IAP Political Forum

1 - Is it allowable for Muslims to be homophobic because of their culture?
2 - Should forced marriages for women be illegal?
3 - Is it acceptable to insist that a woman wears a veil?
4 - Is anti-Semitism a legitimate response to frustration with American or Israeli foreign policy?
5 - Should Ahmadinejad's regime in Iran be allowed to acquire a nuclear bomb?
6 - Can you be a people's champion if your people can't get rid of you?
7 - Are political prisoners ever justified?
8 - Is Al-Qaeda in Iraq a legitimate resistance organisation?
9 - Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali too critical of Islam?
10 - Should the Dutch government have taken her security away abroad?
11 - Should Salman Rushdie have written about the Koran the way he did in The Satanic Verses?
12 - Are freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion (and atheism) universal human rights?
13 - Is it an acceptable cultural tradition to call for the death of those who wish to leave your religion?
14 - Is it okay to ban members of other religions from holy sites such as Mecca?
15 - Can honour killings or genital mutilation of women be placed in their 'cultural context'?
16 - Is it acceptable to call for the death of cartoonists because you don't think their cartoons are funny?

<sub>Answers: 1)no 2)yes 3)no 4)no 5)no 6)no 7)no 8)no 9)no 10)no 11)yes 12)yes 13)no 14)no 15)no 16)no

Sporked from the Sunday Times</sub>

---

The point, I guess, is that one cannot be a liberal if you support Islam or dictatorships. I consider myself a liberal but I have noticed a tendency among liberals to support the suppression of people's rights for 'cultural' reasons.

This is wrong. There's nothing special about cultures and they do not deserve to be an exception to the rules.

Excellent, well thought out points.

OswaldTheOsprey

Funny, but Republicans accuse liberals of supporting dictatorships (a la Stalin).  I am probably much more liberal than most Americans, but think that dictatorship is as anti-thetical to the liberal mindset as a conservative would say it is to his mindset.  (Saying a liberal craves a soviet-style government is as false as alleging a conservative wants a fascist government.)

I see no problem with "supporting" Islam.  Or Catholicism, or Baptism or Buddhism.  If I didn't support them, would I be accused of being an atheist or maybe a heathen secularist?  (I happen to believe in the separation of church and state, but "support" religion as a private expression of one's faith and relationship with his or creator.)  I don't support the politicized radicalization of any of the above.  Also, I think what you mean is "making excuses for" Islam.  That's a huge difference from supporting a certain religion.

In terms of the questions, and I know these were asked rhetorically, but I want to answer them...
1 - No, but I don't see them changing anytime soon.
2 - They're unfair but, again, don't think you'll see the practice end in our lifetime.
3 - No.  But if it's her choice, who's to say?
4 - No.  Nor is anti-Islamism an acceptable response to certain government policies.
5 - Never.
6 - Chavez comes to mind.  Answer: No.
7 - No.  If someone committed a crime, he should be given a fair trial promptly, not held in some prison indefinitely.  And I think making political "crimes" illegal is unconscionable.
8 - No, but in their minds they are.
9 - Much of her criticism is legit.
10 - If she left the country, is her government obligated to provide security for her globally?  That's putting quite a burden on her government.  The big-government answer should be Yes, but I think once she ventures outside, No.
11 - It's his right to write Satanic Verses any way he wishes.
12 - Yes, but we can't impose them on the world at the point of a gun barrel.  They have to grow organically within the country in question for them to take hold.
13 - No.  Never.
14 - Maybe, depending on the particulars of the religious belief.  If we forcibly opened Mecca to non-believers in the physical sense, would you also then support the forcible opening of the Catholic Church (in its practices) to force them to perform gay marriages or accept their "infidels" in ways that they are currently banned?  I think it is perfectly fine for religions to dictate who can and cannot avail themselves of the structures, practices and sacraments of their own faith.  What do I care if as a non-Muslim I am not allowed in Mecca?  Or as a non-Buddhist there may be parts of Buddhist shrines I am not allowed to see?  Or that as a non-Mormon, I am not allowed to witness ceremonies inside a Mormom Temple?
15 - No.
16 - No.

Historically liberals often have supported dictators.  Consider the very liberal George Bernard Shaw who claimed that Stalin did great things in the USSR and the rumours of millions of dead were false.

That's not representative of most liberals (and of none of the liberals I know).  A similar cross-accusation could be that historically conservatives have supported fascism, consider Charles Lindbergh's interactions with Nazi Germany prior to the outbreak of WW2.  Just as attributing Lindbergh's actions and beliefs to all conservatives is disingenuous, so is attribute GBShaw's to all liberals.

Actually it was an accurate statement of most of the leading liberals or intellectuals that led the liberals.

The biggest supporter of fascism in the US was Joe Kennedy by the way.

Historically, both the right and left have supported dictatorships. Whether marxist, post-1934 national socialism or just plain banana republic thugocracies, all have had western intellectuals who slobbered over them.

OswaldTheOsprey

Good point and all too true.

It even continues today.

OswaldTheOsprey

I'd like to hear the liberal defense of #14 disallowing a ban on infidels in holy places.

I'm also confused about #5 nuclear no-proliferation, for sure the conservatives are against Iran getting the bomb and if liberals are too, who takes the other side?

It would be impossible to find a single modern American politician who morally and ideologically supports dictatorships.

My post was primarily concerned with intellectuals as opposed to politicians. In that context, I stand by what I posted.

OswaldTheOsprey

Well, here in the US at least, there is a separation of church and state.  The state cannot force a church to abandon or change its beliefs.  From what I understand the Mormon Church does not allow non-Mormons -- a polite way of saying "infidel" -- into certain parts of their temples and certain rites in the Mormon faith are only allowed to be viewed by members of the Church of LDS.  Could the state force them to change that article of their faith?  Would such exercise of force be consitutional?  Extremely unlikely.  Would you want the state to have such power, to actually dictate to a religion who can enter its holiest innermost shrines, particularly if by going in the faith in question would take offense?  If Mormons possess this right, why can't Muslims or Catholics or Hindus?

Not much of a liberal defense, but I see no problem with allowing churches to operate fully within the confines of their faith.  Short of breaking the law (human sacrifice, smoking of peyote, etc.), states have no right to tell churches how they operate.  They are protected by the Constitution.

Excellent post. Here is an article on the peyote issue which has reached all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

OswaldTheOsprey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Religious_Freedom_Act

Morons and Islamofascists.

Well call me a moron I guess. I think any country should be allowed to have weapon they want. It's if they use it is when there is a problem. I definitely think we should impose sanctions and such, whatever it takes to "encourage" Iran not to develop nuclear weapons. But invade/bomb because they don't succumb to our will not really what I want to see. I wouldn't blame Israel if they did, and If Iran was to use the bomb I wouldn't be against retaliation.

For the record I am no pinko hippie either, I was very pro-war as members on this board may remember. But to be perfectly honest due to mistaken intelligence, national vanity, or outright lies(call it what you wish) I am very soured with the notion of war and military action. I am saying this as an 8 year veteran of the Marines. I am tired of it.I am not about ready to change ideologies or anything. I am still fiscally conservative and moderate on social issues, but the circumstances of this war and the actions since it began are shameful. Now I do believe we need to finish what we started, but its sad that we even got to this point.

That's like saying a baby can play with all the bleach he wants as long as he doesn't drink it.
[/quote]

If I read #14 right 'real' liberals are against Muslim only places.

I think the validity of this question can be shown by holding a poll of non-US citizens on whether or not the USA ought to be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

That should show the silliness of this question.

Does the USA have permission to exist?

What's good for the Islamic goose is good for the Christian gander.

If pandering to Christians is acceptable, then pandering to Muslims has the same standing.  If pandering to Muslims is unacceptable, then so is pandering to Christians.

If the baby is smart enough to invent the bleach, one would hope he is smart enough to know it isn't a plaything.

It's more along the lines of constructive engagement. Some countries see value in acquiring nuclear weapons and to an extent it is inevitable that they will eventually get them. We waste a lot of resources trying to stop what we can't. We gave N Korea Billions to not develop a bomb. In retrospect, the money was a waste.

I personally do not fear a nuclear Iran anymore than I fear a nuclear N Korea. If we're being realistic, the idea of mutual assured destructing is the best we can get, and then it's one sided to where our destruction is by no means assured. Unless we're ready to go occupy every country deemed at risk of developing nukes, the options we have of preventing that are very limited.

I don't understand.


Um...yes.


I disagree. The two are not equally as bad. Christianity is relatively moderate today whereas Islam is the thing causing men to fly planes into to buildings, to mutilate, beat and suppress women, to kill homosexuals etc.

I don't agree to pandering to any religion but if we have to pander to one I'd rather it was Christianity.

Take it in context, do you really trust Iran not to use a nuke if it acquires one?

Mutually assured destruction is predicated on the government actually caring about it's people's lives. I think Adhmadjinejad (that's spelled wrong I know) cares more about destroying Israel.

A very legitimate concern, but is that what he actually intends to do, or is it just rhetoric to endear the people of Iran to him? It would most certainly mean the end of any power he has in Iran, rather quickly, and possibly his life. I think Ahmadickhead cares about the people of Iran to the extent that he wants power. Using a nuclear device would be a sure fire way for him to end his "leadership" of Iran.

Past that, there is the question of how far we are willing to go, and what we are willing to do to stop Iran from getting a bomb. Also there is a very real concern that preemptive military action could have consequences potentially worse than Iran having a bomb.

Who granted permission for the USA to possess nukes?

Who granted permission for the USSR/Russia to possess nukes?

The point is that possessing nukes has never been something that one requires permission for.  Your statement assumes that Iran needs permission.

Indeed, your statement assumes that the USA has implicit authority to grant or whithold permission for same. 

That is either pure arrogance or absurd.

So you are using pragmatic, subjective and temporal considerations here to justify a making an absolute theoretical statement?

That's not justified.  If the absolute theoretical statement is to be held as true, then it requires its own logic, not subjective considerations and opinion choices to support it.

That's like saying "God does not exist because I don't like the idea of God existing".

Its all very nice and true, but it is an ultimately meaningless, insubstantial, subjective, or fickle statement depending on the mood or caprice of any given person.

Btw, liberals often rationally support the reduction of rights for criminals (for example).  This shows that liberalism is not a principle that holds absolutely to absolute equal rights for all.

Such as?

In an ideal world no one would possess nukes. We don't live in that world. We live in the world where some countries have nukes. I for one don't want the nuclear club to get any bigger and I especially don't want a country whose leader has vowed to wipe another country from the map to be part of the club.

In theory, the US could act based on a UN resolution and draw it's authority for it's action from that resolution. If the international community doesn't have the authority then who does?


No.


Read what I said: I don't agree with pandering to religion. Ever. But if I had to pick I'd pander to Christianity.


No it's not.


Can you think of any other exceptions?

You do realize that reducing the rights of criminals is about preserving the rights of everyone else don't you?

A new rallying cry Ahawhateverhisnameis and extremists across the ME, increased hostility toward the west, and further destabilization of the Middle East. How it would play out in the region is a very important question to ask. How would it influence the power balance between "moderates" and extremists in Pakistan, which already has nukes?

That does sound worse.

That's all rather nice, but doesn't actually say anything substantial.

Under what authority does the US claim to be the arbitrator of who is allowed to have nukes and who is not?

That is pure arbitary/subjective.

Indeed, shall we presume that since you claim the USA is the final arbitrator of who is allowed to have nukes and who is not, that the USA has (ipso facto) given its permission (tacit or otherwise) to India, Pakistan and Israel.

I repeat, asserting that that the USA has the right to decide whether or not any given nation may possess nukes is just silly.

The USA may have a long history of forcing their opinions upon other nations, but there's nothing 'legal' or 'right' about that to appeal to.  Just naked self interest and bullying.

If it is your point that the USA ought to use its power and military to physically prevent Iran (or any other nation-state) from having nuke weapons, then say so.  Couching this appeal inside some hypothetically benign framework that doesn't exist is just obfusication meant to hide the essential 'bullying' that is (apparently) your counsel.

Your single word answer is underwhelming and entirely unpersuasive in the fact that it contradicts your posted words. 

You may have different motives or different intents, but the bottom line is you are in fact using a pragmatic/subjective assessment of Christianity and applying it as an absolute rule here.  That's logically untenable.

You don't ever agree with pandering, but you prefer pandering to Christianity?

Okay.  I'll just leave the point here since further discussion seems pointless.

Note: See your appeal to pragmatism given earlier. 

Once again, I'm underwhelmed with the force of logic illustrated by your detailed rebuttal of my argument.

Subjective whim always trumps all arguments.  I'm familiar with this rule.  It means this discussion is pointless.

Yes, several.

No, I don't see it that way at all. 

Rights are only as good as they are held to be universal. 

Thus, any reduction or limits on rights are reductions or limits on the principle of rights generally.

The rights of a criminal are the same rights as all other individuals.  Reduce the rights of criminals and you reduce the rights of all other people.

Where did I say the US are the ultimate arbiters of anything? The UN and US are different things.

Your single word answer is underwhelming and entirely unpersuasive in the fact that it contradicts your posted words. 

You may have different motives or different intents, but the bottom line is you are in fact using a pragmatic/subjective assessment of Christianity and applying it as an absolute rule here.  That's logically untenable.
[/quote]

No I'm not. I'm doing exactly what I said and no more.


Yes, I prefer pandering to the religion that doesn't suppress gays women and non-believers.

I'm not saying that we should pander to any religion. I'm saying that pandering to Christianity is no exactly the same as pandering to Islam.


Are you familiar with the concept that claims made without backing it up can be dismissed without backing up your dismissal? You need to back up your claim that what I said is like saying God does not exist because I don't like the idea of God existing.

No, I don't see it that way at all. 

Rights are only as good as they are held to be universal. 

Thus, any reduction or limits on rights are reductions or limits on the principle of rights generally.

The rights of a criminal are the same rights as all other individuals.  Reduce the rights of criminals and you reduce the rights of all other people.
[/quote]

Are you a libertarian? Do you understand the practical implications of what you suggest?

I didn't say I trusted Iran with the bomb.  But I echo illy's point that a pre-emptive attack on Iran could have far reaching implications.  And seeing this administration's incompetence in just about every arena, I suspect they'll manage to make matters worse if they attack Iran.

When you asked if Iran should be 'allowed' to have nukes.

Btw, the UN has no legal or formal jurisdiction over potential Iranian nukes at all.

Yes, you've stated this point several times.  You are entitled to your preferences.  Indeed, that is an entirely subjective, pragmatic, circumstantial and/or arbitrary point as I've already stated.

Public policy cannot be made on the basis of your personal preference.  That's not sufficient.

And Christianity, still has a long way to go before I'd describe them as 'not seeking to suppress gays or women'.

Pandering to some religion is pandering to some religion.  Its all the same to me. 

No, I don't have to do anything at all.

I consider the point self-evident.  If you don't, that's fine.

People never understand that which they don't want to understand.  You've shown already that you aren't going to accept my point so why should I bother wasting my time explaining it?

You ask me about some ideology then use that to make an appeal to pragmatism?  And you think I'm being difficult here?

I should think it would take a few thousand words for me to reply to either question, so I'll spare you that.  Short answers are no and certainly yes, but any kind of answer to either question would be loaded with so many caveats as to make any answer I give pretty much non-functional.

Huh? I don't understand your 'logic'. I never mentioned America. You did. I'm Irish. The newspaper the survey is from is English. Why do you presume it has anything to do with the US?


How do you figure?


 ::) I'm not saying we should base public policy. I'm saying that pandering to Christianity is not the same as pandering to Islam. Do you not agree that Islam is the bigger threat to human rationality and western civilisation?


Well, luckily Christians tend to ignore those parts of the Bible (except for the real fundies).


So the Amish are the same as that pedophile cult whose name escapes me?


I don't know. Why are you here in the first place if you are not willing to back up your claims?


So you understand the implications of not punishing criminals but yet you still propose to do just that?

There's only a right answer to each of those questions if you believe in democracy. I won't bother to say which is for which question, everyone knows the answers.