Monday, September 26, 2005

Group Rights and Islam

One interesting facet that I have encountered in my work is that Islamic countries do not have adoption. Thus the orphan is a ward of the state who may be assigned in a gaurdianship role to a family. Yet the child is never formaly absorbed by law into a family unit.

The focus in Islamic socities are on group rights. Thus almost all Islamic countries have religious police that function like a Cuban block patrol.There is no concept of individual rights in Islamic society.Fred P Isaac in his book recounts the tale of a young Kuwati Muslim who had problems with the religious police. Her crime was the importation of a poodle that was seen as decadent Western behavior.

The imposition of Sharia and the presence of religious police are human rights violations but the far left does not ever get past its own moral relativism. People are not free to think on their own but the left talks about Theocracy here while appologizing and endorsing it for Muslims. Thus Falwell is the devil incarnate to the left who jump on his every utterance. Meanwhile the left says zero about Muslims advocating the most abomonable of behaviors. An example of this is 167 the stupidest Antisemitic person on the left defended Red Ken Livingstone's meeting with a cleric who advocated killing gays. In fact he termed the opposition to such a meeting Zionist. Thus he was quite content to lie about the Hindus, Gays living in reality and liberal Muslims who also protested that meeting.

The truth is Communism, Nazism and Islam all have their focus on group rights. This is an RX for disaster as individuals have not rights. Thus only those in possesion of the ultimate truth will dictate what your rights are. Rational people prefer codified secular law with guarenteed human rights. I cherish my right of free expression here daily where no thought is supressed. Yet those on the left need speech codes or the censorship of those they disagree with. The basic law of the far left is free speech for me and none for thee.

55 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi, I've just stumbled across your blog and enjoyed reading it! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a rental car in tampa site. It pretty much covers rental car in tampa related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get the time :-)

Mr. Ducky said...

"Almost all Islamic countries have a religious police....."

Beaker, you are so dumb it saddens me that you are allowed to vote.

You are , of course, incorrect but I am quite sure you will refrain from trying to educate yourself.

samwich said...

Duck, is that photo you??
S

Mr. Ducky said...

Hell no, it's Jack Kerouac.

B said...

Beaks,

Do you honestly believe that the left wants censorship more than the right? The last time I checked, it was the religious right telling my girlfriend she couldn't watch Desperate Housewives, not the liberals. Last time I checked it was the republican party who told me that the art I wanted to look at in NY was too offensive and couldn't be shown. Don't sugar coat your party's HUGE roll in censorship.

beakerkin said...

I will deal with the lucid critique first.

The right does not seek to censor art. It wishes to eliminate the subsidies from art that it finds offensive. I take that one step further in that I want zero subsidies for any art period.

A few idiots want to ban Desperate Housewives good luck to the publicity seekers. With the era of anything goes cable it becomes silly.

However speech codes are a more serious threat as they are designed to halt political speech. Thus my right to express a poplitical opinion is much more serious then a second rate TV series. This is entirely a far left wing phenomena.

Duncy

The quote is from Fred Issac and the only Muslim country without religious police is Turkey. I ternd to doubt Albania has them as well. If you were capable of basic reading you would know the facts.

The only thing you might have in common with beatniks is a drug addled stupor that permeates your half baked posts. Still twisting the truth for Johny Jihad and Comrade Karl the Beak has dealt with your kind before.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Oh, it was last Sunday, I think, that those damned Red State Republican Christian Zionists came to my house and dragged me into the streets and beheaded me for not going to church.

It sucked too, because I missed the football game. Saw a "Desperate Housewifes" commercial during a football game once.

They're everywhere!

Warren said...

B, said:
Do you honestly believe that the left wants censorship more than the right?

Of course, its just more insidious. The left doesn't play by its own rules.

Hate speech laws, the banning of literary classics such as, Tom Sawyer and To Kill a Mockingbird. Burning the American flag is protected free speech but burning crosses is a Federal crime. Placing a crucifix in a jar of piss is elevated to high art but the placement of the Ten Commandments on public property is offensive.

When the right speaks out about what they find offensive, the left always paints it as repression and paints the right as totalitarian. But when your wacko fringe commits the most offensive acts, (meant to be offensive and divisive), the left closes ranks and piss and moans about "Freedom of Speech".

So, B, my question to you is; If an "artist" smeared feces on a Torah, presented it as art and it was paid for with a government grant, would you endorse it as legitimate art? How about a PBS documentary "proving" the holocaust never happened or a situation comedy set in Auswitz? If you spoke out would you be endorsing "censorship"?

The left embraces the most foul as fellow traveler and brother and at the same time castigates and assigns the most pernicious motives to what you call the right.

I shouldn't even have to say this, but for the sake of keeping this discussion from devolving; I don't endorse any of the above actions and find them all offensive.

Anonymous said...

The right wants to censor the body and the left wants to censor the spirit. Since as humans, we're stuck with both, perhaps we should seek appropriate places for both. But I would remind the "left" that the right also has children to raise and vulnerable people to protect (ie the ignrant masses). Hence, the "public" sphere is controlled by the right, for their benefit. The left can do anything it wants in the "private" sphere, short of using "force". But no, the left is too proud to stay in the closet. Gay pride... envy... they are not immune from these diseases of the "spirit". Perhaps it is becuase they are too attuned to their bodies and can no longer control them. Their "minds" aren't what they used to be.

-FJ

Anonymous said...

The left is the cult of Dionysius. They simply refuse to call it a religion, because if they did, the ACLU wouldn't have any leverage for getting their social transformation agenda enacted. There are ways of dealing with this cult, but one needs to be aware of the dangers. A reading of Euripides Bacchae (2nd story) is instructive, not that Euripides powers were at there highest when he wrote it.

-FJ

Mr. Ducky said...

Gee Beak, wrong as usual. No religious police in iraq. At least there weren't till we made things comfy for al-Sadr.
No religious police in India...not a muslim state for sure but the world's second largest muslim population. None in Algeria and there wasn't a religious police in Indonesia until a couple years ago (Bush has the nasty habit of strengthening fundies). So go read up Beaker and stop wasting your mind.

Then we have Warren, what a critic. I ask you warren...have you seen Serrano's image. It's actually quite compelling. He was able to do that with a dime store plastic crucifix and as for the urine...well it was Augustine that said we are all born between the urine and the feces and do you really think there is an environment where Jesus is missing?

As far as the Ten Commandments in courtrooms...Warren the Right Wing Flak should learn the difference between offensive and illegal.

Flag burning...ever see it Warren? All this demonstrating agains the Iraq fiasco and you really haven't seen any burning. Why? Because the protesters respect this country and they respect freedom a hell of a lot more than the right does.

As far as the "smear feces", I assume you are referring to Chris Ofili's work and since you use the word "smear" it is quite clear you have not seen the work. The virgins breast is composed of elephant dung, a material that has a spiritual nature in Africa. If Ofili set out to paint an African figure then who are you to censor him?

Beaker's hero Giuliani was free to strut with his chippy and say the painting insulted Catholicism. Rudy insulted Catholicism, not the painting.

So as for the left censoring...you are left with campus hate speech codes and you won't find universal acceptance of those by far and their origin is tied to right wing reactionaries of the 70's. It's murky.

So as far as your art criticism Warren....at least you don't put on a fake erudition but you are a dope.

Anonymous said...

As a practictioner of the imitative arts, mr. ducky could never tell the difference between real knowledge and fake knowledge. His is NOT a divided line, wisdom being the opinion of the stronger.

-FJ

Warren said...

Mr Ducky,
Your problem is one of comprehension. You know yourself but you don't know the reality. In fact, you are unable to tell the difference. Like FJ said "His (yours) is NOT a divided line, wisdom being the opinion of the stronger".

You seem to live in the now moment without reference to history or a realistic vision for a future.

Theoreticals are not reality nor is the law immutable and unchanging. I'll admit, those are slippery concepts for the delusional and uncomprehending.

Dope? LOL!
Nostradumbass, if I were you, I would refrain from questioning the mental ability of "other" people.

"I ask you warren...have you seen Serrano's image. "

Why yes, oh dimwitted one, and I have no doubt that it would appeal to an anal retentive. Perhaps, you had the urge to stir.

"s far as the "smear feces", I assume you are referring to Chris Ofili's work"...

Just keep assuming, its far easier than comprehension.

Mr. Ducky said...

The "imitative arts"? Do tell, farmer, I want to read that definition.

You surely don't put art into some silly mimetic endeavor pigeonhole (that's only the case in Baroque painting, largely garbage).

Warren and Beaker engage in criticism that can more accurately be called "emetics" but I expect better from you.

Mr. Ducky said...

Warren, your post lacks content. Your first couple of sentences are completely asinine.

Now as far as Serrano's work...let's try this. An intelligent earnest viewer will question the boundary between the sacred and the profane. You won't but I doubt you question anything. Now would that perspective help you to understand Serrano's work as a serious mode of expression?

Don't answer too quickly....I'm trying to form an image of you.....geeky freeper or reitired government pension freeloader?

B said...

Warren,

to answer your question of whether I would be offended from any of you examples, well, it does not matter. That is the great thing about America, people can do things that I find offensive and I can't (shouldn't) do anything about it. If I don't like the art, I won't see it, if I don't like the PBS "documentary" or the situation comedy, I won't watch it. What is so hard about that?

The argument about allowing the federal government paying for those things is a legitimate argument, but once you allow a grant for art, who is to judge what is offensive or not? Why allow any money for art at all? Inevitably something will offend you, and if it doesn't then art is not doing its job. Some art should make you think, make us question, make us debate, and if it takes a piece of "offensive" art to do that, so be it.

Anonymous said...

Plato, "Sophist"...

"STRANGER: We know, of course, that he who professes by one art to make all things is really a painter, and by the painter's art makes resemblances of real things which have the same name with them; and he can deceive the less intelligent sort of young children, to whom he shows his pictures at a distance, into the belief that he has the absolute power of making whatever he likes.

THEAETETUS: Certainly.

STRANGER: And may there not be supposed to be an IMITATIVE art of
reasoning? Is it not possible to enchant the hearts of young men by words poured through their ears, when they are still at a distance from the truth of facts, by exhibiting to them fictitious arguments, and making them think that they are true, and that the speaker is the wisest of men in all
things?

THEAETETUS: Yes; why should there not be another such art?

STRANGER: But as time goes on, and their hearers advance in years, and come into closer contact with realities, and have learnt by sad experience to see and feel the truth of things, are not the greater part of them compelled to change many opinions which they formerly entertained, so that the great appears small to them, and the easy difficult, and all their dreamy speculations are overturned by the facts of life?

THEAETETUS: That is my view, as far as I can judge, although, at my age, I may be one of those who see things at a distance only.

STRANGER: And the wish of all of us, who are your friends, is and always will be to bring you as near to the truth as we can without the sad reality. And now I should like you to tell me, whether the Sophist is not visibly a magician and imitator of true being; or are we still disposed to think that he may have a true knowledge of the various matters about which he disputes?

THEAETETUS: But how can he, Stranger? Is there any doubt, after what has been said, that he is to be located in one of the divisions of children's
play?

STRANGER: Then we must place him in the class of magicians and mimics.

THEAETETUS: Certainly we must."

-FJ

Mr. Ducky said...

That is distressing farmer. You do see art as a mere mimetic exercise. Pity. Shallow and a pity.

Mr. Ducky said...

Hey Beak...did you see that the SEC is launching an investigation of Taser for security violations?

Check out the list of insiders and you'll find one prominent name...Bernard Kerik, Rudy Giuliani's bagman.

Damn Beaker, Rudy might get bnailed for stock irregularities along with Frist. Leaves the path to the White House open for Romney.

Anonymous said...

mr ducky,

Should I have used a euphemism instead of "imitative"? Artists are VERY "Creative". But since the universe was already created, perhaps they ARE merely being "imitative". For there is nothing new under the sun.

Do you want to really "know" art, mr ducky? Then learn "how" the original creation was done. We call THAT "science", as opposed to the imitative "humanities".

-FJ

Anonymous said...

But perhaps "cause" is more up your ally. Then perhaps philosophy, "king of the humanities" might help you. But know, as a member of the Dionysian cult of the body, perhaps "Theology" is more up your alley (no pun intended).

-FJ

Mr. Ducky said...

I'm not sure that I need help, Farmer. No art historian is going very far without some grounding in philosophy.

Mind, body? The cartesian duality bores me.

Anonymous said...

So that's why you stick to unity offered by the multiversian's? Duality overwhelms. I understand. And the Protestant "trinity" Fogedaboudit! Platonic symmetrical dualisms, No Way! And Berlinian incommensurability Oy Vay! ;-)

-FJ

B said...

I was just hoping you might give me some insight into the evolution of the market economy in the southern colonies. My contention is that prior to the Revolutionary War, the economic modalities, especially in the southern colonies, could most aptly be characterized as agrarian precapitalism...

Warren said...

Oh, Ducky, you 'do' need help but I am not a head shrink nor do I wish to waste my time diagramming sentences for you.

" Your first couple of sentences are completely asinine."

Actually, your perception of them as, "asinine", is a symptom of your comprehension problem.

I won't bother to fisk your entire post but here are some examples of your BS.

"well it was Augustine that said we are all born between the urine and the feces and do you really think there is an environment where Jesus is missing?"

Did St Augustine mean we should wallow in excrement then? Do you think he would endorse your "art"? Somehow, I doubt that fouling the sanctified with the profane is what he had in mind nor did he believe we were incapable of rising above baser beginnings. If that is all you took away from his writings, you are a very stupid person indeed.

Perhaps you really did have the urge to stir, and in your circles, that would indicate "art".

"As far as the Ten Commandments in courtrooms...Warren the Right Wing Flak should learn the difference between offensive and illegal."

I was speaking of censorship, a point which seems to have eluded you. But as long as you are rambling on, would you care to cite me that "law".

You're just masturbating if you point to the 1st Amendment. Nowhere does it state that such things are illegal and in fact it says just the opposite, (opinions of pointy headed social engineers, not withstanding).

"Flag burning...ever see it Warren? All this demonstrating agains the Iraq fiasco and you really haven't seen any burning. Why? Because the protesters respect this country and they respect freedom a hell of a lot more than the right does."

Why yes, ducky, I have seen it. Are you denying that I have seen it?

But that wasn't the intent of the question, as anyone with half a brain could comprehend. Again, I'm not going to diagram my sentences for you. No one else seems to have much of a problem understanding what I have to say so I doubt that the fault lays with me.

I doubt that your protesters "respect" anything at all.

"I'm trying to form an image of you"

The models you make, as you play in feces, do not interest me.

beakerkin said...

Hey Duncy

Iraq under Saddam had religious police as did Algeria. India is not a Muslim country but a well run democracy. Try to get those facts throuigh your drug addled bird brain.

Get used to President Rudy and even if these allegations were true these pale behind the low standards established by the Clintons Cattle futures or selling pardons.

Warren said...

B,
"well, it does not matter"

In the context of this argument it matters.
The left has instituted censorship as rule and law on the basis of its "offensiveness".

Your original statement:
"Do you honestly believe that the left wants censorship more than the right? The last time I checked, it was the religious right telling my girlfriend she couldn't watch Desperate Housewives, not the liberals. Last time I checked it was the republican party who told me that the art I wanted to look at in NY was too offensive and couldn't be shown. Don't sugar coat your party's HUGE roll in censorship."

The last time "I" checked, Desperate Housewives, was still on TV, The "artwork" was still in the gallery and it was liberals that "in fact" removed Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird from libraries. It was liberals that enacted "hate speech" laws and liberal academics that enacted PC speech codes.

In those actions, hypocrisy is written large. Only certain groups may be offended, others are "protected". More than a little Animal Farm(ish), if you care for my opinion, or even if you do not.

So shall we talk about reality as opposed to rhetoric and hyperbole?

The seeds of totalitarianism are within the left. Hey, but they only do it for our own good, right?

So, does the left wants censorship more than the right?

Of course they do, in fact they have instituted it as law, code and rule. Surly this counts for something.

Warren said...

Beak, I'm forced to correct you. The Clintons didn't "sell" pardons. They issued them after due consideration, (about 10 minutes worthy), after checking to see if the checks would bounce... err.. after the generous gifts they... uhh... Nevermind!

B said...

Warren,

The reason why desperate housewives is still on because the public told your side to go to hell. Who wants to censor Howard Stern? Your side. It is your side who wants to censor books that even mention sex or sexuality or god forbid homosexuality. It is YOUR side who wants these books out of the library.

As far as saying my side has enacted censorship as law...right, because my side has so much power? Last time I checked your party was in charge of the white house, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court and yet the laws are my sides fault.

Warren said...

"The reason why desperate housewives is still on because the public told your side to go to hell.

BS!
The reason its still on the air is because it makes money and the minute it quits making money it will be droped from the network as if it never existed.

I don't know about you but I have a switch on my TV than turns it off.

Reality trumps rhetoric, every time.

Yes, those laws are your sides fault. Neither the democrats nor the republicans are on "my" side!

I just see "liberals" as worse than republicans by orders of magnitude.

So, to quote someone that posted earlier:
"Don't sugar coat your party's HUGE roll in censorship."

B said...

Thanks for stealing my argument;) I stated that if I don't like a show, I can change the channel. I guess we'll just agree to disagree about whose party plays the larger role in censorship.

samwich said...

Desperate Housewives: The minute it quits making money it will be dropped from the networks like it never existed.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!

Desperate Housewives attracts viewers because it gives the viewers someone to HATE!!!
All the little plump plain jane nobodies just love seeing the beautiful stylish bitches get stuck with crappy lives and jerk husbands.

There is NOTHING a bitch loves more than gettin' over on another bitch.

Tell me it ain't so.

S

Anonymous said...

b,

I guess we can also tell which side has kids to raise. And shove the "V chip" and "parental controls" where the sun don't shine. You should have to INSTALL stuff to get "Desparate Houseskanks".

-FJ

Mr. Ducky said...

Beak, India has the second largest muslimpopulation in the world. You knew that, correct.

Warren goes on as if the practive of presidential pardons started with Clinton. Damn, Warren, you are stupid.
I bet you've called the Sean annity show at some point in your career as a dunce.

Beak, iraq was quite secular under Huessein. Pretty strong on women's rights. No religious police, no sharia. Algeria has had a civil war to remove fundies....no religious police. Morocco and Tunisia, no religious police.

Anonymous said...

Fail-safe vs Fail-danger

-FJ

B said...

FJ

You just proved my point. I believe let the consumer and parents decide what do watch and listen to, you believe let the "moral authority (government)" decide what you are able to watch and listen to. So much for your view of freedom.

Anonymous said...

You don't get it do you. I don't ban you. I make you "fail-safe". You would prefer that dangerous things were allowed to "fail-stupid". Perhaps they should consult you the next time they re-design the presidential football.

-FJ

Anonymous said...

You want to watch the porn channel 24-7 fine. But YOU should have to activate the V-chip, not ME.

-FJ

Anonymous said...

Me, I get my kids to program the VCR. They're a h' of a lot better at it than I am.

-FJ

B said...

So you want the government regulating technology like the V-Chip? That is ridiculous. Should inventors check with the government to see if inventions pass their morality test? It is not my fault you are not as technologically literate as your children, but you are attempting to force others to be burdened by your lack of computer training. For someone who claims they like freedom why should those who want freedom be burdened with technology? Why shouldn't we start with a completely free world and allow the individual to pick and choose what they want to see and hear? Me, I trust the indivual to determine what I want to watch. Your argument points to the government deciding what to watch. Why shouldn't the burden be on you to learn something new like technology? Is it up to the government to teach you how to use the internet? No.

As for the V-chip, if the market determines that they want them in, then that will be the case, but as for your argument, you are NOT for the market deciding and you ARE for government regulation. Makes you think a little bit.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry...but who mandated television manufacturer's to install V-chips by a certain date? Consumers?

Grow up, baby b. Wa-a-a-a-h-h-h-h

-FJ

B said...

Wow personal insults now. Nice, real mature. Maybe you could ask your kids if they could teach you some manners while their changing your diapers, or is that the governments job as well?

Anonymous said...

Diaper changing. That's slated for WIC benefits in 2010.

-FJ

Anonymous said...

Manners, now B, where could I possibly learn those? Perhaps I SHOULD watch "Deperate House-skanks". I'm sure I'd pick up some REAL good ones there. And if I don't have any, why would my kids have any. Would they have learned them at school?

-FJ

Warren said...

Ducky, your bill is moving but all I hear is quack, quack, quack.

Why don't you ask someone, at the grouphome, to explain things to you. Thats what the government pays them for! I suggest you ask right after they put you to bed and give you your meds.

Anonymous said...

Where-ever the government regulates OR legislates, as they DID in the V-chip case, they should consider the "youth of Athens". FAIL-SAFE.

Why do you suppose two Congressional "pages" sit as "book ends" at the foot of the Senate "Dais" and at the doors to the Senate Chamber while the Senate is in sessions, and "rotate" every 10 minutes or so? Is THAT symbolism meant for the "pages" so they can watch goings on and learn "patience", or is it meant for the Senators to "observe" and serve as a "reminder" of their duty to America's future? (Guess you can tell I spent a lot of time watching Quorum calls on CSPAN2 the last couple days.)

-FJ

Anonymous said...

A history lesson just for b,

http://www.fcc.gov/vchip/legislation.html

-FJ

B said...

So let me get this strait, not only are you suggesting that we shouldn't let the market decide this, but also that the government should play a paternalistic role on this one...ummmmmm where have I heard that before....

Anonymous said...

You say there's no role for government to do anything? They have a role. Preserving America's future.

-FJ

B said...

I am all for the government haveing a role, but I just find it ironic that you believe they should play such a paternalistic role in our lives. This seems extremely contrary to someone who wants a tiny government with as little government regulations as possible. It seems that you want the government to play the morality game, but only when the morality suits your needs. So, the next time you are about to call a liberal a dirty name because they want some government regulation to "preserve America's future" maybe you'll think twice about it.

Mr. Ducky said...

Warren, am I to assume that your rude, loutish reply is confirmation that you did not know that all presidents have issued a round of controversial pardons at the end of term.

......or are you an O'Really fan and simply attacked me for associating you and Sean Inanity?

Anonymous said...

b,

I do believe in small government. But my ideas as to what the laws should be, and HOW they should be enforced is RADICALLY different from what we have today. One might say, I'm in favor "empowering citizens" through multi-cultural mono-culturalism so much that they don't NEED much "federal" government (ie Plato's "Laws" or the original pre-civil war limited feds).

But if you're going to insist on federal social safety nets and the federal, if not universal freedom to pursue every possible culture and its' perversion, then I'll take the only political route available and federally legislate morality too.

Your buddies may have made universal "tolerance" into the "highest virtue" and thereby undermines all the previously existing and agreed to social values, thereby undermining the unwritten rules of proper manners and social etiquette and behavior.

Fine, now you have to deal with parents and have laws and regulations laid down to replace that previously "voluntary" fabric of "responsible adult" morality that you undermined.

This is how totalitarian states get started. I'm just "following your lead" in the dance of politics and culture. Every democracy ever entered into has eventually ended in totalitarianism and dictatorship. What makes you think this one will be any different?

-FJ

Warren said...

I'm sorry, Nostradumbass.

What's the matter, did your keeper refuse to help you? Maybe if you sent a letter to the impeached former president or his piano legged wife, they would send an intern round to help. They could use a little of that bribe money they received from Mark Rich's wife.

BTW, rude and loutish, coming from a obnoxious twit like you is high praise indeed!

Always On Watch said...

The Duck is saying that Warren's reply is "rude and loutish"? Puhleese! This a case of the pot calling the kettle black!

Always On Watch said...

Beak,
The truth is Communism, Nazism and Islam all have their focus on group rights. This is an RX for disaster as individuals have not rights. Thus only those in possesion of the ultimate truth will dictate what your rights are. Rational people prefer codified secular law with guarenteed human rights.

"Group rights" is code language for moral relevancy.