This potted history of the Manchester Grauniad shows that for much of its existence it was a perfectly respectable conservative newspaper: supporting the Confederacy in the American Civil War, supporting the British Empire, hostile to Nasser when he nationalised the Suez Canal. Such a shame about the present-day cant.
Claire Khaw
Political philosophy should be based on choosing our moral system wisely. Communists have an official handbook while non-Communists have nothing similar. Liberalism has been a cushion bearing the imprint of the buttocks of the last corrupt politician that sat on it.
I think I am closer to being able to make my point now and getting you to take it than I was since you deleted your comment about scripture that would have allowed me to do so. You knew the point I would make as a result of you talking about scripture and so deleted it to prevent my doing so. You already understood my argument but all this time affected not to. I suppose not much more needs to be said about what has happened to liberalism except that it seems you prefer to go to your grave denying that liberalism failed. Even as you claim to be atheist, you are in fact treating liberalism as sacred by the way you try to protect it from truth, logic and morality while disdaining to discuss their definitions.
Islamophobe
Assuming you are talking to me, first of all I have never said I'm an atheist, but not wanting a theocracy is not necessarily the same as not believing in God. This at least is my opinion.
Secondly, I deleted the comment because I happened to notice that your original comment in that sub-thread said the same thing, and the sheer pointlessness of having an argument about it suddenly dawned on me. No, political philosophy is not scripture (and JS Mill is not a 'deity') but no one ever said that it is, or that he is.
If you want a political philosophy that is a book of rules, then you might just as well use the Koran. But the effect is an authoritarian system. The sole aim of political philososophy is not necessarily to create an authoritarian system. Indeed, a book calling itself 'On Liberty' would suggest this was not the aim, unless the only purpose of debating liberty is to destroy it.
So do you start from the individual and try to create a society which is beneficial for individuals? I think you do. It helps to do some things collectively, but we should not be subservient to the state or someone's idea of what society ought to be -- so the various totalitarianisms -- Marxism, Communism, Secular Koranism et al -- don't much appeal to me.
Claire Khaw
I had no idea you believed in God. Knock me down with a feather! Is it the Abrahamic God you believe in then?
If you do believe in the Abrahamic God, then you cannot escape the logic of following His laws. If you do believe in the Abrahamic God, do you believe in Him as a Christian?
I am only making the point that political philosophy if it is about anything should be about how to wisely choose the best political ideology for our group and this means choosing the best moral system. Moral systems include religion eg Christianity and secular political ideologies eg liberalism. Since we are agreed that both Christianity and Liberalism have failed, then I presume we are agreed that we should choose a new moral system.
What do you mean by "authoritarian"? All laws are authoritarian in that they punish you for breaking them. When people complain about a political system being authoritarian, I presume that they mean they don't want to be subject to laws that they disagree with. I am sure there are plenty of laws now that you disagree with, but you don't want to call them authoritarian because you are at heart a liberal and want to cling to the eternal verities of liberalism which you have all your life regarded as an eternal verity. In short, liberalism is like a religion to you.
"So do you start from the individual and try to create a society which is beneficial for individuals?"
I have no idea what you mean by this. Not every individual will agree with what any political ideology. The best that can be hoped for is that honorable and influential people can collectively agree to take effective political action to use the best political system available. You are basically saying you don't like what's on the table without yourself offering an alternative. Do you think it is the right of a mortally ill patient to enjoy the cure to his disease?
Islamophobe
1. So you think you're entitled to determine the various ways in which people can believe in God?
2. All laws certainly derive from authority, but where does such authority come from? Is it merely imposed on people, or do people themselves have a say in the process? Laws should be rational -- based on the greater good. There are a number of laws I think are pointless, but by and large these laws are based on opinions of what people ought to be, such as being non-racist, for example. If I want to be racist it's my business, not a subject for legislation. I don't know what you mean by 'liberalism'. We don't 'choose a moral system' as you put it. Morality is the exercise of reason in deciding what should and should not be done, not the selection of a moral system.
3. I'm saying that the individual is the fundamental component of society, that society is a collection of individuals, not an overriding idea. I take it for granted that individuals will have different opinions, but that's not the point I'm making. My argument is about what society is for - it's to ensure individual freedom rather than establish an autocracy based on any particular idea, in my view.
Claire Khaw
The most powerful deity is the Abrahamic God, wouldn't you agree?
If you are going to worship a deity, it would be rational to worship the most powerful being conceivable, wouldn't it?
Are you aware of the Noahide laws and which if any do you object to?
Are you aware that the Koran guarantees freedom of belief and that the White House Koran belonged to Thomas Jefferson who drafted the First Amendment? quran.com/2/256
I am defining moral system as any system of rules designed to keep the group in existence and apart from others. This would include religions and secular political ideologies. You seem to be saying morality is what you see as a moral, in your opinion. Are you saying it is incorrect and nonsensical of me to coin the term "moral system"?
"We don't 'choose a moral system' as you put it."
Don't we change our political views and vote for a different party in our lifetimes?
Don't some people convert to religion that was not the religion of their parents?
You mean YOU *refuse* to choose. After a lifetime of moaning about morality, politics and immigration, you still refuse to choose.
You refuse to choose because of your lifestyle choice. Indeed, you won't even discuss what the obvious solution is in case it offends your associates who are to a man Islamaphobes.
You refuse to choose for identity and lifestyle reasons. Secular Koranism has dealt with all your objections, but you will continue to object to it because you know your associates object to it, even if they can give no compelling moral reason other than their abiding hatred of ideas they refuse to understand and discuss and also because they know I have no power to make them do anything.
Islamophobe
I'm saying that the individual is the fundamental component of society, that society is a collection of individuals, not an overriding idea."
Claire Khaw
What do you mean by "an overriding idea"?
"My argument is about what society is for - it's to ensure individual freedom rather than establish an autocracy based on any particular idea, in my view."
Societies exist as long as groups of people exist and live in communities. I think perhaps you are conflating society with government. I am saying that for the purpose of rehabilitating and universalising the appeal of nationalism, it should be defined as government in the national interest, which you find objectionable for some reason.
I have never proposed an autocracy. A Caliph is only a constitutional dictator, in case you were wondering.
Islamophobe
People believe in what they think is true. They don't choose God from a range of options. And a moral system isn't selected from a number of moral systems which happen to be on offer. This is supermarket religion and supermarket morality. You chuck the ones you like best in your trolley and walk out with it. This isn't the way it usually happens - except for you, perhaps.
An overriding idea in society would something like communism where events are supposed to move in a particular direction because of a particular prophesy. If events don't measure up, then the prophesy has to be adapted. So an absolute requirement for world communism shifted to a pragmatic acceptance of 'socialism in one country', for example. But not without a lot of pain.
No, I'm not 'conflating' society and its government. A Marxist government, for example, would have certain expectations of society. It would redesign society, if necessary, along egalitarian lines. The government wouldn't be the same as the society, but the society would need to adapt to its government.
Claire Khaw
People choose what they want to believe for lifestyle reasons. So what is your religion, actually?
Communism is based on the Hegelian dialectic which says everything will get to Communism anyway. People tend to find Communism attractive when they are feeling poor and this would be when their capitalist government has failed to deliver the goods.
"They don't choose God from a range of options."
Atheism has now become the default lifestyle choice and political orthodoxy of most Westerners.
Only those who think a new moral system is required would be thinking of choosing one from a range of options as I have,, but there is only one moral and rational choice, isn't there? Hinduism and Buddhism are even more alien than Islam and we already know Christianity and liberalism are both kaput. Western gentiles will not be converting to Orthodox Judaism and Reform Judaism is even worse than Anglicanism.
Islamophobe
Yes, I thought this is what you believed. Actually, people tend to grow up inside their own religious traditions. It's part of their ancestry and why it has significance for them.
Claire Khaw
So you are saying that you will follow the religion of your ancestors because it is the religion of your ancestors, and they were Christian, and therefore so are you, is that right?
Islamophobe
I'm saying that most people don't "choose their religion for lifestyle reasons".
Claire Khaw
Most Westerners are atheists marinating in the moral sewage of globohomo which is the degenerate culture of the West. Are you saying you are Christian because the religion of your ancestors is Christianity? Or are you saying you are liberal because you have been liberal all your life and don't want to change now? I think it must be the latter because you have never expressed any distinctly Christian views. You remember there was a time when it was respectable and mainstream to be liberal and now bemoan the fact that the times have changed. You might think certain groups are to blame for having spoiled things. There is a school of thought that blames Jews in British nationalism and another school of thought that blames Muslims. If your moral and political system have failed to protect you from those pesky Jews, Muslims, other races and assorted foreigners, then it must mean that your moral and political system has failed. Would you agree?
Liberty is what we ought to have after all the necessary laws are in place. The Noahide laws are a statement of eternal and universal principles.
I am going to save this link because I see that you have gone quiet on this. I also know it will come up again and we will go through the same arguments. The exchange will end by me asking a question which you refuse to answer properly or at all. You will not concede my point and reject my proposal even if you have nothing better to offer.
I get it that you don't care if I am right as long as you don't have to acknowledge this. Your very narrow and short term objective is to go to your grave with your Holy Liberal Beliefs intact. If you have no offspring, you won't care that you are doing the civilisational equivalent of leaving a manhole uncovered.
You might as well admit that you see religion as some kind of precious family heirloom when it is meant to be a functioning boiler.
Because that boiler is still making the odd hissing and spitting noise and occasionally its lights flash on and off, you will prefer to pretend that it is still working because you are sentimental.
The dead are buried for a reason: to avoid decaying corpses from spreading disease.
You fail to understand that Conservatism is just another name for Liberalism when the liberal political establishment wants to appease voters who support social conservatism. Conservatism has always been subordinate to Liberalism, which is why it has never succeeded in conserving anything worth conserving or ever worked out what the hell it was supposed to conserve, certainly not the institutions of marriage and family values. We know Conservatism is kaput when gay marriage was pushed up the collective sphincter of the British public by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron.
We have already seen what happens to a society when it refuses to bury its dead and rotting ideas.
Islamophobe
So people who question Secular Koranism are 'Islamophobes' and people who might not wholly agree with the Noahide Laws are anti-Semites. It's hardly very sophisticated stuff, is it. Also, I find that people who use the word 'sheeple' tend to be morons themselves. Of course, I'm not saying this is necessarily true in your case. As for your boast about winning arguments, you win them in the same way Jehovah's Witnesses do. They go on ploughing the same furrow for ever and ever, and most normal people want to get away from them. Still, nice to see the discussion saved here. If you want to post it on my page and tag in anyone else you think might be interested, feel free. We can always explore it further, if you wish. I'm not going to argue with you for hours on end, but I can return to the subject when convenient. Then again, other people might want to say something too -- which will be good.
Claire Khaw
I would say people who reject the Noahide laws because they are Jewish and who reject the Koran because it is Muslim are undeniably antisemites and Islamophobes, particularly when it is clear they do not have anything better and have already admitted that Christianity is kaput and liberalism has already turned into intersectional feminism.
Islamophobe
But they've 'admitted' no such thing. The notion that Christianity is kaput is simply your idea, and the notion that Christianity is somehow not fit for purpose seems to be a product of your prejudice against it. One might almost call it a 'phobia', except that this fashionable way of dismissing things one doesn't like really ought to be limited to intellectually-challenged leftists who are trying to 'diss' the opposition without actually applying any thought to the problem.
Claire Khaw
How is Christianity not kaput?
Islamophobe
How is Christianity 'kaput' in your view? It seems vibrant enough and is still a world religion.
Claire Khaw
Islamophobe
So what are you claiming here? That because a street-pastor gets complaints and is arrested that Christianity is somehow finished as a religion, that it's deprived of meaningful content?
I understand that early Christians were persecuted, even killed. Did this mean that Christianity was finished? Perhaps you're just saying that it's no longer as privileged as it was.
By the way, I've also seen an Islamic street preacher prevented from speaking by the police -- he was going on about loose women and the local prostitutes. Presumably, he was judged guilty of 'hate speech' too.
Claire Khaw
I judge the success of a moral system by how many of its principles are legally enforceable. Islam accepts the logic of this with sharia. The fact that the pastor was arrested for pointing out what is in the Bible suggests that the principles intersectional feminism have displaced that of Christianity and it is for this reason that I say Christianity is kaput.
Islamophobe
One could argue that the moral system of the Koran isn't markedly different from that of the Bible insofar as what might cause offence against today's hate speech laws in Christian street teaching would be just the same in Islamic street teaching.
Your general argument seems to be that Islam is healthy while Christianity is not. But I don't see Islamic rules being made legally enforceable in Britain either. As least they haven't so far.
For example, same sex marriage is legal in Britain today, but this doesn't square with either a traditional Christian or Islamic outlook, does it?
Claire Khaw
Islam sees the logic of legal enforcement of your chosen moral system. We should consider the viability of something in theory before we worry about the practicalities of implementing it, wouldn't you agree?
"Your general argument seems to be that Islam is healthy while Christianity is not."
I am saying that Islam without sharia is a car without an engine.
Islamophobe
Please just deal with points as they arise rather than cutting and pasting your Christmas cracker mottos. The analogy with the car engine doesn't actually answer my point.
Claire Khaw
"But I don't see Islamic rules being made legally enforceable in Britain either. As least they haven't so far."
Are you saying that because Islam is not in force, you refuse to consider it?
Surely you should consider something on the basis of whether it would work in theory rather than assume it is not going to work because it is not currently being implemented.
"For example, same sex is currently legal but this doesn't square with either a traditional Christian or Islamic outlook, does it?"
I am afraid I don't know what you mean.
What is your point?
Islamophobe
The drift of my argument is obvious to any halfway intelligent person. It's that Islam has been no more effective in preventing, say, gay marriage than Christianity has been. If Muslims opposed its introduction, their opposition obviously didn't succeed. So why is Islam more effective than Christianity?
PS Drowning the thread in comments -- typically your cut and paste rubbish -- won't disguise your inability to win a logical argument.
Claire Khaw
It would appear that you didn't grasp my point about Islam without sharia being a car without an engine. I don't know how else to make it simpler or clearer. I will try again: in just the way you cannot Islam to work if you do not have sharia, you cannot expect your car to take you anywhere if it does not have an engine.
What is your logical argument?
Islamophobe
Your arguments are all theoretical, nothing to do with the way things have worked in practice.
My question -- which I'll repeat -- is:
Since Muslim opposition to gay marriage in Britain has been no effective than Christian opposition, why do you judge Islam to be superior to Christianity from an empirical point of view?
PS Since the question requires an empirical answer, a theoretical answer won't do. Is this clearer now, or will you need it all to be repeated again?
Claire Khaw
We should not put something in practice unless it is theoretically viable, should we? Of course I have to consider the viability of something in theory before putting it in practice.
You appear not to have noticed that Islam has not been implemented in Britain and are asking me why it is not working!
Another Islamophobe
Most non-Jews have never heard of the 'Noahide laws.' I'd never heard of them until I read your use of the term. It might well be that aspects of what they contain are familiar to people in a vague way, but as a 'body of knowledge' I suspect few know, or care.
Good point about gay marriage: take it you meant 'no more effective.'
Islamophobe
Actually, Islam has established quite a sizeable presence in Britain. There are mosques with big attendances up and down the country. Indeed, their attendances continue to rise while church attendances (mostly) continue to fall.
Also, Muslims have been very active in British politics for the last 50 or so years. Even the great hope of unionism in Scotland - Anas Sarwar, leader of the Scottish Labour party - is a Muslim. So in what sense does Islam need to be 'implemented'. Isn't it enough that it's already here and representing the religious allegiance of so many people? Would it help matters if it took the place of the Established Church, and this would enable it to make a stand against 'liberalism'?
I really don't see how. It would no more be able to interfere in the largely secular matters of state than the Christian church does. And, yes, I know you think this is because the Christian church is weak and kaput, but in the last 50 years Muslims have shown very little desire to challenge liberalism, except just occasionally in particular spots over issues like compulsory sex education - and even then their protests don't seem to get them very far. The National Curriculum remains largely unaltered.
I know you want to say that if Sharia Law were introduced, this would change everything. Liberalism would be seriously challenged. However, the vast majority of Muslims have shown no wish to do this - despite their fairly extensive representation in local government and even national government. So the addition of Sharia Law to the Islamic presence remains theoretical. Anyway, in theory, of course, you could beef up Christianity into a Cromwellian form of government which would have roughly the same effect on issues like gay marriage etc. Sadly, though, these ideas just remain theoretical.
You needle people about the uselessness of Christianity, when all you are really saying is that on paper Secular Koranism is the better system. Well, indeed it might be -- on paper -- but that doesn't make a great deal of difference to actual events.
When we discussed communism the other day you seemed only concerned about it as a theoretical or philosophical construct, and seemed unaware -- or uninterested -- in the compromises the Soviet Union had to make to try and square theory and practice in the 20th century. If you were just discussing ideas, it wouldn't matter, but you seem to think for some reason that the ideas that appeal to you the most will somehow predominate in the physical world.
First Islamomophobe to Second Islamophobe
Yes, I meant 'no more effective'.
Claire Khaw
"So in what sense does Islam need to be 'implemented'."
In the sense that the principles of the Koran are also the law of the land.
"Isn't it enough that it's already here and representing the religious allegiance of so many people?"
I think you are making the category error of confusing a legal system in harmony with your moral system with the brown people who are Muslims you wish were not here.
Islamophobe
'In the sense that the principles of the Koran are also the law of the land.'
Oh, well done. From drawing board to result in one easy move with no intermediate steps.
Claire Khaw
"Would it help matters if it took the place of the Established Church, and this would enable it to make a stand against 'liberalism'?"
Secular Koranism when implemented would work as a legal system in harmony with the principles of the Koran guaranteeing freedom of belief with quran.com/2/256
There will be no mosque of Secular Koranism because it is just a legal system and not a belief system.
"Oh, well done. From drawing board to result in one easy move with no intermediate steps."
At this stage, we are only talking about Secular Koranism in theory, of course. It is my position that it is better than Christianity both in theory and in practice.
I have already explained more than once that we must first acknowledge that something would work in theory before putting it in practice. So are you agreed that it would work in theory?
Islamophobe
I know you think it's clever to use the term 'category error' but you won't get my point about theory not being the same as practice.
You've no sense about these things are going to be 'implemented', which means you have no sense, period.
Quoting your silly sacred text won't make any difference if you can't plan how these things can possibly happen.
And what does it matter if Muslims are brown people whom I don't want here. But - hey - just as long as you can accuse me of 'Islamophobia'.
I've had enough of talking to you, and I hate having to repeat everything I say two or three times just because you're so thick and obtuse, either naturally or on purpose. Go and annoy someone else.
Claire Khaw
'You've no sense about these things are going to be 'implemented', which means you have no sense, period.'
Does this mean you are asking me how I am going to get it implemented in practice?
I am glad we have finally got this far. This is the first time you have asked me this question after so many years after having finally conceded that it would work in theory.
Islamophobe
I haven't 'conceded' that it would work in theory. I'm saying it only exists in theory. That's my point. Don't you understand anything that's said to you, or are you deliberately trying to twist my words?
Claire Khaw
Of course it only exists in theory but I am saying it would work in theory. If you don't think it would work in theory, why not?
Islamophobe
I'm not interested in whether it 'works' in theory or not. In order to be said to work, something has to 'work' in practice. Do you see?
Claire Khaw
You don't understand that there is no point putting something into practice if it does not even work in theory?
Islamophobe
Define what you mean by 'work in theory' then -- because I think it is meaningless. Anything can 'work' on paper. What you're proposing is not mathematics or something that is resolvable in theoretical terms. Everything you propose needs to be put into practice to see whether it would work or not. There's no other test.
Claire Khaw
If quran.com/4/16 were the law, do you think Pastor Sherman would have been arrested by the police?
Islamophobe
'If that were the law'. So you're saying you want to imagine a fictional world in which that is the law. I take it you're plotting a novel of some sort.
Claire Khaw
We were talking about Secular Koranism in theory, and I am just making the point that in such a hypothetical situation, lewd acts between men would be treated as a sexual offence. Were this the case, Pastor Sherwood would not be treated as lower in status to sex offenders who are sodomites, but sodomites would be treated as sex offenders lower in status to people asserting the sanctity of marriage, in particular the only kind allowed: that between a man and a woman.
You seem unable to envisage a situation in which there would be a law against sodomy, but it was only in 1967 that it ceased to be a sexual offence.
Islamophobe
You were talking Secular Koranism in theory and I imagine that's what you're going to continue to do. But let's not confuse that with present-day reality.
Oh, and 1967 was over 50 years ago. A lifetime ago, as far as some people are concerned.
Claire Khaw
As I have been saying, it is not that hard to envisage a situation in which sodomy would be a sexual offence since there was a time in living memory when it actually was a sexual offfence, as recently as 1967.
Islamophobe
It's not hard to envisage but one would have to think about how to bring it about - beyond just going on about it all the time.
Claire Khaw
I am delighted that you have finally asked me the question today. As for how to bring it about, I imagine there would be some people left in the country who might want to support marriage and family values, or are you assuming the time for such institutions is well and truly over in the West?
Islamophobe
I think they're in decline for lots of reasons, which are not easily reversible.
Claire Khaw
All it requires is the co-operation of the Fourth Estate.
I actually was not aware that Jehovah's Witnesses won arguments. I have never argued with them either. It seems to me that their tactic was to engage with people on politics and government and get into their homes that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment