamic-nations-call-on-un-to-condemn-gays-for-abnormal-sexual-behaviour.html)
http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/northern-territory/5272-islamic-nations-call-on-un-to-condemn-gays-for-abnormal-sexual-behaviour.html

[æonpax]

`
This does not bode well as it will be just another crack in the deepening riff between the West and the Islamic countries. What interests me is if the far right in the US will ask the US to do the same.

[darkeyes]

`
This does not bode well as it will be just another crack in the deepening riff between the West and the Islamic countries.
No it doesn't bode well at all.. but the big surprise is that it has taken them so long...

[jamieknyc]

I don't think ther is any possibility in the world that the Islamic countriers and the American religious right would agree that the sky is blue. They are the ones who are the true-believer anti-Moslems, as opposed to the average Western person who isn't particuarly concerned about Moslems unless they are getting on the same airplane.

You ahve to recognize, though, that you are dealing with societies that utterly reject Western notions of LGBT rights. Even in the much less toxic environment in Israel, LGBT activities are only tolerated because it is a free country, not approved of by the average citizen. And they in turn have a problem with gay asylum seekers from the surrounding Arab countries.

[pepperjack]

Israeli PM Netanyahu, during his speech to a Christian/Jewish conference earlier this week, mentioned that in Iran one can be hanged for being gay.

[nutme]

I have seen pictures of gay men, Christian men, Jews, being hung in Iran. Also, a more disturbing video, of a child having his arm run over by an SUV for stealintg; also out of Iran.

[æonpax]

I have seen pictures of gay men, Christian men, Jews, being hung in Iran. Also, a more disturbing video, of a child having his arm run over by an SUV for stealintg; also out of Iran.

It's not just Iran. Gays have been imprisoned, tortured and put to death by far-right Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria and Indonesia.

[innaminka]

Gays have been imprisoned, tortured and put to death by far-right Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria and Indonesia.

And it's not just gay men. I think I'd be hanging from a crane truck somewhere too.

[elian]

OK so at one point while my European ancestors were manufacturing wheat and wiping themselves with leaves these folks had developed great cities, art, music, a great educational system .. what happened? I think I need a history lesson.

It's much the same with the fundamentalists in our country I'm afraid. As much as they preach about love and compassion they still view LGBT as sub-human.


"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it--always."

-Mahatma Gandhi



I am not using the quote above to call all of the people in these countries tyrants, that would be the WRONG thing to do, but I am using it to remind myself that there have always been oppressed people, and there have always been people who cared.

[DuckiesDarling]

Gonna make a real unpopular post here, but to play Devil's Advocate. Is this any different than the West urging the UN to condemn the ritual honor killings in Islamic countries?

[biguycancun]

Gonna make a real unpopular post here, but to play Devil's Advocate. Is this any different than the West urging the UN to condemn the ritual honor killings in Islamic countries? The answer is simply YES. The OIC's aim is to further legitimize oppression of members of the LGBT community in nations where the simple declaration of one's LGBT identity can lead to economic oppression, physical harm and even death. To those of us in the LGBT community and even to morally centered non-members of that community, such discrimination is wrong. Big difference: OIC wants to be allowed to persecute LGBT people without censure. (vs.) The UN wants to censure the killing of women based in barbaric custom. To advocate so called "honor killings" is reprehensible. To advocate repression of LGBT people is equally reprehensible. I've used far too many words to make my point. In retrospect, I'm trying to understand why DD, a person whose contributions always interest me, even asked the question.

[DuckiesDarling]

Actually, Biguycancun, I asked the question because the answers will intrigue me. I don't think anyone should be killed because of who they love but they are a different society and forcing them to live by our standards while we don't live by theirs (Women aren't forced into burquas, we eat meat etc) is something that they will never do. It doesn't matter how condemining we are of anything they do, they will do it, just as no matter how condemning they are of the West and it's practices of supporting LGBT rights we will not change. It's a pretty clear cut thing to me, there are two very different societies with different societal values and I doubt they will ever agree on anything. And that is very unfortunate as we all have to survive on this planet.

[æonpax]

And it's not just gay men. I think I'd be hanging from a crane truck somewhere too.

This is true but women, in general, seem to suffer the most. I have reams of news items regarding the cruel and barbaric atrocities committed against women in predominantly Islamic countries , especially in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

[void()]

OK so at one point while my European ancestors were manufacturing wheat and wiping themselves with leaves these folks had developed great cities, art, music, a great educational system .. what happened? I think I need a history lesson.

Religion is what happened. Also, we should not be demonizing Islamic people. Doing so is nothing more than a propaganda tactic which in turn leads use of fear as a weapon. A real history lesson lies in Perl Harbor. The Japanese had been denied access to oil by Roosevelt. They sent a peaceful ambassador thrice in order to resolve issues which ultimately forced them to engage in WWII. The ambassador was ignored every time, our President was 'too busy' to see them.

Another history lesson happened more recently. America was driven by fever pitched fear to invade Iraq, in order to officially 'bring democracy to the oppressed', I think most if not everyone knows it was truthfully about getting the oil for U.S.. We were shown a scapegoat, oddly one we had trained and used against the big evil Russians, the scapegoat allegedly commanded a vast network of terrorist whom did a very evil thing against us.

Sometimes I feel it needed to recall vocabulary, too. Terrorism (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/terrorism) is a very tough word to understand. From that link:


systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal[/COLOR]]

The United States Government isn't a system? They have never intimidated others? They have never used violence?

And probably all religions have used terrorism save for maybe Buddhism and Taoism. These jolly folks are content to just protest, to loudly state a clear opinion. "Hey the food sucks! We need better food! Assholes!" Or look at Tibet, it is its own country within China, like the Vatican in Italy. This was achieved simply by agreeing to disagree.

I think the Chinese thought, 'hey the Buddhists are the old guys who watch out for our ancestors, we don't grandmas and granddads rising up from their graves against us. Let them have their own country, embargo them but don't massacre them, bad karma in slaughtering innocent people." The Buddhist thought was probably, "we don't belong to any government, we're just holy guys. we can live off the land if we need to, let em embargo us!" This was a case where human maturity and wisdom did prove successful. There wasn't fear mongering, genocide, demonizing enemies. Both sides simply agreed to disagree and left it at that.

I'm not exactly an expert, but what I see is frightening. We continue on with making out Iran to be a demon and attack, we're opening a war that will only stop when all Westerners are gone. It won't be a named war because it'll be beyond needing a name in its severity. Go Christianity! You're self fulfilling prophecy you're causing to come to be. Yay! Score one for the home team! Sorry, I don't care if it was Islam, Jew, Tao, Hindu, Muslim, Christian ... you all have fucked up. There is no 'one and only' way but you refuse to see that and continue killing everyone else whom does.

Welcome to the clusterfuck that is the world, honey. It's also about the poor and rich. You need to be a rich Christian to live, or so Western philosophy currently teaches. Islam says you need to be a rich Islam to live, and not be queer. Going to be one hell of a bash if we keep going as we are. How can one not be depressed, anxious, upset? "Oh here, take another pill. Everything is alright, you're just paranoid. Things are not as you see them. It doesn't matter that we all see the same thing, you're wrong. Have another pill honey and relax. Let the sane people handle it."

Said it before, say it again. "Fuck the bozos!"

[void()]

but they are a different society and forcing them to live by our standards while we don't live by theirs (Women aren't forced into burquas, we eat meat etc) is something that they will never do. It doesn't matter how condemining we are of anything they do, they will do it, just as no matter how condemning they are of the West and it's practices of supporting LGBT rights we will not change. It's a pretty clear cut thing to me, there are two very different societies with different societal values and I doubt they will ever agree on anything. And that is very unfortunate as we all have to survive on this planet.

Same song, different hymnal cover is all. "I'm Wazoo, you're not so you must die!"

[jamieknyc]

Israeli PM Netanyahu, during his speech to a Christian/Jewish conference earlier this week, mentioned that in Iran one can be hanged for being gay.

No one in Israel has suggested outlawing homosexuality, except a few Moslem political figures. Controversy is mostly about gay parades.

[12voltman59]

Well--I do have some problems with aspects of the Islamic faith---but then again I have plenty of problems with the fundamentalist, evangelical, dominionist forms of christianity as well---to all of those who are so stuck in their narrow views of what God is supposed to like or dislike---well I say hooey!!

If their all powerful, all knowing, omnicsicent God gets all bent out of shape about some "disrespectful cartoons" and other supposed such "blasphemies" against God or Allah, but that same God doesn't seem to get very upset that the rulers and regimes of those such as Hilter, Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge, the Hutus and Tutus killing each other, that Russian and Asian crime lords have put hundreds of thousands of women, girls and young boys as sex slaves in our own time---and other atrocities such as that---then I say to that---to hell with that "god."

I once again have to go with the words of the George Carlin about such things---that this supposedly all powerful god doesn't or won't do anything about that--then he is either a totally incompetent one--or he "simply doesn't give a shit--so Fuck him!!!"

I say---a POX upon all forms of fundamentalist religions of all stripes---they really are proving to be more of a scourge of humanity instead of being a positive, uplifting force for good.

Of course---it really is not a problem with God, (should one really exist)----the problem resides with those people who set themselves up as the one true and only arbiters of what God says, wants, demands, directs, etc.

[pepperjack]

No one in Israel has suggested outlawing homosexuality, except a few Moslem political figures. Controversy is mostly about gay parades.

????! Did I suggest this with my post? His comment was in the context of emphasizing Israel as a democracy as opposed to its mortal enemy, Iran. And from what I read not long ago, Tel Aviv has a thriving gay community.

[pepperjack]

Religion is what happened. Also, we should not be demonizing Islamic people. Doing so is nothing more than a propaganda tactic which in turn leads use of fear as a weapon. A real history lesson lies in Perl Harbor. The Japanese had been denied access to oil by Roosevelt. They sent a peaceful ambassador thrice in order to resolve issues which ultimately forced them to engage in WWII. The ambassador was ignored every time, our President was 'too busy' to see them.

Another history lesson happened more recently. America was driven by fever pitched fear to invade Iraq, in order to officially 'bring democracy to the oppressed', I think most if not everyone knows it was truthfully about getting the oil for U.S.. We were shown a scapegoat, oddly one we had trained and used against the big evil Russians, the scapegoat allegedly commanded a vast network of terrorist whom did a very evil thing against us.

Sometimes I feel it needed to recall vocabulary, too. Terrorism (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/terrorism) is a very tough word to understand. From that link:


systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal[/COLOR]]

The United States Government isn't a system? They have never intimidated others? They have never used violence?

And probably all religions have used terrorism save for maybe Buddhism and Taoism. These jolly folks are content to just protest, to loudly state a clear opinion. "Hey the food sucks! We need better food! Assholes!" Or look at Tibet, it is its own country within China, like the Vatican in Italy. This was achieved simply by agreeing to disagree.

I think the Chinese thought, 'hey the Buddhists are the old guys who watch out for our ancestors, we don't grandmas and granddads rising up from their graves against us. Let them have their own country, embargo them but don't massacre them, bad karma in slaughtering innocent people." The Buddhist thought was probably, "we don't belong to any government, we're just holy guys. we can live off the land if we need to, let em embargo us!" This was a case where human maturity and wisdom did prove successful. There wasn't fear mongering, genocide, demonizing enemies. Both sides simply agreed to disagree and left it at that.

I'm not exactly an expert, but what I see is frightening. We continue on with making out Iran to be a demon and attack, we're opening a war that will only stop when all Westerners are gone. It won't be a named war because it'll be beyond needing a name in its severity. Go Christianity! You're self fulfilling prophecy you're causing to come to be. Yay! Score one for the home team! Sorry, I don't care if it was Islam, Jew, Tao, Hindu, Muslim, Christian ... you all have fucked up. There is no 'one and only' way but you refuse to see that and continue killing everyone else whom does.

Welcome to the clusterfuck that is the world, honey. It's also about the poor and rich. You need to be a rich Christian to live, or so Western philosophy currently teaches. Islam says you need to be a rich Islam to live, and not be queer. Going to be one hell of a bash if we keep going as we are. How can one not be depressed, anxious, upset? "Oh here, take another pill. Everything is alright, you're just paranoid. Things are not as you see them. It doesn't matter that we all see the same thing, you're wrong. Have another pill honey and relax. Let the sane people handle it."

Said it before, say it again. "Fuck the bozos!"


Void, you're expressing the sentiments of many. Understand that you're angry, scared & depressed; that really comes across. But as with anger & depression, you're not seeing clearly. Believe me, I know. I've made serious life decisions to my detriment while caught up in these same emotions. Jesus understood poverty well; he grew up in it, lived a hard life from beginning to end. I'm thinking of a quote by a Muslim...." I wish I had met your Christ before I met your Christians."

[void()]

But as with anger & depression, you're not seeing clearly. Believe me, I know. I've made serious life decisions to my detriment while caught up in these same emotions.

Presently, I am not making any serious decisions. Geniunely do not do much aside from living in a vacuum.
Have to wait on certian things beyond my control to start coming together. Meanwhile, my days consist of
feeding my dogs, fetching in bags of pellets, eating something and then passing back out.

My back has been having a bad effect on me lately. The spine feels it moves in three slots at the pelvis.
It lifts up, shifts right, next day it shifts left. This can be joyusly excuriating for about a moment. Suppose
it is lessons being taught for past experiences.

That aside, mentality keeps me from having desire to be a 'productive citizen'. I just really have no great
interest or passion any longer. Been watching some Murder She Wrote, even that goes stale. Thinking
of writing but each time, blanks come up, and I don't want to fight.

Funny. I'm not seeing clearly. Yeah, okay, sure. Maybe I see too clearly and tired of what's seen.
And yeah that would be inclusive of myself. Hence, others fairly much make the serious decisions.

[darkeyes]

It is not an issue that I lose a great deal of sleep over.. we know already that Islamic countries have repressive attitudes and laws about homosexuality... in itself it this move will change very little of the reality in our own countries but it does waken we in the west up to the enormity of our task world wide.. the west and Islam have many differences and this is but one.. it is a handy distraction from the far more important issues of our world and is in part designed to further isolate the wealthy nations of the west from the nations of the third world many of whom are not Islamic but do have great angst about the issue of homosexuality and some, such as Uganda, serious official prejudice.

We should be concerned and disappointed, but not unduly so...

[pepperjack]

Well--I do have some problems with aspects of the Islamic faith---but then again I have plenty of problems with the fundamentalist, evangelical, dominionist forms of christianity as well---to all of those who are so stuck in their narrow views of what God is supposed to like or dislike---well I say hooey!!

If their all powerful, all knowing, omnicsicent God gets all bent out of shape about some "disrespectful cartoons" and other supposed such "blasphemies" against God or Allah, but that same God doesn't seem to get very upset that the rulers and regimes of those such as Hilter, Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge, the Hutus and Tutus killing each other, that Russian and Asian crime lords have put hundreds of thousands of women, girls and young boys as sex slaves in our own time---and other atrocities such as that---then I say to that---to hell with that "god."

I once again have to go with the words of the George Carlin about such things---that this supposedly all powerful god doesn't or won't do anything about that--then he is either a totally incompetent one--or he "simply doesn't give a shit--so Fuck him!!!"

I say---a POX upon all forms of fundamentalist religions of all stripes---they really are proving to be more of a scourge of humanity instead of being a positive, uplifting force for good.

Of course---it really is not a problem with God, (should one really exist)----the problem resides with those people who set themselves up as the one true and only arbiters of what God says, wants, demands, directs, etc.


OK, I'm going to take an unpopular stance here & play God's advocate. Congratulations....you just fulfilled Biblical prophecy. " This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud,blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy. Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good...." You have fallen into such a Satanic trap!

[elian]

I decided to try reading the Noble Quaran yesterday, just to see if it was really as bad as some Americans make it out to be. I got about as far as the second Surat and there were I'd say about 200 verses all of them talking about prostrating yourself before God, doing God's will, use all of your wealth in aims toward God, don't concern yourself so much with unbelievers, God loves to torture and confuse them on his own. And then it goes on to "testify" about all of the miracles of the Jews, the Gentiles and the Muslims to derive the authority and character of God.

I'm sorry to say that I got to about verse 20 and I ran out of patience, I skimmed to about verse 150 and just closed the screen.

After looking at what the Abrahamic religions have managed to do I really do find myself clinging to Universalism. It would simply break my heart not to believe that God is all loving. It is unfathomable for me to believe that creation could "hate" a part of itself the way men do. Universalists, if they believe in hell at all believe that hell is for purification, not punishment. Therefore hell on Earth makes perfect sense. The beautiful thing about hell on Earth is that to some degree we have physical hands to do something about it.

I'm not going to get caught up wasting energy telling you what to believe or what not to believe. I believe that all people have worth. What matters more is the content of your character and your actions.

[void()]

You have fallen into such a Satanic trap!

Satan (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Satan) is an interesting word. You could be considered a satan yourself. You use the word in a deraugatory sense to accuse and slander others. This in no way helps others to follow the light you so espouse believing in. "In the begining was the word and the word was wise ..." Putting that into Greek which the Bible was written in, roughly translates to Logo, (the word) began all, and the Logo was Sophia, (wisdom).

I believe as Jefferson did, knowledge is the knowing of facts, wisdom the application of facts. My opinion and that of others is that religion has been the cause of generations of evils, and now needs to remove itself from what needs to be secular. Our Founding Fathers believed in such an idea as well, as has been evidenced here several times. Religion seeks to control politics and governing, to that end it has garnered control of industry, money, education. It is time that reign ends.

You show that you're championing religion, may as well as say you're the problem. Change happens wether we want it to or not. That's called life. To do otherwise is stagnation and death, again, as evidenced here and globally more than enough times to let the blind see. So, continue being the problem all you want. Gentle streams will just flush you into the seas. From there you can become a grain of sand, just like us. And it will happen, with or without your permission.

[pepperjack]

I decided to try reading the Noble Quaran yesterday, just to see if it was really as bad as some Americans make it out to be. I got about as far as the second Surat and there were I'd say about 200 verses all of them talking about prostrating yourself before God, doing God's will, use all of your wealth in aims toward God, don't concern yourself so much with unbelievers, God loves to torture and confuse them on his own. And then it goes on to "testify" about all of the miracles of the Jews, the Gentiles and the Muslims to derive the authority and character of God.

I'm sorry to say that I got to about verse 20 and I ran out of patience, I skimmed to about verse 150 and just closed the screen.

After looking at what the Abrahamic religions have managed to do I really do find myself clinging to Universalism. It would simply break my heart not to believe that God is all loving. It is unfathomable for me to believe that creation could "hate" a part of itself the way men do. Universalists, if they believe in hell at all believe that hell is for purification, not punishment. Therefore hell on Earth makes perfect sense. The beautiful thing about hell on Earth is that to some degree we have physical hands to do something about it.

I'm not going to get caught up wasting energy telling you what to believe or what not to believe. I believe that all people have worth. What matters more is the content of your character and your actions.


I've also skimmed through the Quaran, found parts difficult to understand and also gave up on it after reading a passage which said in effect but paraphrased, If the infidel will not convert, slay him. However, this I like: "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it WAS very good. (Genesis 1:31).

[nutme]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/11/iraq-emo-killings-gay_n_1337427.html

[pepperjack]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/11/iraq-emo-killings-gay_n_1337427.html

Very interesting; thanks for this.

[12voltman59]

I know that sometimes I can get pretty hyperbolic with some of the comments I make in regards to religious matters, especially when it comes to so much done by those who call themselves "christian" but don't seem to really have any notion of what Jesus was about---I actually think that Jesus was a pretty cool character and that most of the things he taught, was about, etc was pretty good.

Coming from a christian background---as much as being raised Catholic is christian since hardcore fundamentalist types of christians don't really consider Catholicism to be be "truly Christian."

The problem for me is that with the way that christianity is practiced today and if it could really be fully practiced in the manner that the hardcore fundies would like it to be---it would be against just about everything that I hold dear in life---like trying to increase your personal knowledge about things, not just accepting what someone tells you, living a life basically the way that you want that is not so tightly dictated and constricted--things of that nature.

The way that modern christianity gets played out---it totally turns me off and makes me want to reject having anything to do with it.

I really do wonder how many people feel as I do, and instead of being drawn to christianity, they are repelled by and reject it???

I have basically come to identify myself as an agnostic at the very least, since so much about what one is supposed to accept without question when you become a "christian," mold one's beliefs and life in that image, etc makes me "want to puke"

The other thing with at least those who lead the Dominion Christianity organizations who really do want to make America a theocracy, I really do suspect they only glommed onto christianity and religion because they know that they could manipulate a gullible group of people into "doing their bidding" so they could usurp representative democracy and our republic in the name of christianity, when all they really want is to institute a totalitarian, despotic regime by any and all means necessary.

I really do hope that Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaids Tale" of such a dystopian future does not come to pass, but perhaps the novel could indeed prove to be "prophetic" in that it accurately predicted just this sort of thing taking place.

[elian]

I already know how to say it in English, does anybody know how to say "God is love, please stop" in Arabic? Now apparently we have a US solider shooting up the place as well..war is hell.. <sighs>

[elian]

I really do hope that Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaids Tale" of such a dystopian future does not come to pass, but perhaps the novel could indeed prove to be "prophetic" in that it accurately predicted just this sort of thing taking place.

I think I've actually fallen in love with Margaret Atwood after watching this video..

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/watch_atwood.html

..because she is able to get her point across very eloquently and effectively, without being demeaning to the folks who disagree with her views.

I DON'T want to tell Christians that they are WRONG or WORTHLESS, I know many good Christian people some of whom I admire quite a lot. but I do find that I resonate with some of what you are saying volty.. The folks I admire MOST are the ones who quietly try to live their lives by the example that Jesus taught while he was alive. There are a whole other group of folks that seem to go around making a lot of noise, as if they are still trying to convince themselves of something..and that's not just Christians, there are other groups that do the same.

[darkeyes]

I already know how to say it in English, does anybody know how to say "God is love, please stop" in Arabic? Now apparently we have a US solider shooting up the place as well..war is hell.. <sighs>
Do we need to bring God into it? It makes sense to me simply to say "love one another and live in peace". Our religion or lack of shouldn't matter.. simply our humanity..

[jamieknyc]

There is no point in reading the Koran to try and derive what Islam says about homosexuality. That is taking a narrow, American Protestant approach, as if you were applying the concept of reading the epistles of Paul to a different religion. What is more important is the varous schools of sharia.

[nutme]

There is no point in reading the Koran to try and derive what Islam says about homosexuality. That is taking a narrow, American Protestant approach, as if you were applying the concept of reading the epistles of Paul to a different religion. What is more important is the varous schools of sharia.

Not true, Jamie. I've spent considerable time in Turkey and Syria; and what is in the Koran is take very literally. The Koran, as a whole, is not a book that the citizens own. For the most part, if it were to be equated to what we know, is Catholics, not reading the "book" but listening to what prelates tell. There in lies a problem, but also, a way to reach. My mind reaches for somthing to equate, but there isn't other than culture; as you know. I have met and befriended the finest of friends who would be catalogued as muslims. But, to suspect, when one is pushed, we become what we know. It is a very hard world, to even try to understand; what life is like outside of our own.

[elian]

Do we need to bring God into it? It makes sense to me simply to say "love one another and live in peace". Our religion or lack of shouldn't matter.. simply our humanity..

I don't disagree Fran, but these folks believe in God, and I can't think of any higher authority they believe in that would get them to consider their actions. Of course, what do I know - I would probably be stoned in a heartbeat, and not in a good way.

[elian]

There is no point in reading the Koran to try and derive what Islam says about homosexuality. That is taking a narrow, American Protestant approach, as if you were applying the concept of reading the epistles of Paul to a different religion. What is more important is the varous schools of sharia.

I wasn't reading to derive any stance on homosexuality, I was just reading to try to understand where folks are coming from. I often read things and test them against my own personal beliefs. But you are right, it is incredibly difficult to try and understand something without the cultural context to back it up.

[pepperjack]

Satan (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Satan) is an interesting word. You could be considered a satan yourself. You use the word in a deraugatory sense to accuse and slander others. This in no way helps others to follow the light you so espouse believing in. "In the begining was the word and the word was wise ..." Putting that into Greek which the Bible was written in, roughly translates to Logo, (the word) began all, and the Logo was Sophia, (wisdom).

I believe as Jefferson did, knowledge is the knowing of facts, wisdom the application of facts. My opinion and that of others is that religion has been the cause of generations of evils, and now needs to remove itself from what needs to be secular. Our Founding Fathers believed in such an idea as well, as has been evidenced here several times. Religion seeks to control politics and governing, to that end it has garnered control of industry, money, education. It is time that reign ends.

You show that you're championing religion, may as well as say you're the problem. Change happens wether we want it to or not. That's called life. To do otherwise is stagnation and death, again, as evidenced here and globally more than enough times to let the blind see. So, continue being the problem all you want. Gentle streams will just flush you into the seas. From there you can become a grain of sand, just like us. And it will happen, with or without your permission.


Here you go again with your misinterpretations & distortions. First of all, the word used was "satanic", adjective, referencing a predicament. What you're reading into my use of the word is absurd. Apparently you don't know what slander means just as you're unable to spell derogatory, a common word. Who did I slander? Surely not the member I was responding to. If anything, I made him appear as a victim. I could suggest you're slandering me by falsely accusing me of slander( I'm trying to give you a hint of its definition). Jefferson is considered by some to have been a genius which implies he had clarity of thought, something you obviously lack. I'm not especially fond of organized religion myself or it's turbulent history. I've said before, I'm non-denominational, I don't attend church. But I do feel I have somewhat of a relationship with God which can best be described by the words of Crocodile Dundee when he said "Me and God...we've been mates." So, I'll be damned if I'm going to sit idly by when I'm seeing a good friend of mine being unjustly trashed. And if I'm the problem, are the Latter Day Saints whom you recently claimed to admire also? Another one of your vacillating inconsistencies. And speaking of accepting change, why don't you remember that the next time you start crying the blues about this site not being what it used to be? And the only thing that will assuredly happen, in spite of your rants & unbelief: prophecy will be fulfilled!

[goldenfinger]

Here you go again with your misinterpretations & distortions. First of all, the word used was "satanic", adjective, referencing a predicament. What you're reading into my use of the word is absurd. Apparently you don't know what slander means just as you're unable to spell derogatory, a common word. Who did I slander? Surely not the member I was responding to. If anything, I made him appear as a victim. I could suggest you're slandering me by falsely accusing me of slander( I'm trying to give you a hint of its definition). Jefferson is considered by some to have been a genius which implies he had clarity of thought, something you obviously lack. I'm not especially fond of organized religion myself or it's turbulent history. I've said before, I'm non-denominational, I don't attend church. But I do feel I have somewhat of a relationship with God which can best be described by the words of Crocodile Dundee when he said "Me and God...we've been mates." So, I'll be damned if I'm going to sit idly by when I'm seeing a good friend of mine being unjustly trashed. And if I'm the problem, are the Latter Day Saints whom you recently claimed to admire also? Another one of your vacillating inconsistencies. And speaking of accepting change, why don't you remember that the next time you start crying the blues about this site not being what it used to be? And the only thing that will assuredly happen, in spite of your rants & unbelief: prophecy will be fulfilled!

And the sun keeps spinning around the earth.

[pepperjack]

And the sun keeps spinning around the earth.

A very profound contribution.

[void()]

"Here you go again with your misinterpretations & distortions. First of
all, the word used was "satanic", adjective, referencing a predicament."


OK, I'm going to take an unpopular stance here
& play God's advocate. Congratulations....you just fulfilled Biblical
prophecy. " This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall
come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters,
proud,blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy. Without
natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce,
despisers of those that are good...." You have fallen into such a
Satanic trap!

First, while I may indeed misinterpret and distort a lot, there exists a
case when it is not in fact my error. Not every case is me
misinterpreting and distorting, it can not be. You were replying to
12voltman59 and in the context of your usage, it can be read to imply
12voltman59 is satanic. Only stands to logical conclusion that if they
fell into the trap, they have become satanic.

"Jefferson is considered by some to have been a genius which implies he
had clarity of thought, something you obviously lack. I'm not especially
fond of organized religion myself or it's turbulent history. I've said
before, I'm non-denominational, I don't attend church. But I do feel I
have somewhat of a relationship with God which can best be described by
the words of Crocodile Dundee when he said "Me and God...we've been
mates." So, I'll be damned if I'm going to sit idly by when I'm seeing a
good friend of mine being unjustly trashed. "


As evidenced via your obviously incensed reply here, one could wonder
your ability to diagnose the clarity of my thought.

Should others sit idly by as you assail their friends? That goes both
ways.

"And if I'm the problem, are the Latter Day Saints whom you recently
claimed to admire also? Another one of your vacillating inconsistencies.
And speaking of accepting change, why don't you remember that the next
time you start crying the blues about this site not being what it used
to be? And the only thing that will assuredly happen, in spite of your
rants & unbelief: prophecy will be fulfilled! "


This is exactly why people like you are problems. And I do accept
change. I have extended great amounts of patience and compassion in
dealing with people like you. It is at times called strict self censure
from posting. If you're uncertain of my words or actions, then one could
also wonder whom else misinterprets and distorts.

I actually could suggest that a pattern has began to emerge. Thank you
for presenting your colors.

[æonpax]

Not true, Jamie. I've spent considerable time in Turkey and Syria; and what is in the Koran is take very literally. The Koran, as a whole, is not a book that the citizens own. For the most part, if it were to be equated to what we know, is Catholics, not reading the "book" but listening to what prelates tell. There in lies a problem, but also, a way to reach. My mind reaches for somthing to equate, but there isn't other than culture; as you know. I have met and befriended the finest of friends who would be catalogued as muslims. But, to suspect, when one is pushed, we become what we know. It is a very hard world, to even try to understand; what life is like outside of our own.

To a certain extent, Islam is a lot like Protestantism in their approach to the Qur'an and Bible, and that is Sola scriptura or the fact that these books alone are the singular guide to eternal salvation. Complicating this their interpretation of the books. Islam, like their Protestant brothers and sisters, believe that there is no singular authority for scripture, hence many different sects of both religions can adopt their own beliefs including the "literal" translation. This is in contrast to Catholics who follow the singular authority of the Magisterium.

Many Protestants also share the belief that the Qur'an and Bible allow them to integrate their beliefs into politics; Sharia for Islam and Dominionism for Christians.

[Hephaestion]

Is there a difference between

"....To a certain extent, Islam is a lot like Protestantism in their approach to the Qur'an and Bible, and that is Sola scriptura or the fact that these books alone are the singular guide to eternal salvation......."

and

".....This is in contrast to Catholics who follow the singular authority of the Magisterium......"

Is this not also a Sola scriptura situation? Additionally, the fact that the Islamic nations are getting together to present an apparent common front would seem to be analogous to a Magisterium.

In practice, all members of any organisation function individually with their own interpretations of corporate policy. The policy itself is formed and refined during the processes of induction and inculcation; then there are the periodic meetings of discussion. Only when things become extreme do the corporate policing mechanisms tend to kick in.

As for dominionism, all organisaitons seek to influence society and politics to their view.

[pepperjack]

"Here you go again with your misinterpretations & distortions. First of
all, the word used was "satanic", adjective, referencing a predicament."



First, while I may indeed misinterpret and distort a lot, there exists a
case when it is not in fact my error. Not every case is me
misinterpreting and distorting, it can not be. You were replying to
12voltman59 and in the context of your usage, it can be read to imply
12voltman59 is satanic. Only stands to logical conclusion that if they
fell into the trap, they have become satanic.

"Jefferson is considered by some to have been a genius which implies he
had clarity of thought, something you obviously lack. I'm not especially
fond of organized religion myself or it's turbulent history. I've said
before, I'm non-denominational, I don't attend church. But I do feel I
have somewhat of a relationship with God which can best be described by
the words of Crocodile Dundee when he said "Me and God...we've been
mates." So, I'll be damned if I'm going to sit idly by when I'm seeing a
good friend of mine being unjustly trashed. "


As evidenced via your obviously incensed reply here, one could wonder
your ability to diagnose the clarity of my thought.

Should others sit idly by as you assail their friends? That goes both
ways.

"And if I'm the problem, are the Latter Day Saints whom you recently
claimed to admire also? Another one of your vacillating inconsistencies.
And speaking of accepting change, why don't you remember that the next
time you start crying the blues about this site not being what it used
to be? And the only thing that will assuredly happen, in spite of your
rants & unbelief: prophecy will be fulfilled! "


This is exactly why people like you are problems. And I do accept
change. I have extended great amounts of patience and compassion in
dealing with people like you. It is at times called strict self censure
from posting. If you're uncertain of my words or actions, then one could
also wonder whom else misinterprets and distorts.

I actually could suggest that a pattern has began to emerge. Thank you
for presenting your colors.


Once again, your muddled thinking is evident with your vacuous response. Do I need to lead you by the hand and specifically point out my meaning? I said"satanic trap," meaning I perceived him as being in a dangerous situation. Your paranoid defensiveness knows no bounds.

[æonpax]

Is there a difference between
"....To a certain extent, Islam is a lot like Protestantism in their approach to the Qur'an and Bible, and that is Sola scriptura or the fact that these books alone are the singular guide to eternal salvation......."
and
".....This is in contrast to Catholics who follow the singular authority of the Magisterium......"
Is this not also a Sola scriptura situation? Additionally, the fact that the Islamic nations are getting together to present an apparent common front would seem to be analogous to a Magisterium.
In practice, all members of any organisation function individually with their own interpretations of corporate policy. The policy itself is formed and refined during the processes of induction and inculcation; then there are the periodic meetings of discussion. Only when things become extreme do the corporate policing mechanisms tend to kick in.
As for dominionism, all organisaitons seek to influence society and politics to their view.

`
"....To a certain extent, Islam is a lot like.."


Meaning similar but not the same. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume there are differences.


*****


Sola Scriptura - The doctrine that the infallible Bible alone contains all knowledge necessary for salvation.

The Catholic church teaches that the scriptures alone are not the only infallible source of Christian doctrine. For them, scripture is but one of three equal authorities; the other two being Sacred Tradition and the episcopacy. The difference between the two was one of the reasons for the Reformation.


*****


The Magisterium is the central teaching authority of the Catholic Church consisting of the churches hierarchy; the Pope, Cardinals and Bishops. There is no Islamic equivalency to this as, Islam has no hierarchy ( http://www.islamic.org.uk/nochurch.htm ) with the exception of the Shiite sect.

(Note: an Iman is a state of conviction. An Ayatollah is a rank within the Shiite)


*****


Those Christians (not all do) adhering to Dominionism believe it gets it’s authority to interfere in secular governmental affairs from the Bible. (http://www.theocracywatch.org/dominionism.htm ) “All organizations” do not follow this as most, at least in the US, see that participating in government is a constitutional right, apart from any religious authority.

[void()]

Once again, your muddled thinking is evident with your vacuous response. Do I need to lead you by the hand and specifically point out my meaning? I said"satanic trap," meaning I perceived him as being in a dangerous situation. Your paranoid defensiveness knows no bounds.

Ah, as I noted it is apparent that a patern does exist. It is a pattern of discrediting a few whom are rather moderate, despite your slurs are in fact well thought in their replies.

I can and do admit to having some mental and emotional issues. Granted then, yes I do sometimes have difficulty in what is read. I am big enough and intelligent, mature enough to admit being human and faulty.

As I point out though, sometimes it is not discrepencies in my thoughts or replies. Are you mature enjough to admit being human too, to own to possibly making mistakes?

From what you keep slinging here it does not seem you are able to do that. No, far easier to bash and trash another. There is no way you could be in error is there? After all you have God on your side.

Can you now comprehend what I am driving at? If you indeed believed in Christianity, then you would know God is on everyone's side. That is one of the basic tennets of the religion. Of course, God is a jealous God, too. He doesn't want one having others in his place.

You keep piling the anger and rage up building some effigy of hate. Create an idol to pray to, sacrfice forgiveness to tearing others down. No, I'm not at all well thought. I'm the stupid fucking nutcase that has boo hoo fits over the slightest thing.

In essence, fuck you and the high horse of righteous indignation you rode in on. And then un-fuck you because you're not worth wasting astro-glide on.

N.B.

Drew, if this is cause for banning so be it. I have tried attacking the idea and not the person. It seems to no avail as trolls are unrelenting. Apologies for going to this level. Ban if you like because frankly at this point, I'm not really sure I care to associate with some here. This has been discussed before in previous threads. No doubt it will continue being a problem. So, in being a better person you may ban me or I may take leave, either way it will solve the problem.

[pepperjack]

Ah, as I noted it is apparent that a patern does exist. It is a pattern of discrediting a few whom are rather moderate, despite your slurs are in fact well thought in their replies.

I can and do admit to having some mental and emotional issues. Granted then, yes I do sometimes have difficulty in what is read. I am big enough and intelligent, mature enough to admit being human and faulty.

As I point out though, sometimes it is not discrepencies in my thoughts or replies. Are you mature enjough to admit being human too, to own to possibly making mistakes?

From what you keep slinging here it does not seem you are able to do that. No, far easier to bash and trash another. There is no way you could be in error is there? After all you have God on your side.

Can you now comprehend what I am driving at? If you indeed believed in Christianity, then you would know God is on everyone's side. That is one of the basic tennets of the religion. Of course, God is a jealous God, too. He doesn't want one having others in his place.

You keep piling the anger and rage up building some effigy of hate. Create an idol to pray to, sacrfice forgiveness to tearing others down. No, I'm not at all well thought. I'm the stupid fucking nutcase that has boo hoo fits over the slightest thing.

In essence, fuck you and the high horse of righteous indignation you rode in on. And then un-fuck you because you're not worth wasting astro-glide on.

N.B.

Drew, if this is cause for banning so be it. I have tried attacking the idea and not the person. It seems to no avail as trolls are unrelenting. Apologies for going to this level. Ban if you like because frankly at this point, I'm not really sure I care to associate with some here. This has been discussed before in previous threads. No doubt it will continue being a problem. So, in being a better person you may ban me or I may take leave, either way it will solve the problem.

Ok. Not to worry about the astro-glide; I'm definitely not a bottom.:cool:

[void()]

Ok. Not to worry about the astro-glide; I'm definitely not a bottom.:cool:

No, you are merely a frightened troll. You use logical fallacies in our
confrontations. I can in fact list these below. You use these as a tool
of attacking myself and others.

Genetic Fallacy - http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/genetic/

You use this in consistent reminding me and others of mental and
emotional adversities I face. The assertion you imply is that since I am
flawed by these adversities, anything which originates from me is as
well. If you read the subject matter discussed in the links, it is
articulated with splendid clarity your arguments of logical fallacy
are themselves flawed.

Are you afraid no one will remember that I suffer these adversities? Do
you think I will not recall this in living with it daily? If so, then
perhaps you suffer worse afflictions than you feel a desire to remind me
that I suffer.

I gladly and openly admit to having flaws. At least I am granted
integrity.

Let us continue exploring the other fallacies you use. I find it quite
informative and insightful. Others may as well, besides as you have seen
fit to attempt degrading me in a public forum, only civil of me to
return the favor.

Fallacy of Composition -
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/composition/

This one is really fun. It allows you to imply that since my mental
facilities are faulty, I as person on whole am faulty. Again, reading
the subject matter linked elucidates that such may not be the case.

Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition -
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-tradition/

You frequent this one in your appeal to religion. For my purpose and
purpose of debate, religion is an idea. It is an old idea. From reading
the linked subject matter it is found that perhaps old ideas are not
always better ideas.

Yes I may admire some whom practice forms of an idea. And yes I may
dislike and loathe some whom practice forms of the same idea, in
different ways. There is not a contradiction in that. You may like
peanut butter but dislike crunchy peanut butter. Anyone can do such.

To imply that I can not like and dislike due to having mental flaws is
ludicrous. Further, appealing to a notion that an old idea is better
than any new one, which I do assert at times, is also rather baseless.

So far, I have listed three logical fallacies you use as means of
attacking under a broader logical fallacy. That fallacy is listed below.

Ad Hominem (Personal Attack) -
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/

First, I genuinely do not believe the arguments you seek to convince me
to believe. I have no intention of accepting or believing them. You are
not the first to assail my self worth, likely not the last. You have
tried and failed.

Second, I could care less about you discrediting any position I posit.
Quite often, I am contented to agree upon disagreeing with people. I can
do this and behold, the world does not end. Now, I may be mentally
challenged at times but the world ending would surely have no room for
misinterpretation. People disagree. That is part of life. I do not get
upset over disagreeing with some one. I am mature enough to handle it.

I am also mature enough to own up to making errors, in perception, in
judgment, in opinion. That also happens as par course of life.
Hopefully, you have noticed in this response I am addressing your
actions and the ideas you have asserted as tools. I am not focusing on
you as a person. Great temptation exists.

You may and probably will continue your assailing. Please do not cease
at my expense. As mentally challenged as you may think me, capacity
exists to realize other methods of dealing with you and your ilk.

[pepperjack]

No, you are merely a frightened troll. You use logical fallacies in our
confrontations. I can in fact list these below. You use these as a tool
of attacking myself and others.

Genetic Fallacy - http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/genetic/

You use this in consistent reminding me and others of mental and
emotional adversities I face. The assertion you imply is that since I am
flawed by these adversities, anything which originates from me is as
well. If you read the subject matter discussed in the links, it is
articulated with splendid clarity your arguments of logical fallacy
are themselves flawed.

Are you afraid no one will remember that I suffer these adversities? Do
you think I will not recall this in living with it daily? If so, then
perhaps you suffer worse afflictions than you feel a desire to remind me
that I suffer.

I gladly and openly admit to having flaws. At least I am granted
integrity.

Let us continue exploring the other fallacies you use. I find it quite
informative and insightful. Others may as well, besides as you have seen
fit to attempt degrading me in a public forum, only civil of me to
return the favor.

Fallacy of Composition -
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/composition/

This one is really fun. It allows you to imply that since my mental
facilities are faulty, I as person on whole am faulty. Again, reading
the subject matter linked elucidates that such may not be the case.

Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition -
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-tradition/

You frequent this one in your appeal to religion. For my purpose and
purpose of debate, religion is an idea. It is an old idea. From reading
the linked subject matter it is found that perhaps old ideas are not
always better ideas.

Yes I may admire some whom practice forms of an idea. And yes I may
dislike and loathe some whom practice forms of the same idea, in
different ways. There is not a contradiction in that. You may like
peanut butter but dislike crunchy peanut butter. Anyone can do such.

To imply that I can not like and dislike due to having mental flaws is
ludicrous. Further, appealing to a notion that an old idea is better
than any new one, which I do assert at times, is also rather baseless.

So far, I have listed three logical fallacies you use as means of
attacking under a broader logical fallacy. That fallacy is listed below.

Ad Hominem (Personal Attack) -
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/

First, I genuinely do not believe the arguments you seek to convince me
to believe. I have no intention of accepting or believing them. You are
not the first to assail my self worth, likely not the last. You have
tried and failed.

Second, I could care less about you discrediting any position I posit.
Quite often, I am contented to agree upon disagreeing with people. I can
do this and behold, the world does not end. Now, I may be mentally
challenged at times but the world ending would surely have no room for
misinterpretation. People disagree. That is part of life. I do not get
upset over disagreeing with some one. I am mature enough to handle it.

I am also mature enough to own up to making errors, in perception, in
judgment, in opinion. That also happens as par course of life.
Hopefully, you have noticed in this response I am addressing your
actions and the ideas you have asserted as tools. I am not focusing on
you as a person. Great temptation exists.

You may and probably will continue your assailing. Please do not cease
at my expense. As mentally challenged as you may think me, capacity
exists to realize other methods of dealing with you and your ilk.


OK, I tried to agree with you, sever ties...yet you persist. Void, as much as you exasperate me, there is something about you I like. You have such an obvious vulnerability which makes me feel empathy for you. I've tried to reach out, be your friend,but your enmity toward religion has tainted you. We have conflicted most severely concerning that topic.One of the most difficult stumblingblocks of my faith is that of "turning the other cheek." I've succeeded yet failed with this teaching of Jesus. In other words, I'm a fighter, combative. When I feel that I am under personal attack, I have an instinctive yet tempered reaction to retaliate; long story. OK, I know there are those on this site that would argue this is the crux of the problem; the way I see it....you asked for my "human" side...I'm trying to show you some of it.Anyway, besides personally fending for myself, when someone maligns, attacks & blasphemes a personage of spirit I know to be real, namely Jesus, yes, I can become incensed, when the populace would rather listen to John Lennon "let's give peace a chance." I can see that I'm starting to ramble just as you and Elian. No offense; it's a symptom of the times we live in....troubled.

[elian]

Every person is fallible, everyone has emotional vulnerabilities and they often come out in writing if you write from the heart - I am glad that you are still reaching out to each other because learning to communicate is important and each of you have something to say..emotional as it is.

[void()]

Honey, while I might be really good or at least try being so. I am no saint and feel it best for everyone to ignore him. I read his last post but will not read any more. I can understand his point of view. We are two stubborn oaks that refuse giving on the issues. Fine, we can agree to disagree. He says I misread a lot he writes. Fine, I'll not read his scribbles. Can't misunderstand what you don't know, in this case.

Rather ramble with you anyway. C says we go on like old women. She was up one night visiting the batroom, overheard us talking. She did not hear what we were saying, just aware we were talking. Me and her laughed. She said she was happy I had found someone to be that at ease with. So we can ramble in way or another any time. :tongue::love::wacko:

So glad you don't mind me being an axe murder and cereal killer. It's hard for us lunatics to find decent folks to love on.

[Hephaestion]

Aeon.

Shiites and Sunnis are sparated primariliy by their belief in who inherited Mohammed's mantle. One lot believe it was a meritocratic matter, the others thought it was familial succession.

All organisations rely on internal structure, a consitution, discussions and some form of directive hierarchy to survive so that they can then disseminate their attractions.

A devotion to the insitution of the Roman Catholic faith is laudable but one forms the very strong impression that there's an attempt to split hairs here.

[æonpax]

Aeon.
1 - Shiites and Sunnis are sparated primariliy by their belief in who inherited Mohammed's mantle. One lot believe it was a meritocratic matter, the others thought it was familial succession.

2 - All organisations rely on internal structure, a consitution, discussions and some form of directive hierarchy to survive so that they can then disseminate their attractions.
A devotion to the insitution of the Roman Catholic faith is laudable but one forms the very strong impression that there's an attempt to split hairs here.

Sir,

1 - You've no argument from me there but that difference is so profound, they've been killing each other over it for at least the last fifty years, which leads me to believe that this difference is not merely dogmatic.

2 - When it comes to faith and their ecclesiastical dogma, the Protestants adhere to sola sciptura and those of the Islamic faith allow for individual interpretations of their holy books whereas the Catholics have a top/down authority that does not allow for that. Santorums sanctimonious proclamations, for example, are not Catholic nor can he clam them to be. He has no religious authority, whereas many Protestants and Islamics can claim Divine or religious authority in secular matters of governance. This is more than just a semantical difference.

[Hephaestion]

There is no interest here in Mr Santorum or his "sactimonious proclamations".

When it comes to killing, what relgion does is to bolster political differences. In the absence of religion then people will kill each other because there's an 'R' in the name of the month.

If what is being described is Roman Catholics as being sheep like and mindlessly following religious dictat then that is one heck of a generalisation. That kind of monpoly took a real dent in the Middle Ages when printing and translations arrived. Even RC's are encouraged to read the Bible and think for themselves (as if there was only one version of the Bible). The description of Protestants is equally simplistic and entirely alien. One should also remember that there are other religions in the world not just the three favourites that seem to surface here.

There is only one way that this can be said

All organisations rely on internal structure, a consitution, discussions and some form of directive hierarchy to survive so that they can then disseminate their attractions.

That includes religions (as indicated by the numerous ranks that exist).

[pepperjack]

Honey, while I might be really good or at least try being so. I am no saint and feel it best for everyone to ignore him. I read his last post but will not read any more. I can understand his point of view. We are two stubborn oaks that refuse giving on the issues. Fine, we can agree to disagree. He says I misread a lot he writes. Fine, I'll not read his scribbles. Can't misunderstand what you don't know, in this case.

Rather ramble with you anyway. C says we go on like old women. She was up one night visiting the batroom, overheard us talking. She did not hear what we were saying, just aware we were talking. Me and her laughed. She said she was happy I had found someone to be that at ease with. So we can ramble in way or another any time. :tongue::love::wacko:

So glad you don't mind me being an axe murder and cereal killer. It's hard for us lunatics to find decent folks to love on.


If you can really see my point of view, can you see that this conflict was precipitated by your knee-jerk reaction to my use of the word "satanic"? Sorry Void, but you drew "first blood" in post #24 when you started falsely accusing me, judging me, attempting to label me. And now you're promoting my ostracism on the site. At the risk of sounding a little paranoid myself, I'd say you've got me in your crosshairs.;) But then, as I said in the beginning, I knew I was taking an unpopular stance.

[æonpax]

There is no interest here in Mr Santorum or his "sactimonious proclamations".
When it comes to killing, what relgion does is to bolster political differences. In the absence of religion then people will kill each other because there's an 'R' in the name of the month.
If what is being described is Roman Catholics as being sheep like and mindlessly following religious dictat then that is one heck of a generalisation. That kind of monpoly took a real dent in the Middle Ages when printing and translations arrived. Even RC's are encouraged to read the Bible and think for themselves (as if there was only one version of the Bible). The description of Protestants is equally simplistic and entirely alien. One should also remember that there are other religions in the world not just the three favourites that seem to surface here.
There is only one way that this can be said
All organisations rely on internal structure, a consitution, discussions and some form of directive hierarchy to survive so that they can then disseminate their attractions.
That includes religions (as indicated by the numerous ranks that exist).

I see. So your purpose in posting is not to discuss the topic but to bash religion. Silly me for not seeing this from the start. Your opinions are noted.

[Hephaestion]

Not bashing religion. Just correcting misconception.

It is still wrong that muslims nations have approached the UN so as to "......decry extending human rights protections........."

One notes that Turkey was mentioned amongst the signatories which might undermine their claim to being a secular nation pursuing human rights with a view to joining the (seemingly crippled) EU. One wonders if there will come a time when they will be asked to withdraw from NATO as they have repeatedly been reluctant to become military heros on behalf of the west.

.

[æonpax]

Not bashing religion. Just correcting misconception.

It is still wrong that muslims nations have approached the UN so as to "......decry extending human rights protections........."

One notes that Turkey was mentioned amongst the signatories which might undermine their claim to being a secular nation pursuing human rights with a view to joining the (seemingly crippled) EU. One wonders if there will come a time when they will be asked to withdraw from NATO as they have repeatedly been reluctant to become military heros on behalf of the west.
`

A misconception that applies only to those who don't share your perspective. My point goes deeper into the philosophy of religious involvement into secular affairs. However, I do agree with you on the rest of your statement but will take it a step further.

NATO, which was originally formed to blunt the old Soviet Union, has outlived it usefulness. With the possible exception of their forced involvement in the Balkans, it has become just another instrument of the corporate oil cartels. The corporates see no profit in "human rights" unless they can use it as an excuse. One need look no further than Saudi Arabia to see the dichotomy between what EU/NATO says and what they practice. SA is ripe with human rights violations but those are overlooked because of their oil. Them asking Turkey to abide by a human rights maxim which they themselves don't practice, is pure hypocrisy.

While I respect the religion of Islam I also see it as becoming perverted by extremists, much like Christianity in the US.

[elian]

I heard a program on the radio this morning, something about an issue with French Beef and whether or not the cows were slaughtered "live" or stunned first so they didn't have to feel it. Apparently the French President was asking Muslims and Jews to reconsider their religious beliefs in light of what we now know about science and technology. In a rare display of unity both the Muslims and Jews decided to stand together in "outrage". You know, this time I agree with the President, there comes a time when you just have to say "Get over it". Is there honestly a belief, so etched in stone that it really doesn't change for ONE THOUSAND years? I mean, even the CATHOLIC CHURCH pardoned Galileo, and they made Joan of Arc a saint..

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/15/148521433/in-france-politicians-make-halal-meat-a-campaign-issue

..and I think it's despicable to use these types of things for political gain, but I expect to see more here in the US too because this is an election year after all - politicians will do anything to gain favor in the short term, including distract from the big issues nobody wants to deal with.

[chuck1124]

This thread has come far from the intial topic, which is the United Nations. This only proves, again, how useless the UN has become. It would be best for the US to withdraw from this organization that is started.

[void()]

`

A misconception that applies only to those who don't share your perspective. My point goes deeper into the philosophy of religious involvement into secular affairs. However, I do agree with you on the rest of your statement but will take it a step further.

NATO, which was originally formed to blunt the old Soviet Union, has outlived it usefulness. With the possible exception of their forced involvement in the Balkans, it has become just another instrument of the corporate oil cartels. The corporates see no profit in "human rights" unless they can use it as an excuse. One need look no further than Saudi Arabia to see the dichotomy between what EU/NATO says and what they practice. SA is ripe with human rights violations but those are overlooked because of their oil. Them asking Turkey to abide by a human rights maxim which they themselves don't practice, is pure hypocrisy.

While I respect the religion of Islam I also see it as becoming perverted by extremists, much like Christianity in the US.

Thanks for this post on whole. You seem to sum up my thoughts. I can respect religions but think they need not apply to secular matters. Further, I think governing should be a wholly secular matter. As for human rights, I think the issue has become a flag type of issue, one which whomever seeks to gain populous vote pretend to champion. Beyond that no one really seems to be genuinely for human rights. It is all just a grand illusion of a farce gone wrong.

[elian]

This thread has come far from the intial topic, which is the United Nations. This only proves, again, how useless the UN has become. It would be best for the US to withdraw from this organization that is started.

I don't know, I sort of like the idea of the UN - isn't it better to give these different countries a place to actually talk about and debate their viewpoints using diplomacy first instead of missiles?

The person who presents the Islamic point of view will be subjected to hearing the opinions of the other member nations and may learn something.

[elian]

"Human rights for all people" is a laudable goal, I know that I enjoy MY rights very much. Sadly in a world full of finite resources controlled by a few it's a very hard sell. Once human beings get a taste of self-egoism sometimes they develop an insaitable lust for promoting it..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQmz6Rbpnu0

[open2both]

Their MINDSET will NEVER change!
To HELL with 'em!!!

[Emotional Masochist]

To HELL with 'em!!!
:( what did i do?????

[Hephaestion]

`

A misconception that applies only to those who don't share your perspective. My point goes deeper into the philosophy of religious involvement into secular affairs. However, I do agree with you on the rest of your statement but will take it a step further.

NATO, which was originally formed to blunt the old Soviet Union, has outlived it usefulness. With the possible exception of their forced involvement in the Balkans, it has become just another instrument of the corporate oil cartels. The corporates see no profit in "human rights" unless they can use it as an excuse. One need look no further than Saudi Arabia to see the dichotomy between what EU/NATO says and what they practice. SA is ripe with human rights violations but those are overlooked because of their oil. Them asking Turkey to abide by a human rights maxim which they themselves don't practice, is pure hypocrisy.

While I respect the religion of Islam I also see it as becoming perverted by extremists, much like Christianity in the US.



Well the hypocritical old west has been accepting more personal rights than have been accepted elsewhere. When a country SEEKS to join that grouping with proclamations of intent to adopt and harmonise, then when it acts in contrary fashion, that does invite comment.

NATO outlived its usefulness? Who knows. NATO was used as the command structure during the Lybian skirmish with the USA "standing back". The way NATO was involved in the Balkans will not be discussed here as its presentation on this site has been another naive simplistic scenario. Certainly Turkey's stance has been of importance throughout.

Philosophy? Depends on what aspect of philosphy one is championing. Sometimes facts get in the way. Repeated here that:

"....all organisaitons seek to influence society and politics to their view...."

but agreed that extremists pevert most things. Certainly what Saudi Arabia gets up to more than raises an eyebrow. However, it is a common tennet that a country gets the government (and by implication the codes of behaviour) that it deserves. Any epoch of freedom and brightness no matter how brief that the west has managed has been through strife and sacrifice. No doubt the corporates will prevail on such matters as you say, even with ourselves.

[pepperjack]

Well the hypocritical old west has been accepting more personal rights than have been accepted elsewhere. When a country SEEKS to join that grouping with proclamations of intent to adopt and harmonise, then when it acts in contrary fashion, that does invite comment.

NATO outlived its usefulness? Who knows. NATO was used as the command structure during the Lybian skirmish with the USA "standing back". The way NATO was involved in the Balkans will not be discussed here as its presentation on this site has been another naive simplistic scenario. Certainly Turkey's stance has been of importance throughout.

Philosophy? Depends on what aspect of philosphy one is championing. Sometimes facts get in the way. Repeated here that:

"....all organisaitons seek to influence society and politics to their view...."

but agreed that extremists pevert most things. Certainly what Saudi Arabia gets up to more than raises an eyebrow. However, it is a common tennet that a country gets the government (and by implication the codes of behaviour) that it deserves. Any epoch of freedom and brightness no matter how brief that the west has managed has been through strife and sacrifice. No doubt the corporates will prevail on such matters as you say, even with ourselves.



"Sometimes facts get in the way." I like this line because it correlates with the lyrics of one of my favorite blues artists, Robert Cray, when he belts out " I can see your lips a' movin' but the truth gets in the way." :bigrin:

[æonpax]

Thanks for this post on whole. You seem to sum up my thoughts. I can respect religions but think they need not apply to secular matters. Further, I think governing should be a wholly secular matter. As for human rights, I think the issue has become a flag type of issue, one which whomever seeks to gain populous vote pretend to champion. Beyond that no one really seems to be genuinely for human rights. It is all just a grand illusion of a farce gone wrong.
`

I seem to have gotten side tracked on the main issue here, the UN. It does seem odd that these Islamic, theocratic and totalitarian states are petitioning the UN to condemn gays in light of this 2011 Resolution, to wit;



GENEVA — The United Nations endorsed the rights of gay, lesbian and transgender people for the first time ever Friday, passing a resolution hailed as historic by the U.S. and other backers and decried by some African and Muslim countries. The declaration was cautiously worded, expressing "grave concern" about abuses because of sexual orientation and commissioning a global report on discrimination against gays. - source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/un-gay-rights-protection-resolution-passes-_n_879032.html

[void()]

According to Amnesty International, consensual same-sex relations are illegal in 76 countries worldwide, while harassment and discrimination are common in many more. "Today's resolution breaks the silence that has been maintained for far too long," said John Fisher of the gay rights advocacy group ARC International.

The White House in a statement strongly backed the declaration.
"This marks a significant milestone in the long struggle for equality, and the beginning of a universal recognition that (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) persons are endowed with the same inalienable rights – and entitled to the same protections – as all human beings."
The resolution calls for a panel discussion next spring with "constructive, informed and transparent dialogue on the issue of discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against" gays, lesbians and transgender people.


YaY! Let's all be happy buggers! The U.N. is doing something!


At the same time, he noted that the U.N. has no enforcement mechanism to back up the resolution. "It's up to civil society to name and shame those governments that continue abuses," Dittrich said.

Ah, here we go. The crux is a false flag. "Hey look we're big rich folks promoting human rights. Shame is we can't help ensure them."

Bah! Business as usual, song remains the same.

If you're as useless as teets on a bull, why bother? Is it so you appear to be doing something? If so, here's and idea, do something. And I do understand lots of politics is about appearances, but in effect the appearances mean nothing if nothing backs them.

If I'm reading it wrong am sure someone can tell me, don't think I am though.

"I will now go hang myself nude in the barn."

[darkeyes]

`

I seem to have gotten side tracked on the main issue here, the UN. It does seem odd that these Islamic, theocratic and totalitarian states are petitioning the UN to condemn gays in light of this 2011 Resolution, to wit;
Why odd? Every country does it about their pet likes and dislikes.. it's the way of the world.. the US, UK, Russia, China et al do it for their's..sometimes they get their way sometimes not... many times I wish the UK or US had not, just as I have wished that the UN had decided on the view of many other countries.. we win some and lose some.. tis but the way of international relations.. the intolerance of many nations toward homosexuality would be no less real if the UN did not exist, and the avenues for cooperation and understanding greatly reduced.. often, such as on the issue of homosexuality nations will be poles apart and there will be no apparent meeting of minds.. this is little different to western societies where there is also such a division.. we live with it and try to eradicate the prejudice and strive for understanding acceptance and equality.

Did we really ever expect every nation on earth to follow suit because we have generally acceptance and understanding of homosexuality and bisexuality in our societies? No.. we knew it would be a far more difficult thing to achieve internationally than in our own little countries for a myriad of reasons.... we knew it would be a hard uphill struggle as it has been in our countries and will be far more difficult and even dangerous.. we will have set backs and blockages just as we have domestically, almost certainly even more in fact, and those who have no love for us will use every avenue open to them to have their view prevail..

It is not an issue to despair over because it is no more than we should ever have expected.. the UN and many other international bodies will be used for and against many things we believe personally, domestically, culturally and nationally in and that is something I am afraid we have no option but to accept.. when things go against us it isn't a case for throwing in the towel or even abandoning that institution in a fit of pique as many argue, especially in the US, but holding our nerve and continuing to do what we believe is right and fighting our corner and allowing peoples and nations with whom we may disagree to do the same however much we loathe what they propose....

[jamieknyc]

The UN has no power over whether individual member nations allow homosexuality or outlaw it. Its authority is limited to international matters.

[darkeyes]

The UN has no power over whether individual member nations allow homosexuality or outlaw it. Its authority is limited to international matters.
An international matter is an issue that a group of nations decide is an international matter.. and certainly what the most powerful states in the UN decide is an international matter... we have seen that often in the past and we shall see it again.. such is the reality of international diplomacy..

[tenni]

What I am reminded about when someone questions such actions (post 67) by the UN is that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was considered pointless without significance has led many nations over the years to evolve to accept Human Rights. Not every nation agrees what is a human right but it does create discussion and progress. The same hopefully happens with this declaraation.

[void()]

The UN has no power over whether individual member nations allow homosexuality or outlaw it. Its authority is limited to international matters.

The U.S. is a charter nation of the U.N.. This is important because the U.N. could enforce its own Declaration of Human Rights and thereby decree compliance of those so chartered. But human rights are not an international issue.

My friend a wise and educated Jewish lawyer in New York says they are not. As I am poorly educated, mental ill I must oblige my friends perspective for he is so benevolent as to never be in error or say untruths. I will merely accept what those wiser and more educated say as reality. If they say it is night outside when the sun is out, then it is night despite me seeing it as day.

Forgive my snark here. It is isn't intended as an attack but an elucidation of something. People think if you're in the least mentally ill, you lack ability to understand every and all things. Correctly, yes I can not at times grasps some things, or may read more into some thing. But it is not all things, and I do have a fair bit of common sense, intellect. Had to have, have lived this long, so far so good.

[darkeyes]

And its own Deceleration of Human Rights does not give it authority over nations alleged to its charter? Seems like it is an international matter, human rights, that is. Of course, as I said, just a false flag anymore.
Without doubt, Voidie, human rights is an international matter.. and as tenni infers.. its a bit of a job getting everyone to agree what is and is not a human right.. we might not like it, but nations which dislike homosexuality have the right to raise the issue in their own way just as western countries and everyone else has.. they fight their corner we ours.. I'm not afraid of it... I'm a lot less afraid of it than of ne backlash against it in our own societies from wherever it comes..

[æonpax]

Why odd? Every country does it about their pet likes and dislikes.. it's the way of the world.. {snipped for brevity}

`
Odd in the fact that the UN has already stated where they stand on human and Gay rights. This petition by the homophobic nations is merely for show.

I’m not naive enough to believe that anything the UN says or does really matters. The US picks and chooses what UN accords it will or will not support and states like Israel routinely treat UN condemnations as if they were toilet paper. Speaking of that, the UN is a paper tiger, it has no teeth. It has failed as a peacekeeping force in the world but having said that, I would not want it dismantled. In this case, something is better than nothing and at the very least, it provides a forum where talk can still be maintained.

The UN is. however, very well equipped and has the expertise in mobilizing aid to people.

[void()]

The UN is. however, very well equipped and has the expertise in mobilizing aid to people.

As do local churches, synagogues, mosques, International/Local Red Cross, Salvation Army, Samaritans, Gideon. Not all involved with religion act as evil benighted demons, rather they act with dignity, respect, compassion. It is latter folks I admire, whilst I feel the former may find solace in a very deep hole in the ground. Simply put it is called being human.

[darkeyes]

`
Odd in the fact that the UN has already stated where they stand on human and Gay rights. This petition by the homophobic nations is merely for show.

I’m not naive enough to believe that anything the UN says or does really matters. The US picks and chooses what UN accords it will or will not support and states like Israel routinely treat UN condemnations as if they were toilet paper. Speaking of that, the UN is a paper tiger, it has no teeth. It has failed as a peacekeeping force in the world but having said that, I would not want it dismantled. In this case, something is better than nothing and at the very least, it provides a forum where talk can still be maintained.

The UN is. however, very well equipped and has the expertise in mobilizing aid to people.
Because the UN says one thing 2 day doesn't mean it will say the same thing 2moro... what it says changes... for show+ I think... but no need for ne1 to get 2 hot under the collar as yet..

[æonpax]

As do local churches, synagogues, mosques, International/Local Red Cross, Salvation Army, Samaritans, Gideon. Not all involved with religion act as evil benighted demons, rather they act with dignity, respect, compassion. It is latter folks I admire, whilst I feel the former may find solace in a very deep hole in the ground. Simply put it is called being human.

Your response begs a rhetorical question; Can there every be enough NGO groups willing to give aid in a time of world-wide disaster? Haiti is a good case study of massive disorganization and alleged criminal misdoings,


1) UN sexual abuse,
2) Evangelical Christians absconding with children for adoption,
3) Monsanto trying to force their genetically altered seeds,
4) Oxfam suspending workers for criminal activities,
5) and not to mention the criminal Haitian government itself.




Also, many Christian religious groups are not permitted in Islamic and other countries as while they come on the pretext of giving aid, their real goal is to convert people.

I say let the UN coordinate these efforts.

[æonpax]

Because the UN says one thing 2 day doesn't mean it will say the same thing 2moro... what it says changes... for show+ I think... but no need for ne1 to get 2 hot under the collar as yet..

I still say, "half a loaf is better than no loaf at all."

[void()]

Your response begs a rhetorical question; Can there every be enough NGO groups willing to give aid in a time of world-wide disaster? Haiti is a good case study of massive disorganization and alleged criminal misdoings,
1) UN sexual abuse,
2) Evangelical Christians absconding with children for adoption,
3) Monsanto trying to force their genetically altered seeds,
4) Oxfam suspending workers for criminal activities,
5) and not to mention the criminal Haitian government itself.




Also, many Christian religious groups are not permitted in Islamic and other countries as while they come on the pretext of giving aid, their real goal is to convert people.

I say let the UN coordinate these efforts.

And you're pointing out that the UN comes into Haiti with sexual abuse. I see lots of ironic humor there. Maybe I shouldn't but I do. Guess the UN is the new international brothel managers. That would truly explain a lot.

[elian]

No solution is perfect - I have heard rumors that the NGOs are out of control but then again, I'm sitting on my ass typing this, they are actually doing something.

[æonpax]

And you're pointing out that the UN comes into Haiti with sexual abuse. I see lots of ironic humor there. Maybe I shouldn't but I do. Guess the UN is the new international brothel managers. That would truly explain a lot.

That was done deliberately. No organization is above reproach nor is free of problems What I did not point out was which country, representing the UN, these complaints came from. The Haitians did not lodge complaints about the UN in general, just members of this particular nation, whom by the way, were removed. You are of course aware that aid workers come from many various nations and for the most part, are segregated into individual working groups.

This incident notwithstanding, the UN still has the best track record of coordinating the delivery of aid.

[void()]

You are of course aware that aid workers come from many various nations and for the most part, are segregated into individual working groups.

Sounds like military units and work details. You muster from various divisions, companies and then dole out 'work parties'. Usually it breaks down into three units from each company, fifteen soldiers.

I had kind of figured the U.N. would use similar methods, yes. Still a bit ironic, as id the U.S. as a world power showing everyone 'might makes right'. I digress because thinking and feeling such things for extended periods hurts really bad and not in ways a baseball bat across the back hurts.

Hence, my editing this post so much as well. Rather not ... well, you can understand.

[jamieknyc]

Fran, you are entitled to your opinon, but that isn't what the UN Charter says.

[jamieknyc]

The UN Charter does not grant the UN authority over the internal laws of member states, and that was done for a reason: the Western powers had no intention of giving Stalin a veto over whether they had such things as freedom of speech and freedom of political expression in the US, Britain and France.

[darkeyes]

Fran, you are entitled to your opinon, but that isn't what the UN Charter says.

I know what the UN charter says.. I also know how nations operate.. especially big powerful ones... and a nation's business is only a nation's business as long as other nations say so.. the charter is ignored when it suits... or haven't u noticed?

[jamieknyc]

We are talking about the UN, and since the UN has no power to act unless the five permanent members consent, that is a circular argument.

[Chromehorn]

There is always someone or some civilization that wants to cleanse the earth of an unwanted people.
However, women in general have been persecuted for thousands of years, and continue to be persecuted, repressed, and made to feel less than their male equals. I'm getting off on another tangent but nonetheless, even popular entitites like Victoria's Secret, as an example, make women feel like they are not the true woman if they do not fit into their idea of what a woman should look like. As abhorrent as it is discriminate and kill people for their sexual preferences, it is equally horrible to kill someone with a thousand cuts through magazines, TV, movies, by making them feel as though that are not what society deems they should look like, therefore they are less

[darkeyes]

Fran, you are entitled to your opinon, but that isn't what the UN Charter says.
Jamie.. I know what it says and how its supposed to work.. and that's how it is ur right.. sometimes when it suits...