Pak MPs: Rushdie knighthood 'justifies suicide attacks'

[almaty 19]

Let's see:

Rushdie is a UK citizen, formerly a citizen of India and never a citizen of Pakistan

UK decided he can have peerage

Basically, the matter is entirely internal of UK, and no other nation really has any rightful input on this.

good point brother sriniv..this is a British matter and honor.

Edited June 19, 2007 by almaty

[mawilson 2,133]

Just because Bible belt Christian fundies who want to impose religious teaching in secular science lessons and yes, who lobby for certain books and movies to be banned) aren't out there cutting off heads and blowing stuff up, is hardly reason to jump up and down and celebrate that 'ours' are better than 'theirs'.

Actually, that's a pretty darn good reason to celebrate the fact that they are better.

Doesn't make them any less deluded IMO.

You can't be serious. Fundamentalists who want to impose religious teaching in science classes

are no less deluded than those who are out there cutting people's heads off?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Just because Bible belt Christian fundies who want to impose religious teaching in secular science lessons and yes, who lobby for certain books and movies to be banned) aren't out there cutting off heads and blowing stuff up, is hardly reason to jump up and down and celebrate that 'ours' are better than 'theirs'.

Actually, that's a pretty darn good reason to celebrate the fact that they are better.

Doesn't make them any less deluded IMO.

You can't be serious. Fundamentalists who want to impose religious teaching in science classes

are no less deluded than those who are out there cutting people's heads off?

IMO they aren't. All religious fundamentalists share the same basic delusion IMO.

While I grant you the obvious point that those who are out there using violence and committing murder are more dangerous, some of the comments I'm reading seem to imply that its the ideology that specifically makes them this way, as opposed to any other factors - cultural/historical etc. I think its obvious that anyone who holds extremist beliefs is dangerous given the right wrong conditions

So regardless of any ideology, any sort of religious extremist who uses religiosity as a crutch for whatever is missing from their lives is deluded; and potentially dangerous IMO.

In other words - I'm opposed to any form of religious extremism, fundamentalism or zealotry.

Edited June 19, 2007 by erekose

[mawilson 2,133]

IMO they aren't. All religious fundamentalists share the same basic delusion IMO.

I think you're wrong. You'd have to be in the deepest stage of delusion to go out there and cut someone's head off.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

IMO they aren't. All religious fundamentalists share the same basic delusion IMO.

I think you're wrong. You'd have to be in the deepest stage of delusion to go out there and cut someone's head off.

Which Ejaz ul-Haq actually is (deeply delusional). In 1983, while drunk, he wrapped a Merc around a laurel (tree, not a Nissan car)*** in 'Pindi, and his dad (who was dictator of Pakistan at the time) ensured that he never got prosecuted.

Really does sound funny that the Religious Affairs Minister is a man who can't follow his own religion's laws (Islam prohibits alcohol).

***Revealed by Nusrat Bhutto in a 1985 interview with Barbara Frum of CBC.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

IMO they aren't. All religious fundamentalists share the same basic delusion IMO.

I think you're wrong. You'd have to be in the deepest stage of delusion to go out there and cut someone's head off.

I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying.

I agree a person would have to be very disturbed to do something like you describe. But there's plenty of historical examples where, under certain conditions even very ordinary people have done just that - (without any supporting ideology). We often demonise those people, as we do the fundamentalists who do that sort of thing; because the actions are so far removed from any understandable context.

That said, I do think that people who hold extremist religious beliefs are better equipped to do something like that. Its easier to dehumanise another human being if you have some sort of supporting ideology to justify it. The dispute in this thread seems to be whether the root of the problem is with ideology or with a certain mind-set.

Its that mind-set I see as being the root cause of fundamentalism, rather than the ideology of any particular fundamentalist group. I'm suggesting that under certain conditions all fundamentalists potentially dangerous because they share a common/basic mind-set.

Almaty works in pyschology - I'm sure he has some input on the pychiatric aspects of this kind of thing...

[homesick_american 1]

[quote name='erekose' date='Jun 18 2007, 06:03 PM' post='992211'

IMO that has more to do with the fallout from high-publicity cases like the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1999, and the result of the public inquiry that suggested that the Metropolitan police mishandling of that case was the result of "institutional racism".

Stephen Lawrence was way longer ago than 1999, but I see the point you're trying to make. I just think the police here need to focus more on law enforcement and less on groveling to groups of people who will NEVER get enough.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Stephen Lawrence was way longer ago than 1999, but I see the point you're trying to make. I just think the police here need to focus more on law enforcement and less on groveling to groups of people who will NEVER get enough.

The murder was in '93 but the McPherson Report came out in 1999

[homesick_american 1]

Stephen Lawrence was way longer ago than 1999, but I see the point you're trying to make. I just think the police here need to focus more on law enforcement and less on groveling to groups of people who will NEVER get enough.

The murder was in '93 but the McPherson Report came out in 1999

The institutional racism that meant the people who murdered Stephen Lawrence got off was common knowledge before 1999, too.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

The institutional racism that meant the people who murdered Stephen Lawrence got off was common knowledge before 1999, too.

The problems really began in 97 when the Daily Mail campaigned against the suspect and called them "murderers," this continued with charges of corruption, racism, etc in the press until the McPherson Report declared the Met "institutionally racist" in 1999.

[homesick_american 1]

The institutional racism that meant the people who murdered Stephen Lawrence got off was common knowledge before 1999, too.

The problems really began in 97 when the Daily Mail campaigned against the suspect and called them "murderers," this continued with charges of corruption, racism, etc in the press until the McPherson Report declared the Met "institutionally racist" in 1999.

I don't read the Daily Mail.

I'm still sick of police officers here groveling to people who seem to only thrive when they're handed the psychological rewards of victimhood on a silver platter.

[rclouse 0]

I think religious extremists who get their panties all in a bunch when someone disrepects their religion should refer to the case of "Sticks, Stones, et al vs. Words Will Never Hurt Me".

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

neither do I but their campaign highlighted the injustice that kick-started the chain of events that lead to the inquiry

the mcpherson report suggested that part of law enforcement was maintaining effective community relations - it's not neccessarily "grovelling" Sometimes it works and sometimes not.

For what it's worth, Steven Lawrence was probably more about corruption than racism.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

neither do I but their campaign highlighted the injustice that kick-started the chain of events that lead to the inquiry

the mcpherson report suggested that part of law enforcement was maintaining effective community relations - it's not neccessarily "grovelling" Sometimes it works and sometimes not.

For what it's worth, Steven Lawrence was probably more about corruption than racism.

Even before the Lawrence murder there were the infamous 'sus laws' which caused the Brixton Riots.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

IMO they aren't. All religious fundamentalists share the same basic delusion IMO.

I think you're wrong. You'd have to be in the deepest stage of delusion to go out there and cut someone's head off.

I'm not sure you're getting what I'm saying.

I agree a person would have to be very disturbed to do something like you describe. But there's plenty of historical examples where, under certain conditions even very ordinary people have done just that - (without any supporting ideology). We often demonise those people, as we do the fundamentalists who do that sort of thing; because the actions are so far removed from any understandable context.

That said, I do think that people who hold extremist religious beliefs are better equipped to do something like that. Its easier to dehumanise another human being if you have some sort of supporting ideology to justify it. The dispute in this thread seems to be whether the root of the problem is with ideology or with a certain mind-set.

Its that mind-set I see as being the root cause of fundamentalism, rather than the ideology of any particular fundamentalist group. I'm suggesting that under certain conditions all fundamentalists potentially dangerous because they share a common/basic mind-set.

Almaty works in pyschology - I'm sure he has some input on the pychiatric aspects of this kind of thing...

To add to this - there are plenty of wannabe Patrick Bateman's out there; people who exhibit psychopathic / sociopathic behaviours but who haven't been diagnosed. Not all of them are out there killing people, but the root instability is still there - and can be set off given the right triggers. Just because they're not all violent doesn't make them any less insane.