OFF: Freeedom of Speech

[trev]

right,
well, first i think that Qutb is a total pratt.  All religious, and
ideological doctrines become lies as soon as they are written. Constant
change is the nature of the universe.  Anyone who says it must be so because
it is wriiten in this holy book, or in mein campf etc is a moron.  truth is
best understood by our own active minds disseminating the evidence according
to our freely acting conciousnesses. why do you think the great avatars
christ, mohammed, buddha etc never wrote any doctrine - only their
sheep-minded followers did and thats when all the troubles started.

yes you point out some of the calamities which have befallen our earth but i
dont think that a regime which implements sharia law would be any better
than our own rabid materialistic exploiters.

actually i don't think that there is a "final" solution - just a series of
ducks and dives - or cycles...lol

yes we should be pushing for more sustaining technologies of course (have
you been to the big green gathering) but i think that is getting away from
the subject.

trev


----- Original Message -----
From: "M Holmes" <fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK>
To: <BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: OFF: Freeedom of Speech


> trev writes:
>
>> ..and ...
>> it seems to me that the hatred of the west felt by the fundamentalist
>> islamic arabs is more to do with jealousy of our technological and social
>> superiority.
>
> I have grave doubts about this. The Wahhabi creed, which is largely
> behind this is based on teachings by Qutb. His argument is that Western
> civilisation has made a fatal error in divorcing religion from the state
> and that people here live largely empty and meaningless lives dedicated
> to amassing wealth and material goods and trying to create the perfect
> lawn or stereo sound.
>
> His idea is that arab society used to be the greatest in the world and
> must not be permitted to become merely a poorer copy of the West. What's
> felt is more strongly a rejection and frustration that Western
> civilisation can be so utterly wrong and yet utterly successful that it
> seems to be inevitable that it will become the first planet-wide
> civilisation.
>
> One doesn't have to go completely along with that to realise that he has
> something of a point in that we are prone to rather neurotic obsessions
> (such as the perfect lawn or stereo) and that humanity in general would
> have much to lose by yet more indigenous cultures being swamped.  There
> used to be 30,000 cultures on this planet and there has to be a
> suspicion that we might have have had something to learn from many of
> those now extinct.
>
>> this is being expressed by them by these religious excuses.  i have
>> been looking into the historical reasons why there is not a single
>> arab state capable of manufacturing a car or an aircraft (apart from
>> oman where there is an aircraft being made by western companies).
>> there are many reasons, but the one which really seemed relevant is
>> the fact that their right-wing facistic mullahs and pashas or whatever
>> their title was, actually banned the printing press for 200 years thus
>> preventing the extrapolation of technological ideas in the east -
>> until it was too late.
>
> From another point of view, can there be any doubt that the printing
> press *is* a carrier of alien ideas which can destroy a society? We in
> the West are after all happy to say that the photocopier helped destroy
> the USSR.
>
> In short: what if the goal of the arab leaders wasn't to be able to
> build aeroplanes but to have the perfect religious society? Would it be
> morally OK for the West to subsume their society just because we can.
> Alternatively if we could somehow fence it off and ignore it, would that
> be fair on some poor arab kid who might want to grow up to design rockets?
>
>> > we in the west used to be in a similar state but during the past 400
>> > years  or so, the humanistic "lefty" elements in our society have, by
>> > their blood  sweat toil and tears, raised up our level of
>> > governmental and legal ethics so that now we rightly look upon the
>> > ethical and social outlook of the fundamentalist arab world as being
>> > disgustingly medieval. no wonder our hackles are raised by these
>> > fanatics when we have shed so much > blood and effort, for so long, to
>> > achieve "freedom of speech".
>
> I suspect there's underappreciation amongst your average guy in Saudi
> that FoS is a "sacred" idea here.
>
>> i am glad to see in the recent news
>> that the more civilised elements of islam are at last speaking up.
>
> You and me both.
>
>> terrorism is a fearful weapon which is aimed at you and me and our
>> families and loved ones.  it works because it uses "stealth".  the
>> only people who can unshield this "stealth weapon" are the more
>> intelligent, psychologically balanced, and educated elements of islam
>> because they alone are in a position to pinpoint the killers.  i
>> mean...bush isn't much better, if at all, but he won't be in power
>> forever.
>
> Whoever is in power in the US, the problem of energy will still exist.
> The US would need 200 nuclear power stations to have a shot at any kind
> of energy independence and that would raise questions as to when the
> uranium will run out.
>
> Could be that if we don't develop fusion power soon, we'll see some
> uncontrolled fusion in sundry places.
>
> FoFP
>