Part 2
Freedom of speech, while guaranteed in American constitutional law, is not absolutely a freedom since it is restricted when it is judged to be inciting a riot.  Freedom of speech is not guaranteed anywhere else in the world.  There are two artworks that received a great deal of controversy in the late 90s called Piss Christ by Andres Serrano and The Holy Virgin Mary, by British artist, Chris Ofili created using elephant dung.  A great deal of furor was raised and some politicians were catapulted into the public limelight by taking vehement issue with the Serrano work on the congressional floor.  The works were not banned however and have gone on be exhibited extensively and to be referenced in all art history books that deals with contemporary art.  There are others, within the Christian clergy, that defended the Piss Christ work as “profoundly religious,” see Casey, Fisher, and Ramsay at http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/dacasey/Serrano.htm
and
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/dacasey/Casey Fisher Ramsay.html

Challenging the basis and reason for art, these works are obviously associated with religion and religious beliefs. No huge outcry emerged in England with the Ofili work and there are other works of his that deal with human and animal waste.  The disputes are kept civilized.  The point here is that religious disputation must be debated and kept within the religion itself and not in the world of politics.  Religious communities, whether they are western in origin or eastern must stay within the boundaries of its religious dogma and thought.  Imperialism in religions is the cause of wars, death, and destruction and are antithetical to basic tenets of their religions. Intelligent evolution of humankind measures the sophistication with which religions can deal with huge questions about their religion.  It is a sign of weakness that any religion cannot sustain and defend with reason any assault on the dogma or traditional belief system.  Questions reasonably answered only strengthens the foundation of a religion.  Ozark’s concern is obviously about the defensive posture of Islamists.  His points have validity and seem to be an honest attempt to come to terms with what seems a devious protectionism that wishes to alleviate responsibility for unrighteous behavior. There is evidence for his concerns.  We have made the argument on this forum that to modify the first Amendment to the American Constitution would be a dangerous de-strengthening of the protection.  His argument is that “trimming back” the freedom of speech on the world stage sets a precedence to devalue human rights even further.  I think he has a powerful point there.  Although it seems he is making an attempt to step out of that framework, the thing that seems to reduce the strength of his arguments is his attachment to his own brand of fundamentalism.

Part 1
Taking a counterexample:  Let us suppose that an Islamist, say an Iraqi citizen who is not part of the insurgents, but an ordinary citizen who is very angry with the United States because the US bombed their neighborhood and they no longer have a home, uses the Bible for target practice.  Does the United States then also sponsor a UN resolution about the repression of free speech having taken insult from the Iraqi’s action?  But since the US is a country of many faiths, it might not as a country take complete offense at the shooting at the Bible.  However, burning of the American flag might be akin to the infraction of shooting holes in the Bible.  Americans as a whole are more nationalistic than religious.  So perhaps a resolution from the United States UN representative that proposes criminal acts against countries who harbor American Flag burners, would be reasonable?  Except Americans have been watching the burning of their flag for decades in various countries.  I do not think any resolution against the freedom of speech was proposed to the UN on account of flag burning. Preparing for a discussion with a friend, I was re-reading Satanic Verses recently.  I ran across the following that had to do with a recollection of surviving a fire where, after a great distancing, one friend helped the other:  “love had shown that it could exert a humanizing power as great as that of hatred, that virtue could transform men as well as vice. But nothing was forever; no cure, it appeared, was complete.” It is that last sentence that seem most important, don’t you think?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is more than an attempt to establish what are universally moral.  The problem is to enforce those rights.

The film, Fitna, the Wilders film, was uneven for me in content.  It was intended to be provocative with the female wearing a revealing see-through gown which would only tend to enrage the Islamist public, especially the clergy.  The fact that the woman committed fornication, which is forbidden by the religion, was also meant to create a riotous response since she would not have been virginal at marriage.  While I personally am not disturbed by either nudity, being an artist and using the nude human figure for decades, female and male, or disturbed by sex between consenting adults, I think to use those two behaviors in order to effect social change in a culture-wide repressive religion is not a smart thing to do.  If it is desirable to change the attitude toward either of those actions, it needs to evolve within the belief system itself for it to become accepted and indelible regardless of how slow the process might be.  Given their penchant for reactive violence, antagonizing the community of Islamists is not useful for the purpose.  All that being said, however, neither of these conducts are violations worthy of the woman being beaten, raped by the uncle, nor being subject to murder, and although a dramatization, I believe this is typical.  While there may be enlightened men in the culture, the general view of women in Islam is uncivilized at best.  But those two things are not really the substructure of the film.  The real motive is to criticize the irrational beliefs of Islam about freedom of speech. While it is almost impossible to impede one’s thought, although the emotion of guilt could be conditioned in the members of a social group for particular kinds of thought (as Catholics do with their corpus on sin), it is possible to prevent and prosecute particular kinds of speech.

A friend communicated to me that the OIC sponsored repression of free speech needs to be understood in light of the insults to Islam. An example is the Qura’n being used by a US soldier for target practice. And then the rhetorical question, “What do you expect the OIC to do, love you for it? be passive? or take actions at the highest level possible?”

A few comments. Once we allow that OIC should take action, a reasonable question arises: ‘what action is appropriate?’ And by what standard are we to judge the appropriateness of the action?

Islamically speaking I figure that the OIC is doing the right thing. Islam deserves respect. Islam means submission. Without the submission there is continual disturbance(fitna). That means that the OIC must resort to some kind of force to compel the desired good behaviour from the un-believers.

The UN action to limit freedom of expression is that force. It is acceptable (Islamically speaking) to punish those who show disrespect to Muhammed and the Qura’n.

So, having here cleared the OIC of wrongdoing(from an Islamic point of view), and acknowledging the pious motivation of the OIC, certainly the fact that they are Islamically correct and pious will put some people’s mind at ease.

The only drawback of this line of thinking that I have taken… What other bad behaviours of ours will prompt a new punishment, or a further trimming back of our freedom? What might they do next which we will be asked to excuse ‘Islamically speaking’? What else might their religion request of us?

Karen Armstrong will not tell you. Either she conceals the information or she just plain doesnt know. Ayaan Hirsi Ali will tell you to the best of her ability. On the basis of that alone Ayaan is worth reading.

Here is a report about Geert Wilders, who made the movie Fitna. The court in Jordan has requested he appear there for trial, which he refused to do. From the website ‘Atlas Shrugged’:

Geert Wilders fears he will be arrested soon when traveling abroad, due to his movie Fitna. Jordan is working on an international warrant for the arrest of the PVV leader in order to prosecute him. Last Monday the court in Amman found the complaint filed to be acceptable. Wilders expects that the court will soon appeal for an international warrant for his arrest, reports De Volkskrant. Jordan can possibly make a request through Interpol. Such an appeal can be fought by the Dutch government. It is also possible Jordan will ask individual nations visited by Wilders to extradite him. In any case, the Wilders’ freedom of movement will be severely restricted. Wilders complains about the uncertainty. “One never knows when it will happen. My freedom of movement will be enormously limited and I cannot operate as a politician,” according to Wilders in De Volkskrant. The risks are being mapped by the ministry of Foreign Affairs.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/0 6/geert-wilders-t.html

To Shenonymous, and A Reply to Other Friends

While it seems to me that your contrast of two kinds of Islam could be usefully applicable, Humanist/Religious, what is your motive for presenting Ali’s distinctions to us, OM?

I meant to test myself. I needed a variety of leaders of Islam. Ayaan is the only one i could find. I tested my definition on her catagories.

Direct answer: I like her classification. It starts with the opinion that there is a problem, and that the problem needs to be talked about. From this bias she points out who is helpful and who is not helping solve the problem.

Whether her bias is a glimmer of truth or not is something that could be debated. Let me say that debating this would be the best thing! Burying this would be the worst thing. Those who wish to bury her will get their wish eventually, perhaps soon. But her ideas… they cant be killed off. Well, no, that isnt true. Ideas can be censored, perhaps that is what is desired, the death of ideas.

The first thing those who wish to bury a person do(sans a body to actually hack up and place in the ground) is ad hominim attacks. Never never do they discuss or debate the idea, for discussion is the one thing that they are trying to avoid.

Therefor, in leiu of investigating if she is right or wrong, we must first undertake the extra screening process which is selectively applied to conservatives and other dissenters: do we ‘bury’ her opinion? or do we ‘discuss’ her opinion?

Its amazing how many opinions you can turn your nose up at if you develop a selective process. And the best part is we feel SMARTER for NOT reading! I made a ridiculous parody of this by not reading Karen Armstrong, and trying to force you all to not read Gore Vidal. Screening books and screening people is really just a way to screen exposure to ideas which contradict our ideology, is it not?

My hope was that we would all agree to drop the screening and read everything without fear of contamination. Instead, our conversation fractured. I am sorry for it, but the effort had to be made.  That was actually an act of love and respect, although it was taken as hatred and disrespect.

It is not to late for us to drop all the screening crap and regroup. Are we intellectuals? Yes. I have believed it of everyone involved. 

Otherwise, another question comes into view. We must also undertake the extra sceening process and selectively apply it to sources of information. Yes, it has been said here that some sources were verboten. Never mind that without those sources this matter of the UN Human Rights fiasco would never have been brought to your attention. 

Places like Truthdig do not know and ridicule those who do. Your sources have not, are not, and will not report on these things until it impinges on them someday. It impinges on some of my heroes already, it threatens to crush them. Do my heroes have faults? Of course. But so do yours. 

I do not like it that a human being with something to offer leaves the table. They cant be replaced! And I do not like to banish any thinker. I am happy to read Karen Armstrong, the whole thing about her was to make a point.  Let reason, and not prejudice, judge if there is truth in every idea. Do not let a fault of an author be used as an excuse to gag him/her.

But why do we not hear more brave speakers from that quadrant of humanity about human rights and protection for them?

If Shenonymous, who is very intelligent, concerned, and aware of events which trouble the world, is only recently hearing about the problem at all, then the problem isnt a matter of receptivity but of the news media.

No news outlet wants to incur the wrath of the multiculturalist, politically correct, crowd. Who wants to be branded ‘Islamophobic’? American Islamic organizations such as CAIR will label you as a racist.  The Left, including academia, will be on your back if you cross the line on this topic.  Trust me, it wont matter to them how much you have read or thought about the topic. Karen Armstrong would probably say you are ignorant. The government of the USA is passively unhelpful, with its new jargon to win the hearts and minds of Muslims(this might be a good thing, but I worry about the price we pay). The governments of Europe are actively unhelpful. Closer to home, Canada has a ‘Human Rights’ committee(not a court with a judge, just some multiculturalists with the power to punish) which has summoned an author into its lair for a trial over an article about Islam. The author has fled to the USA, but we may adopt similar laws eventually. There are people here who wish we were like Canada.

The two presidential candidates dont talk about it. During the primaries one candidate gave a nice talk about Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The actor-turned-senator, whatever his name is.

Since few people in the land of free speech are willing to stand up, why do we expect people in Saudi Arabia to do so?

But enough about us. To answer your question Shenonymous, there are people in the Islamic world who do speak out. I marvel at their courage. Mostly women. Mostly atheists. Christians in the Islamic world seem to have nothing to say.  I detect two factors. First, an admiration for the orderly peace of Islam. Second, a fear of endangering the rest of the Christian community by speaking out, since criticism of Islam negates the protected status that the community has. Sharia is not so bad for Christians if they keep quiet.

But those atheists. What must their life be like?

They have to deal with the threats of terrorists types who mark them for death. They have to deal with the normal Islamic community which doesnt threaten them with death but wishes to keep them isolated. They have to deal with their governments, which straddle the line between sharia and secular, but to appease the Islamists the government might act against them at any time. Oh yes, and now they also have to deal with the UN Special Rapporteur for Free Speech, a person who should be protecting them but who now has a mandate to drag them into court for insulting Islam. They have all this trouble to bear… plus they get to see our newscasts and books about how Islam is the misunderstood victim, the religion of peace. Support from the land of the free and home of the brave? ZERO.

Surely they must sense that they are on the losing side. The question should be, “Why do they speak out at all?”

Not able to watch the UN videos as noted in comment dated June 21 at 10:22pm

I wonder how the public may monitor these meetings?  It seems a more worthy activity than watching sitcoms on tv, which I don’t do anyway.

The fact that “autocratic governments, i.e., Cuba and Myanmar, are treated with a “light touch,” is ludicrous.  Either these UN councils have some utilitarian benevolent function for the oppressed or it is utilitarianly useless.  Particularly a council for human rights!  Either people wherever they exist, have alienable rights, or they are without human status.  Why would countries that have no problems with human rights have need of a council on human rights?  Is that a rhetorical question?

The argument that theistic-based autocratic countries have the right to serve cruel and unjust impositions and restraints, that is behave in totalitarian oppression, is patently egregious.  Those who systematically crush human rights of their citizens are obviously not countries that can be negotiated with for any reason.  Does that threaten warfare?  Humans have to weigh the value of some human lives against other human lives to solve this question since killing would be involved.  Warfare implies people on both sides of the issue.  The question needs to be publicly debated without the violators’ opinions, for to allow them to participate would be like asking a fox to sit in a hen house while the chickens lay their eggs.  Isn’t that a similar argument they are waging about who ought to be able to talk about religion?  Taking the people of Darfur for example, the world sits by and engages in idle talk as they continued to be starved and murdered.  African politics is hideous. 

With Ali’s five kinds of Islam, what is proposed to be done with respect to each?  It is not clear what Ayaan wants the world to do.  It has been suggested that she has baseless ulterior motives for being so vocal.  How do we find the truth in these matters?  Many others have registered the complaints against Islamists and not merely at the terrorist Islamists.  That is not to propose that all of Islam are deserving of censure. Not at all.  But why do we not hear more brave speakers from that quadrant of humanity about human rights and protection for them?  Is that another rhetorical question.

While it seems to me that your contrast of two kinds of Islam could be usefully applicable, Humanist/Religious, what is your motive for presenting Ali’s distinctions to us, OM?  I am trying fervently to understand what non-Islamist and other non-fundamentalists ought to be doing.  I see and feel the strife in all that is being presented from both sides of the issues.  Will check back soon but wanted to get off an interrogative post before a brief lacuna.

Imperialism of any kind for any reason is a curse and anathema to humankind., whether it is for religious territory or oil.  The felt need to conquer and own others is barbaric at best, by animals destitute of human reason at worst.

A good AP article. Were you able to watch the videos? Please report the event at UN Human Rights Council.

Thats a poor attitude by the US to just walk away. Now we have our answer to “Why didnt the US cast a vote?”

Inspiration from the link Shenonymous provided: “On Monday Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested attempts by a humanist group"…

Why not ‘Humanist Islam’ vs ‘Religious Islam’?

The connotations arent so heavy with approval or disapproval. A link to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, with an excerpt below just in case. Bold print is my comment.

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.26595 /pub_detail.asp

“In the quest for reconciliation between Muslim and western societies, it is important to recognize that Muslims are as diverse as Islam is monolithic. Islam attempts to unify more than a billion people of different geographical origins, languages, ethnicities, and cultural and educational backgrounds into one religious tribe. And while I acknowledge that generally stereotyping believers is difficult since belief is subjective, for the sake of discussion I would like to distinguish between five types of Muslims.

The first group includes those Muslims who leave the faith because they cannot reconcile it with their conscience or with modernity. This group is important for the evolution of the Islamic world because they ask the urgent and critical questions believers usually avoid. Ex-Muslims living in the west are just beginning to find their voice and to take advantage of the spiritual and social freedoms available to them.” Humanist Islam

“The second group is comprised of genuine Muslim reformers, such as Irshad Manji, who acknowledge the theological out-datedness of the Koranic commands and the immorality of the prophet. They tend to emphasize the early chapters in the Koran urging goodness, generosity and spirituality. They argue that the latter chapters wherein Islam is politicized and the concepts of sharia, jihad and martyrdom are introduced should be read in the context in which they were written, some 1,400 years ago.” Humanist Islam

“The third group is made up of those Muslims who support the gradual perpetuation and domination of Islam throughout the world. They use the freedoms offered in democracy to undermine social modernity and, though initially opposed to the use of violence, foresee that once the number of believers reaches a critical mass the last remnants of unbelievers may then be dealt with in violence, and sharia law may be universally implemented. Ayatollah Khomeini used this method successfully in Iran. Erdogan of Turkey is following in his footsteps. Tariq Ramadan, deeply rooted in his Muslim Brotherhood heritage, is devoted to such a program among European Muslims.” Religious Islam

“The fourth group is the most obvious and immediately threatening. In this group we find a growing number of hard-line Muslims who have defined martyrdom as their only goal. This is an army of young men whipped into a frenzy of suicidal violence by power hungry clergy. These clergy have public platforms and work with impunity from institutions untouched and often funded by national authorities.” Religious Islam

“The fifth group is largely ineffective and only threatening in their refusal to acknowledge the truth. Here we find the elite clergy who make a show of trying to reconcile Islam with modernity. They are motivated by self-preservation and have no interest in true reform. They take selective passages from the holy books to make a case for a peaceful Islam, ignoring the many passages inciting violence, such as those verses which command the death of apostates.” Humanist Islam. There are western elites who repeat these selections and use the same bias, I would also consider them Humanists also. They acquire the same ‘ineffective’ label but to the degree they are successful they impower Group Three.

and a couple of website videos of the UN rights council debates at the bottom of the article. Well, these don’t work!  They are restricted, the public cannot access them.  Why in the world then did the newspaper put them in?  grrrr

but the article is longer than the one in the Pakistani Daily TImes and gives a comment by Amnesty International. 

The article on the Muslim man sentenced to death for tearing a few pages of the Qur’an and saying something against Muhammad tells of a human travesty.  It makes one wonder if this world as a whole entity can ever become civilized.

There is a better article at

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/18/news/UN-GEN- UN-Rights-Council-Religion.php

and a couple of website videos of the UN rights council debates at the bottom of the article.

I could be in for it but here goes.  Looks like we have two religions where fault cannot be pointed out.  Except while they abhor criticism, the Christian fundamentalists don’t seem to resort to killing or at the least maiming, but their militant branch the Evangelicals would possibly excoriate in their inimitable way, through the vituperation of ultra conservative talk radio and television hosts and printed matter.  Who knows what they might do through the corporate avenues?  But one could physically survive that!  Or commit suicide if it was too bad (and that has happened.)

Does the same charge of blasphemy hold if one says anything about Islam itself?  Because now for the other don’t-you-dare-criticize-or-you-could-wind-up-dead with no head, or tongue or your entire family wiped out religion and I hope I am not one of those that they would come after!:  We could try some words for the Islam you examine OM.  Let’s forget about Armstrong since she is simply a freelance monotheist historian.  We should work this out on our own since we are the ones totally immersed.  If Nabih wants to smack us he has every right.  I just hope he smacks gently as my puny body can’t take too many blows.

So for the sake of furthering our discussion, how about these bifurcations which would serve the ‘peaceful’ Muslims and those in variance:  Basic versus Incidental Islam or Essential vs. Adjunct Islam, Greater Islam versus Lesser Islam (militants), or Higher and Lower Islam, or Major and Minor Islam, or Significant and Less Significant Islam, guess we’d better watch it here but I could even go for Big Potatoes/Small Potatoes Islam.  What do you say OM?  Or here are a few more:  Standard Islam and Nonstandard Islam, or Canonical Islam or Uncanonical Islam, Concordant and Discordant Islam, Sacred and Unsacred Islam, Obedient or Disobedient Islam, Orthodox and Unorthodox Islam (like the Greek Catholics do), or Sanctioned or Unsanctioned Islam, or Programmed Islam and Non-programmed Islam, or First Islam and Last Islam, or Ordinate or Inordinate Islam, or Honorable Islam and Dishonorable Islam (that one would probably be up for violent reaction) so can’t go there, or how about Conformist Islam and Nonconformist Islam or Common and Uncommon Islam, and my final suggestion Centric and Eccentric Islam might be just too off the wall.  So here we have a plethora of possibilities.  One just has to put one’s head to it.  I bet you could come up with a few more.  Anything can be criticized.  Isn’t that guaranteed by the First Amendment, no?

BTW:  I am now reading “The Battle for God,” Karen Armstrong.  It has lots of footnotes and references and a very decent bibliography.  I will look at the Pakisani Daily Times for your story.  Your link works fine on my computer (I use Safari browser, other browsers don’t always work with the TD links.  Besides I have PDT bookmarked).

For crying out loud, I cant do a link correctly. Here is the story from the Daily Times 6/19/08

Man gets death sentence for blasphemy

SIALKOT: A District and Sessions court on Wednesday sentenced a man to death on charges of blasphemy. Shafeeq Lateef was charged with using derogatory remarks in reference to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and desecrating pages of the holy Quran on March 17, 2006. District and Sessions Judge Suhaib Ahmed Roomi sentenced Lateef to death for making blasphemous remarks and issued a separate fine of Rs 500,000 for desecrating pages of the holy book. Lateef was arrested from a village near Sialkot and charged under the blasphemy laws. nni

hmm, again a link that didnt work. I try again.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=20086\19 \story_19-6-2008_pg7_7

If that doesnt work, access the first link about the UN events, then look in the right hand column for the story about the man who is sentenced to death for insulting Mohammed.

Today I present no answers for any of your questions, Shenonymous. Although I hope to do so in future.

Instead I report to you.  A few days ago at the UN Human Rights Council there was discussion of women’s rights.  Some NGOs had a chance to speak and brought up either ‘honor killing’ or stoning, or female genital mutilation. The OIC was able to silence the discussion since it was or could become ‘critical of Islam’. There is video of this at the Geneva webcast achives, but I cannot play them. Without that and without any official document I can only refer you to this story in the Pakistan Daily Times: 

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008/06/ 19/story_19-6-2008_pg7_6

the next page of that day’s news has this story about a man who insulted Mohammed.  I remind you that this is not the heretical Saudi version Islam. nor the heretical Iranian Islam, but friendly Pakistani Islam:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=20086\19 \story_19-6-2008_pg7_7

We must face the fact that there are several exceptions to the Islam we have learned here. I think we should upgrade these from being merely ‘exceptions to the rule’. At the very least we should acknowledge that they are strong competition against the peaceful Islam which we learned here.

What I notice is something Shen pointed out earlier. This suppression of free speech isnt linked to people who are terrorists. It is what I would like to call a fundamentalism. Except I cannot correctly do that, since the term refers to an American Christian development.

Without the name ‘fundamentalism’, and without any other name suitable, we are left with calling it ‘Islam’. Which seems unfair to the majority of peaceful Muslims. Further, to mention ‘Islam’ in any critical way does not appear to be consonant with Free Speech and Human Rights according to the article.

The result is that I have no word.

Maybe it isnt so bad to have no word, to speak no word, since the topic is no longer to be discussed by anyone except scholars. And by ‘scholars’ think of someone like Karen Armstrong. Is this what Nabih was trying to explain to me all along? It isnt that Karen Armstrong is so smart because she is still on her nose over that Quran quotation, which proved the opposite of the point she was trying to make. It cant get worse than that.

So I suppose by ‘scholar’ they mean one who says kind words, and by this servitude is allowed to continue speaking. Or even better, some ‘scholars’ not only are allowed to be published but they also get showered with money from… but lets not go into that.

Words that cannot be used. A religion that cannot be criticized. The scholars will have their way if something doesnt change in the equation.

part 3
To respond to today’s OM post:  Did I ask that? What difference does it make if we do better? No, I don’t think so.  Nor did I ask if our understanding has any good in it.  Not even by implication.  The force of my questions are if there could be any affect outside this forum?  That if we are not so arrogant to think that a public forum of this type has any determining factors on enough others as to make any difference in their actions: if there would be any good other than to ourselves as to the content and conclusions we com to about that content?  I think after reading some of the other forums there is a remarkable delusion that they think they are making some significant difference; that Obama is listening, or Bush is listening, or Ahmadinejad is listening and that any or all of them will act on that listening.  If they are not intending that then the commenters are just doing some sort of mentally smug exercise.  There are other words for such self-gratifications. and if they are, then they fool themselves. So it’s a double edged sword.

What we are doing on our forum is an investigation. Even if we deal with such profound ideas as fundamentalism, tolerance, intolerance, fascism, freedom of speech.  It is different in that we are doing this for ourselves and not to “save” the world, although it might wind up that way.  In my case, I want to know more about Islam, fundamentalist Christianity, etc.  While I do not anticipate embracing either, I do not claim to have all the answers in my atheism.  I believe in humanity and humanitarianism.  I believe humans do have value and none ought to be treated as wasteables, none and there are and have been wasted people, untold numbers.  I get upset at the plight of people in the world, when our president doesn’t give a real damn about people floating in the canals of New Orleans, or the millions of Iraqis killed over petroleum, ad nauseum.  I want to know what in Christianity did to our president to make him say that god spoke to him and told him to do all these evil things.  And I want to know what makes Islamist think their way is the right and only way to live.  Will I do anything with what I learn here, damn right I will.  Do I know what?  No.

That’s all

Purist not only has good connotations but it also sounds pretentious.  Why would any one group be more “pure” than any other?  And besides, to what degree of purity could even be meant?  As purity can be divided up into percentages.  100%, 50%, 10% pure?

I understand what you meant in your eliminating conservativism and traditionalism.  Nevertheless, your notion of tendency is not clear either.  Unfortunately one does not own and certain word that is already in common use.  You cannot trademark or copyright the word fundamentalism.  It will always carry with it ties to the other religions.  Yes, you do seem to be the only one working out a trajectory for fundamentalism.

FYI:  Freedom of expression is not in the Constitution:
It is often said that one of the rights protected by the 1st Amendment is the freedom of expression. But “expression\” is not used in the amendment at all (See copy of Amendment 1 below). This term has come to be used as a shorthand, a term of art, for three of the freedoms that are explicitly protected: speech, petition, and assembly. While the use of “freedom of expression\” is ubiquitous in the common language, it is important to note exactly to what “freedom of expression” refers.

Amendment 1 to The U.S. Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
But do let’s put some closure on this.

Part 2 – Trying to stay on task…
OM says of himself back on June 5 that he attempted on occasions to explain the fear that lies within the fundamentalist perspective, but that it was going to take a more propitious [my word] time to do so.  My question is, what would make any time more favorable? 

To restate his fifth point: using the hypothetical, as he put it by implication, if the world only perceives fundamentalism by mistaking a particular individual believer’s place, time, and desires to be the defining characteristics of all of fundamentalism, then shouldn’t somebody (you for instance) show the distinctions?  We on this forum, are a captivated audience, we want to be here, and we want to listen to what each of us says with an open mind.  We, unusually, give each other that respect.  We want to have a proper view.  To not help us out to see what you see would show a smidgen of disdain for us.  Maybe more than a smidgen!

The fact is it is not my intention to challenge anyone’s beliefs.  It is not my intention nor desire to do that.  Some justification for saying what one does here is appropriate regard.  I am willing to listen because listening needs to be done.  It is a hidden contract we have with each other.  And I am willing to explain what I say if what I say is not clear.  As an example, please explain more clearly what you mean by antivalue.  You give some description to the word impinging as an act of resisting [that] impingement unintentionally and that creates an antivalue.  How so?  Further, you speak of the need to “break out of conventional culture.” I ask, why the need to break out, as if there are chains or fetters, around one’s neck.  I am not sure why you are including atheists in that alleged group.  You accuse that atheists in America have hidden Christianity within them.  If you mean they become atheists in reaction to having been a Christian, maybe some have, I know some, but not all have.  It doesn’t necessarily work that way.  Epiphanies do not have to be religiously reactionary.  I know a few people who say they were born atheists.  They never had any religious training in their families and when they found out about religion they thought it was preposterous.  And these people are humanitarians and actually go out of their way to help poor and sick people.

I am so glad you posted, Shenonymous.

I think since the term fundamentalism is in fact a contemporary term with specific meaning and connotation, if you want to use a signifier to describe a preservation of originally established beliefs and values, that the word conservativism is more appropriate as overused as it might be, or if you want, the word traditionalism could also be applicable.

Conservatism is too political. Traditionalism is the antithesis of fundamentalism.

It is of value to describe an instinct or desire in such a way that it encompasses more than one place or one time. American Christian fundamentalism has already changed since the moniker was first applied. In 50 years it wont be recognizeable. I admit that you are teaching me correctly about the etymology of the word fundamentalist, but with the narrow definition of fundamentalism it becomes problematic to transfer it outside its American Christian 20th century home. Yet we already use ‘fundamentalism’ in other contexts(such as Saudi Islamic fundamentalism), so we are already spreading the word around.

If I wish to understand it as a tendency and not just an event, and better yet if i wish to compare it to other events or better yet to understand the likely course of future events I must distill the essential tendency.

Despite occasional plagiarisms, I have presented original thoughts here. I am probably not the only one who works it back in time either. But I think I am the only one who is working out a trajectory.

As far as what is accomplished by us. Yes, true, its just talk, and my study of ‘fundamentalism’ seems to add yet another topic. Shouldnt we be doing something?  Still, I think an idea that is poorly understood but acted upon can become a dangerous one. I also think that our perception of others also needs to be clear. It is terrible to take a ‘stand’ against something without understanding it. It was terrible to go to war, especially when both the idea and the perception werent well understood.

What difference does it make if we do better? (i feel that we are understanding things better, I know at least i am) You ask what good that does? Hmmm. To get to discussing action maybe we should just finish the freedom of expression business. Since we both agree on the meaning of events we could work on what to do. There are things to do, i am sure of it.

The fundamentalist does tie in though. As always, i am happy to go either way. And i could use another term, like ‘purist’, except that has too many good connotations.

I browsed some TD articles this a.m. and saw that the politico pundit wannabees are still at it.  None seem to have anything substantial to add to the betterment of the world and bickering continues. Sort of like the banter of a New York slum neighborhood. Nice to see, though, that cyrena is using the Chicago Resolutions I sent to her on the 15th.  I doubt if anything about an Iran invasion will be affected by what any city or set of bloggers say.  Actions, in this case will only speak louder than words. If anybody wants to really do something about the impending Iran conflict and conflagration, they will have to get physical and demonstrate out in the open, I suggested Chicago a likely place to start, or march on Washington, or go to Iran and demonstrate in the streets!  Now that is a radical thought!

Of course, here we are, still at our game.  Don’t we all have real non-computerized lives and do this as we can fit it in?  We are an interesting crew and get into some depth of discussion. But are we making any significant difference to anybody but ourselves? I really doubt it.  Will what we assimilate into our own thinking be diasporazed elsewhere?  Probably not.  We are merely doing this for our own amusement, am I not right?  We aren’t under any grander illusions are we?

Before we get on to the topic of freedom of speech, which I admit is provocative, I feel we need to clarify some past comments and dispel the notion that I am a bit flighty and serendipitous in presenting new ideas.  Flattery does not hide accusations!  I refer everybody to Plato’s “Gorgias.“

So OM, because of your last post on the 16th, I want to go back and pick up some birdseed from some previous posts so that we are both (or all who are following this discussion) clear and understand each other.  Going back to your June 5 post about fundamentalism, and the five points you have since acknowledged you came up with, those five factors for fundamentalism.  I think since the term fundamentalism is in fact a contemporary term with specific meaning and connotation, if you want to use a signifier to describe a preservation of originally established beliefs and values, that the word conservativism is more appropriate as overused as it might be, or if you want, the word traditionalism could also be applicable.  Or you might be able to think of something even more impeccable.  I ask this because the five points you gave are too ambiguous for me to understand.  I think it is important for us to speak the same language, since it seems you are have these points in your own mind as an explanation.

For instance, what do you mean by a religion’s initial evaluation?  Then, second point, what might you mean by directness (literalness) implied by that initial evaluation?  I think you mean by your third point when you speak of extensiveness, how far reaching have been the cultural resistance of that fundamentalism, am I correct?  What is an ‘aspiring’ fundamentalist?  Your fifth point is completely confusing, where at first you refer to the fear that I applied to fundamentalism, then you say I am wrong to say that is “the primary motivation of all things religious,” which if you read closer qualifyingly is not completely what I actually said, but nevertheless, in the next phrase you say I am “quite right” about American fundamentalism?  Have I expressed the confusion well enough?

To iterate what I did say about fear and fundamentalism is that it expresses a “fear that blending with modernity will wear away or even obliterate their faith and morality.”

Of course, I know you may not be able to respond immediately, OM, but no matter, take your time. All will come out eventually in the e-wash.  I think we need to tie up all the loose ends so that we do not continue in a frayed condition. I shall continue to vacuum our topics in my next post.

As usual, so many good points and good questions which i overlook for the sake of other things.

per Shenonymous about Fundamentalism:

The topic of your post is “Attempting to Reacquire a Religion’s Initial Evaluation.” You say it is not a modern movement and that it has been around as long as there has been religion.  Now either you are making that up in a very creative style, or you have some reference for this.

No reference at all. I gave it some thought about it and came up with the 5 possible factors.

Also you are talking about “the Fundamentalist,” as if there is a paradigm fundamentalist, and if so, then you are postulating a specific “role” that characterization will have in some future culture (not specific which one, though, so again hypothetical, right?).

Yes. The discussion was trying to apply to all religions at all times and not just Christians in the present. As to my goal, I was hoping to define religious fundamentalism so well that when we later applied the definition to Islam in the past and present that Nabih would say, “Thats pretty good, except you don’t account for such and so” and then I would perfect the definition so it worked really well. The definition would become a way to explore history, the present and the future.

I have already worked out the definition for myself, and it not only accounts for some problems I know about but also opened my eyes to problems I didnt count on.  I dont like some of the future implications for fundamental Islam, and oddly enough, I dont like what it reveals about future implications for fundamental Christianity. How the theories of authoritarianism play into this I have not worked out. Which was the original plan.... sigh.

However, its would be some work to explain it and without Nabih I feel i dont have an anchor to test if the definition is true. For whatever disagreements and upsets we had, I never forgot that he knows some things I dont know. If I continue I have no brake to warn: “It isnt like that”.

Another topic which is in my mind lately is how different people react to the suppression of free speech. Interesting differences arise. About this topic we can chat if you like

Back to Wolin. While I am critical of him, I didnt want to silence him. But his thesis could possibly be correct or at least useful. The problem is he is preaching to the choir. I am not in the choir, and to me the sermon jargon is illogical… but the point of the sermon might still be valid.

If you read between the lines of my critique of Wolin, you can find that the main weakness of liberalism is not its ideals. I appreciate those principles. (I might not agree with the exact priority of those principles) What I certainly disagree with is hypocrisy, which is not an inherent part of liberalism any more than it is of Christianity. Wolin engages in that. Does that make his thesis null and void? Absolutely not. Human beings have faults even when they are on the right track.

Inverted Totalitarianism could be a step towards clarity. Perhaps some truth there. It does show ways in which we are in a different situation that the Nazis, so already there is a sense of comparison even if his goal is similarity. If that difference is only cosmetic, Wolin is right. If it is more than that, he is wrong but maybe still helpful for us to gage the distance. I dont know, I havent worked that out yet.

As for Shen, she has again shown me that she has eyes to see some faults which I percieve. Which amazes me every time. That doesnt mean we have to discard the thesis. Just the opposite. Wolin made a bad start in his introduction.  Shen, on the other hand is the angel at my shoulder, who despite differences is able to see a valid criticism from my point of view. What more can I ask for? To me it means we can go further if you think there is anything worthwhile in what he says. If you see some truth there, well, I trust you no less than before. More, in fact. Nor are you discredited for finding Wolin in the first place. To you everything is an opportunity.

Nor are you wrong for challenging me to critique it, Shen. You find interesting things fast and you almost want others to see something that you didnt catch at first glance. The title ‘explorer’ suites you.  Your obvious sponteneity contrasts to the way I stare at things a long time before I bring them here. Its funny. I followed that UN story for 8 months, and sat on the finale for another month before I hinted at it in the most roundabout way. You say that I provide-what was it?-well, whatever it was I think it is you who provide material and provoke the discussion. ‘cmon, look at what I just found’ is your constant refrain.

Compared to my refrain, “Maybe I’ll show you what I found a year ago after I am finished with it in the lab AND if I think you will appreciate it.”

I have great respect for you. One of us covers a lot of ground and sees many things. It isnt me. 

per shen: a book about the origins of belief titled “Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast.”

a nifty connection to Alice!

And cyrena. I read your posts again and they are so friendly and sensible. Having re-read your post I want you to sometime discuss the -Universality- of Human Rights vs the concept of Multiculturalism.

cyrena is probably thinking, “Michael is just now realizing the potential conflict between the two… he thinks it would take me a few minutes to explain it. But it would take hours,(days!) and I have enough assignments to catch up on.”

Ok, not tonite then.

Tomorrow?

Well egg on my face, that address doesn’t work from TD but it does from Mozilla!  Oh well.  Sorry.  Back later.

FYI:  The right http is
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=200868st ory_8-6-2008_pg7_14
OM your last post is exact.  The content seems ominous with huge violent threats.  This is not being Islamophobic on my part.  It is in the article.  Wonder what the rest of the world is saying about it.  Will have to check it out. 

WIll get back to everything later.

OK. Directly copied from the Pakistan Daily Times:

Sunday, June 08, 2008

Share this story! 
Pakistan to ask EU to amend laws on freedom of expression

By Tahir Niaz

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan will ask the European Union countries to amend laws regarding freedom of expression in order to prevent offensive incidents such as the printing of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and the production of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch legislator, sources in the Interior Ministry told Daily Times on Saturday.

They said that a six-member high-level delegation comprising officials from the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Law would leave Islamabad on Sunday (today) for the EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium and explain to the EU leadership the backlash against the blasphemous campaign in the name of freedom of expression.

The delegation, headed by an additional secretary of the Interior Ministry, will meet the leaders of the EU countries in a bid to convince them that the recent attack on the Danish Embassy in Pakistan could be a reaction against the blasphemous campaign, sources said.

They said that the delegation would also tell the EU that if such acts against Islam are not controlled, more attacks on the EU diplomatic missions abroad could not be ruled out.

Sources said that the delegation would also hold discussions on inter-religious harmony during its meetings with the EU leaders.

Second graders are better at cutting and pasting than i am, Trying again:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=200868st ory_8-6-2008_pg7_14

Sometime, if you want Shen, we can review what Tony Blair did towards free speech and why.

You also brought up Somalia. Or that link did. I will delve into it if you like. I occasionally see mention of a see-saw struggle. I have had a suspicion that the U.S. is a player there.

Keeping up with the suppression of free speech. I would like to know what you think of this report from Pakistan about a recent delegation that went to the European Union.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=200868st ory_8-6-2008_pg7_14

There is no defense of Wolin. I am not enamored with the notion of inverted totalitarianism as I think it is a glamour term.  However, the term “regime” is not and regime change was used as far back as I can recall as 1989 regarding Polish Round Table talks between the government and trade unions.  It is not a word recently come into fashion.  If anything, the Bush administration’s use of the word to describe deposing Saddam Hussein’s ‘regime’ and other Islamic nations, or in Cuba, their plan to bring to an end the Castro ‘regime’ calling for the overthrow of Castro and presidencies such as their intentions throughout the middle east it should not be surprising that the term has been turned back on themselves to describe the “dynastic” flavor of the Republican powerhouse that has had this country in its ironfisted grip for almost a decade.  And yes, they have used the term and used it liberally.  As he prances around like a little prince, whom some call the idiot prince, George Bush has through his devastating economic policies, his “regime” has brought this country to its fiscal knees and we are on the brink of terrible times.  It is not a mirror we are looking at it is direct reality.

And interesting article if you wish to be informed is at:

http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_conten t&task=view&id=1080&Itemid=135
Interesting article about rendition and regime change as the word is properly used, and with an opinion expressed by Gore Vidal.

Also I am sending you a PDF file you might find interesting which is a review of the book The Bush Betrayal. By James Bovard by Karen M. Hult and Charles E. Walcott, Professors of Political Science at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg. This is too long to post at TD ER. I will post the http address if others want to try to get the MUSE file.  It can be costly however.I will be glad to send a downloaded copy of it to whoever is interested.
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/rhetoric_and_p ublic_affairs/v010/10.2hult.html

Of course buying the Bovard book could be a step in the right direction as well.

The lexicon you present in this last post shall have to be dealt with word by word:  doctrine, zealouos, ruthless, antidemocratic, intolerance, centrism, waniing Leftist influence as you pretend that language in some attempt at tour d’force ought to be suppressed in some way.  How neat of you OM to use the device of definition to try to squash the critics of belligerent Repubicanism.  But I have a medical appointment and have to travel a distance.  So this all will be dealt with later.  Of course Republicans count.  Of course their basic ideology exists and at one time the two party’s ideology kept each other in check.  It is what Republicanism has been prostituted to become that is repugnant.

About Wolin. I will approach him polemically and directly but with good humor. Let us question Sheldon Wolin’s Inverted Totalitarianism:

The war on Iraq has so monopolized public attention as to obscure the regime change taking place in the Homeland.

I dont think anyone paid enough attention to Iraq from the day the idea was introduced.

The change has been intimated by the sudden popularity of two political terms rarely applied earlier to the American political system. “Empire” and “superpower”

“Superpower” was a term used to describe both the USA and USSR since WWII. It was meant to differentiate the diplomacy of post WWII from the pre world war I era which involved many Great Powers. 

“Empire"… has this term been used by the Bush administration? No, its used by his critics as an accusation. No different than the 60’s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. The Left has been using this attack for a long time. Which is ok, maybe its deserved. But its not new.

The Republicans have emerged as a unique phenomenon...

why cant we just criticize what we dont like without resorting to this?

...in American history of a fervently doctrinal party,

Doctrine is one of those nasty ‘church’ words, but I wish it were so. To have principles which we stand for instead of just being mush or expediency would be a good thing. But ok, I’ll accept that we are doctrinal. No one else has been doctrinal in American politics?

,zealous, ruthless, antidemocratic and boasting a near majority.

The big fear here is that it might become a majority, which if it did would make the Republicans even more ‘antidemocratic’?

‘Zealous’ is not unique, Meant to bring up more church images. ‘Ruthless’… we dont know what ruthless is. Lenin was ruthless.

As Republicans have become more ideologically intolerant,

Intolerant. one of those really great words. Often used to silence opposition. 

the Democrats have shrugged off the liberal label...

Professor Wolin, this is not new. It was been going on for almost 30 years. And why? because the naughty American people were becoming more conservative. Conservatism isnt part of democracy? But in spite of this its so tempting for the Democrats to want to win once in awhile that they move to the center. (ie Bill Clinton)
Someday the nation will swing back to more liberal. The conservative label will be shrugged off by Republicans as they move to center. It isnt the end of the world either way. 

the Democrats have shrugged off the liberal label and their critical reform-minded constituencies to embrace centrism…

The Democrat power base is ‘reform-minded’ and a very nice ‘constituency’ to boot. This means there is no ‘zealous’ ‘fervent’ ‘intolerance’ or ‘doctrine’ out there on the Left. Just reformers who are good folks. Reformers are important. They are even ‘critical’. Critical to what? The good of the nation I guess. But certainly not to winning elections, because there arent enough of them to win anything (unless someone shrugs off the liberal label) Too many conservative voters in the way.
‘Its antidemocratic’ according to our professor.

Even the dumbest conservative talk show host can jump on this for what it is: liberal elitism, which turns off so many people that the Republicans could keep winning whether they deserve to or not.

...to embrace centrism and footnote the end of ideology

wow! Centrism apparently has enough conservative taint that it has no value as a thought or idea. Only the handful of reformers understand democracy. We should let them run things and then it would be true democracy at last. Sheesh.

One more point: How is the waning of Leftist influence the end of ideology? Werent the Republicans ‘fervently doctrinal’ ‘ideological’ just a moment ago? Dont we count? Suddenly we dont exist? This man cannot keep track of the little box he put me in a minute ago.

More next time.

Ok well, I miss Nabih, and that makes me extra glad to hear from you two. I’ve made my way over here in a short break, looking for some familiarity, and even the ‘prompt’ that you always provide when I get stuck in my work.

I don’t know, it’s sort of a mental telepathy I think.

So, on the question of a counter-argument to Wolsin. I’ve had Wolsin’s book for a couple of weeks now, but I’ve just not had time to dig into it, beyond the article that Chalmers Johnson did on it. (which was extensive and I got a lot from that) Still, I’d like to be able to read the entire book to actually make any sort of reasoned argument. BECAUSE, I am admitted still confused by the ‘inverted’ property. It’s thrwoing me, maybe because I’m just too ‘theoried out’ with standard version of totalitarianism in the Nazi Germany. I hate to think that I’d have this trouble with something that should be relatively simple to, well..invert. But, it doesn’t seem all that ‘inverted’ to me. What I’m seeing now seems very much like what the experience of Nazi Germany was. First, they had a democracy. Then it was overthrown, and fell victim to Nazi totalitarianism. Now they’ve got a democracy again.

I don’t mean to make this sound like some simple cycle, (and I’m sure you all know that) but so far, I’m not seeing what we have going on here and now, as any ‘inversion’ of that. So, if either of you can help me out with that, it would be great.

No hurry, I’m still just finishing up the genocide stuff, (which is far more like to occur by the way, in these sorts of authoritarian settings - and THAT’s scary as hell) and then I’ve gotta try to work on even MORE ‘theory’. Legal positivism and pluralism.

I swear, I think my mind hurts. This thinking stuff just really can be a chore sometimes. And the theory stuff is the MOST painful of the exercises. It’s like doing push-ups and crunches instead of just taking a leisurely walk down the beach for exercise. I prefer the walk.

First part of two:
The art of deception takes many forms.  Creating an algorithm to survive the rigors of college life can be one of them. To develop the art of feint, a method to achieve the goal of power by diverting the attention away from your real purposes so that you could influence the way things go, your art of cryptic communication, because you perceived the need to overwhelm the whomevers for the whatevers, becomes a way of life.  You have described this knack you incubated in college life before.  The patronizing act of “letting them think they come up with conclusions” when in fact you fed them hints all along, the personification of Trickster, as you describe, is indeed an act of fury.  Fearful hatred really.  Now did I conclude because you gave me hints at your behavior?  What tricks have you used to “get” me to conclude?  You were quite direct, in fact, in the description of yourself.  And those are a couple of ways how an exchange of minds can happen. 

The question is, what did you, dear doctor, do to remedy what you seem to perceive as faulty behavior.  Or do you continue your “habit?”

I am not so skilled in the art of deception and I am not sure exactly what truth is, but I think it is of two kinds and they have to be understood for what they are:  There is universal truth and there is individual truth.  What each of these are would take some time to talk about. There is no simple answer.  And we have been bantering about them on the forum for some time off and on.  Truth is a human objective extremely important to me.  It is the pivotal basis for trust, sincerity, and authenticity.  Those four things have been the pillars of my life, and precisely the opposite of them even more. 

In trying to address your last post OM on fundamentalism, I have some questions since it is not clear what you mean.  The topic of your post is “Attempting to Reacquire a Religion’s Initial Evaluation.” You say it is not a modern movement and that it has been around as long as there has been religion.  Now either you are making that up in a very creative style, or you have some reference for this.  I have done some extensive research on fundamentalism and have found at least seven somewhat coherent descriptions for Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Zorastrianism, Gay and Lesbians rewriting the original Presbyterian declaration of five principles, and the original Presbyterian “five fundamentals.”

These are not all the same but in fact are diverse.  Yours is even more different than any of these and are in fact more abstract dealing with the idea of initial evaluation and implications therefrom, which could be an acceptable way to proceed, but I would like to know how you arrived at these five?  They seem logical.  Also you are talking about “the Fundamentalist,” as if there is a paradigm fundamentalist, and if so, then you are postulating a specific “role” that characterization will have in some future culture (not specific which one, though, so again hypothetical, right?). 

Now you know that I for one am always intrigued by abstract considerations, but usually [unless there is stipulated a game ahead of time and we are just having some fun with our minds and I do really really do love to have fun], it is with some agreed reason I would so engage.  Supposedly there is an agreement, by default, since you are quoting some ascription of mine of a motivation to fundamentalism with respect to all religions being the emotion of “fear.” While I will hold that opinion firmly, I will add to it a bit, to include the larger motivation for what I see as a motivation for all religion in the first place over and above the reason(s) for fundamentalism with any and all religion.

Second part of two:
I once read an article about a book that referenced Alice in Wonderland and a scene between Alice and the White Queen about the idea of belief.  Lewis Carol was a genius to be sure, and this is only one of the evidences of that.  Alice says, “I cannot believe in impossible things,” and the White Queen says, “You simply have not had enough practice.  When I was your age, I always did it for half and hour a day (believed in something).  Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” Apparently this small scene was so potent that it also affected a somewhat distinguished biologist from England, Lewis Wolpert to even write a book about the origins of belief titled “Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast.” From just reading a couple of brief reviews of the book, because I do not have the book, I think I could agree with Wolpert to a some degree but I don’t think it is a complete theory.  I don’t think that to “believe” in wildly improbably facts one needs just to close one’s eyes.  It is Berkeleyan, that the world disappears when you close your eyes.  Shenonymous whispers, with her eyes closed, where did the world go to?

Could it be true we simply have not had enough practice?  Sometimes reducing something complex to glib simple terms loses what is often said when you don ‘t have command of a specific language that something gets lost in the translation. 

When I said fundamentalism originates out of fear, that notion became clear to me only after reading about a great many instances of its appearances in many religions.  The fear is a fear of infidelity to the distinctions of the original doctrines of a particular religion.

Now the term fundamentalism originally had a narrow scope of meaning, defining a set of beliefs that develop into a movement out of an American Presbyterian Church effort about 1910.  It has been generalized, after currency in our language for sometime now, to mean any set of beliefs that groups, most notably religious groups, strongly adhere to regardless of any criticism.  I am sending to you under separate email a summary of several of these groups five fundamental principles.  It is much too long to post here.

On inverted totalitarianism:  A provocative idea to liken United States and Nazi Germany in an inverse ratio. Does he join the Chicken Little crowd with his ideas of managed democracy and Superpower in opposition to democracy and constitutional government?  Is it true we no longer have a democracy?  Did we ever have one?  If anyone can counterargue against Wolin, I would certainly like to hear it.

The whole site has been changed.  Modified.  No longer are back pages listed, and a double post that showed up yesterday, has been edited out probably by the TD staff.  Also there is no longer the Reply to feature and one must add a whole new comment at the bottom of the page.  I think the latter system is best as the scrolling up and down the forum required to find people’s posts was insane.  The way it is now was the way it was originally, then sometime down the line the Reply to thing was factored in.  However, the loss of back pages I think is unfortunate, but you all know I have an archive. At least I learned how to make italics and bold text, ha! 

I will deal with all of the latest posts tomorrow.  If the site is still here!

per Shenonymous: I do want to say also Michael, I too have noticed that you have changed from the first time I encountered you.

Thank you. Credit goes to you for the example you set and the practice we have had here. Credit also to my daughter, who for the last year has been teaching me how to write.

But back to you… and this is the major credit, really… it is a matter of trust.  For now I admit that I am not self-censoring or hinting quite so much anymore. Trust, which took miles of patience and effort on your part to build. Admiration is part of trust. Yes, i admire you.

Let me just say that in the face of unthinking prejudice, one learns the habit of never stating conclusions. Even if the conclusion is desperately needed by the listener, it will be ignored (at best), rejected, or met with fury (at worst) and why does the fury happen so often? Why does the single person who reacts in the meanest way influence everyone else? It has to do with power. Within the fortified camp of academia, which is one of the few places liberals have power, one is viewed as the ultimate enemy. So one must create the conditions where the conclusion could later be understood. One learns the art of cryptic indirect communication. One learns the art of amusing the audience, which is the art of the fool or clown. Because if one’s adversaries happen to have a sense of humor then survival becomes a possibility. So instead let them figure it out from the hints, and when they come up with the conclusion themselves it is their own idea. 

Out of nowhere it occurs to me that this might be what it is like to be a minority. I am thinking of American black people. Even though no-one can claim to be more American(as in USA), even though no one understands the essentials of the USA, its pitfalls and potential(having suffered and enjoyed both) yet for all that ‘we’ placed ‘them’ as outsiders. We view the people we need to listen to most as a threat, and nearly succeeded in making it so. There is no conclusion(no matter how tr