bangle law
in [Depression]
|
Prev: Hi and welcome to my new site
Next: Yet even more...
From: Whiskers on 3 Aug 2008 10:05 On 2008-08-03, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet> wrote: > Whiskers <catwheezel(a)operamail.com> wrote: > >> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet> wrote: >> > Whiskers <catwheezel(a)operamail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet> wrote: >> >> > Tim <timjim(a)letterboxes.org> wrote: [...] >> >> In practice, the best you can do is to introduce the concept that more >> >> than one belief system and moral code can be conceived and that there are >> >> many already in existence, and offering some information and examples >> >> about some of them. >> > >> > I could do better than that - teach 'em that you're allowed to create >> > your own moral code if you like. Then get 'em to study ethics. >> >> Lord of the Flies, eh? > > Ah, I'd thought of that: that's why I'd get 'em to study ethics. You'd have to get the ethics into them first - which is indoctrination, isn't it? [...] >> but there's a lively Afro-Caribbean chapel two doors from my >> block of flats (I can hear the music most Sundays) > > That could be quite nice in a way. Or it might be unbearable - which > one is it? Depends. Load drumming doesn't go with migraine, but choral singing can be glorious. [...] >> >> > It's just that too many religions end up >> >> > teaching hatred and exclusion and lunacy. Just look at Northern >> >> > Ireland. It's been getting worse since the nominal start to the end of >> >> > The Troubles. >> >> > >> >> > Rowland. >> >> >> >> It isn't "religions" that are doing that - it's people. >> > >> > Well, yes - but what's a religion except `what people do'? >> >> Religions don't teach conflict or hatred > > Islam doesm unavoidably - just read the Koran. (it says lots of things, > but it's hard to miss the exhortations to fight the infidel - and unlike > the Bible, there's no bit tacked on the end telling everyone to be nice > to each other; the Muslim view is that Mohammed's teachings supersede > those of Jesus.) I have read the Koran. It's weakness (and some might say, its strength too) is that it's a collection of remembered quotes ('recitations') taken entirely out of context and sorted by (of all things) size. Whatever you might believe about the origin of the quotes, that leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Even more so when the lack of vowels in the 'original' makes some passages capable of many 'readings', some of them so obscure as to be essentially meaningless. The overall balance is towards peace and tranquility, but sections are certainly open to the opposite 'reading'. (Not that I'm competent to judge either the original Arabic text or the current versions, let alone the various interpretations - scholars devote their lives to that sort of thing, and I haven't; I depend on reading what scholars have written). > The Old Testament can be read like that too, if you don't have the > careful interpretation of `how it doesn't mean what you think it means' > provided by the rabbi or priest - or if you forget to pay attention to > the New Testament. The New Testament is also open to various interpretations. Unlike some Holy Writ, though, none of the Bible claims to be infallible or absolute (unlike the Koran) although some people do make that claim for it, or for selected passages. > Buddhism's off the hook as far as I'm concerned. > > Hinduism: that one's chaos. > > Sikhism started out trying to build bridges between all faiths - then > they found they *had* to fight to survive. > > <shrug> You're right that it's the people who cause the problems - but > as I say, what is a religion if not what the people think and do? > >> - but people do, often claiming >> religious motives. > > That as well. But you see, a religion is `what people do'. Religions > aren't `what's written in the book on its own', they're `the sum total > of labelled cultures'. What people do, what they say, how they > interpret the `holy writings' (spit). Etc. Well, no; what people do in the name of religion is still only what people do. The religion stands above all that. But the distinction is difficult to make when one is being stoned or burned or tortured. > If it weren't for the fact that I'm even more opposed to book burning > than I am to persecution of people (only by a whisker, mind), I'd be > calling for the destruction of a lot of these so-called `holy books'. > > (huh? Yeah, well, if you destroy all copies of a book, it's gone > forever. New people are easy to breed. It's a bit of a shocking point > of view, I know, and I'm not sure I like it and I do know that I'd save > a life in preference to saving a book, but there's still this idea > inside my head.) Mine too. But each person is unique, whereas a book can exist in many effectively identical copies. (I remember Fahrenheit 451 as a good read, many years ago). >> >> As far as >> >> Northern Ireland is concerned, the damage is being done by criminals, and >> >> they are doing a lot less damage now than they were when they were having >> >> a war so that's an improvement, surely? >> > >> > They're increasing the segregation and separation of the communities. >> > They're trying to ensure that the troubles aren't over yet. They're >> > trying to maintain Roman vs. Protestant antagonism for ever. >> >> Divide and rule. It works whether the would-be rulers are kings, >> politicians, or bandits. > > Sort of - except the people arranging for the segregation are, so it > seems, not motivated by any desire to control things themselves. It's > more `we need to segregate to defend our culture which is under attack > from those `not like us' bastards who are against us'. > > I see it as being driven by paranoia more than anything else. The segregation has become self-perpetuating; but there are people there who are working to break the vicious circle - despite sometimes violent opposition. I hope that eventualy they will succeed without requiring the use of force to prevent segregation. [...] > The Methodists have it right > as far as I'm concerned: the preachers have to do what the congregation > tells them, not the other way round.) And Quakers have no clergy at all. There is scant Gospel support for Christians having any sort of priesthood or organisation at all; I blame St Paul, and the emperor Constantine and his mother, for a lot of the stuff Christianity has been lumbered with. (The official Roman version is at <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07202b.htm> etc.) [...] >> > Northern Ireland is a nation where if you claim to be atheist on an >> > official form, you'll get asked which god it is you don't believe in: >> > the Catholic one, or the Protestant one. Really - heard about it on the >> > radio from a chap who met that oddity. >> >> [...] >> >> The way I heard it was 'but is that proddy jewish or popish jewish?'. > > That sounds like it's made up to me. The point about the form asking > which religion you followed was to fit you into the Prod or Papist > communities for the point of official filing, and they'd not take an > answer which didn't allow them to fit you into one of the only two > available categories. > > Really, what they wanted to know was: were you brought up in a Prod or > Papist community? > > It's enough to drive anyone to Satanism if you ask me. But the /real/ difference is political or tribal, not religious; certainly most 'Loyalists' and 'Unionists' tend to see themselves as 'Protestant' while most 'Republicans' consider themselves to be 'Catholic', but that is because of the accidents of history not to any relevance of the various religious factions to the actual points of dispute underlying the 'troubles'. >> Madness follows when political opinions get mixed up with religion. > > One can argue that all religious opinion is madness. It takes a bit of > semantic sleight of hand, defining all aspects of such opinion that > aren't madness as spirituality rather than religion. To exploit the quotations site you invoked: People who write obscurely are either unskilled in writing or up to mischief. -- Peter Brian Medawar (Science and Literature, in Plato's Republic, 1984) People only see what they are prepared to see. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson People should be a little loony, Helena. That's the best thing about them. -- Karel Capek (R.U.R. or Rossum's Universal Robots, 1920) The plural of anecdote is not data. -- Roger Brinner Push to test. (click) Release to detonate. -- anon -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~
From: Evil_Nigel on 3 Aug 2008 13:16 x-no-archive: yes On Aug 3, 5:48 pm, Ariel <espr...(a)mailhaven.com> wrote: > > Excuse me coming back to your post here but I remembered what you said > about this girl, Sarika Watkins, and her Sikh bangle not being > handcuffs. I read this weekend that Sarika was offered, by the school, > the opportunity of even keeping and wearing the bracket as long as it > was covered. > > Instead of accepting this sensible option, it does indeed seem as if > this 14 year old was used as a manipulated pawn. I blame her mother > for allowing the compromise to be rejected and then for allowing this > "crusade" to be taken to the high court. It now looks to be uncertain > if her daughter, apparently an A and B grade student, will even return > to the school. Some victory then, mum, when the real loser here > appears to be Sarika. I agree with that - the only winners are the lawyers. I hope the girl finds some way to continue her education. I wonder what she'll think in 20 years time. Evil Nigel
From: Rowland McDonnell on 5 Aug 2008 13:26 Sir Benjamin Nunn <bennunn(a)depro.co.uk> wrote: [snip] > If you think 'scientific fact' is somehow above 'the rest' then I think you > are a shining example of indoctrination at work. If you can't see that a thermometer's opinion is more reliable than the opinions of a priest or a politician, you've got problems. btw, science doesn't recognise such a thing as a `fact'. All it knows about are models and measurements - that's all. Physics gave up on `facts' decades ago - the first decade of the 20th century was a bit of a shock, and then it all got /really/ weird in the 1930s. Come the 1960s, it was obvious to most physicists that `reality' `really' `was' that strange and fuzzy and wobbly so on - although many argued against the prevailing opinions and plenty of people still do so. (Words in quotes above are so marked because they are not scientifically valid) [snip] Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Whiskers on 6 Aug 2008 09:26 On 2008-08-05, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet> wrote: > Whiskers <catwheezel(a)operamail.com> wrote: [...] > The point is that you can't avoid brainwashing if you want to bring up > human beings. My plan is to have a lot more diversity than we've > currently got in the hope that it'll end up a lot more decent. There's a paradox in there somewhere. > [snip] > >> >> >> > It's just that too many religions end up teaching hatred and >> >> >> > exclusion and lunacy. Just look at Northern Ireland. It's been >> >> >> > getting worse since the nominal start to the end of The Troubles. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Rowland. >> >> >> >> >> >> It isn't "religions" that are doing that - it's people. >> >> > >> >> > Well, yes - but what's a religion except `what people do'? >> >> >> >> Religions don't teach conflict or hatred >> > >> > Islam doesm unavoidably - just read the Koran. (it says lots of things, >> > but it's hard to miss the exhortations to fight the infidel - and unlike >> > the Bible, there's no bit tacked on the end telling everyone to be nice >> > to each other; the Muslim view is that Mohammed's teachings supersede >> > those of Jesus.) >> >> I have read the Koran. It's weakness (and some might say, its strength >> too) is that it's a collection of remembered quotes ('recitations') taken >> entirely out of context and sorted by (of all things) size. > > That depends on what translation you're reading. (unless you've read it > in the original Arabic - go on, have you? I promise to be very > impressed if you have). I can't read Arabic. The sorting of the chapters ("Suras") in the canonical Koran is more or less by size; some translations try to sort chronologically or re-arrange things to make it more readable, but that sort of thing smacks too much of imposing a particular interpretation for me to approve of those versions. My own copy is the revised Penguin Classics one by N J Dawood, 1999 reprint, with the Suras in the traditional order. I also refer to online translations and I've used my local library. >> Whatever you >> might believe about the origin of the quotes, that leaves a lot of room for >> interpretation. > > In some ways, but it's pretty crystal clear in places if you ask me. Taking passages or verses in isolation, is a mistake. The traditional main-stream Moslem view seems to be that the whole thing needs to be taken only as a whole - absorbed into one's being, if you can get mystical enough. That applies to the Bible too. But extremists and fundamentalists do indeed take both books apart and choose to emphasise only those parts that support their particular agendas; they're as bad and wrong as each other. >> Even more so when the lack of vowels in the 'original' >> makes some passages capable of many 'readings', > > Which is the problem with the fact that I've got a translation. Certainly translating something that's essentially meaningless isn't easy. Dawood just ignores the Arabic characters whose meaning no-one knows which occur as headings of some Surahs; for the rest of it, I think he uses the "Cairo" text, which has vowel indications inserted to clarify (or impose) particular readings on those passages where alternative vowels would give other meanings. The Cairo text seems to be accepted as 'official' by most Moslem scholars - although the Saudi Arabians (Wahabi puritanical 'fundamentalist' sect) apparently print many copies these days and insert additional text and notes which tend to support their particular interpretations. But the vowel insertions do mean that even the Cairo text is in effect an interpretation or even a translation, which I think is an awkward point for those arguing the infallibility of the text they rely on. >>some of them so obscure as >> to be essentially meaningless. The overall balance is towards peace and >> tranquility, but sections are certainly open to the opposite 'reading'. > > Certain bits are not really possible to interpret in any way other than > `kill the infidel'... See my comment above about about selecting bits out of the whole. >> (Not that I'm competent to judge either the original Arabic text or the >> current versions, let alone the various interpretations - scholars devote >> their lives to that sort of thing, and I haven't; I depend on reading what >> scholars have written). > > Likewise. Some of the scholars are worse than the sort that work for > the Pope. So refer to many scholars from different 'schools' and traditions. >> > The Old Testament can be read like that too, if you don't have the >> > careful interpretation of `how it doesn't mean what you think it means' >> > provided by the rabbi or priest - or if you forget to pay attention to >> > the New Testament. >> >> The New Testament is also open to various interpretations. > > Oh aye, but you've got to be pretty strange to miss the basic message of > Jesus as contained in the gospels which can be boiled down to `love thy > neighbour' - it's pretty consistent if you ask me. I certainly prefer that interpretation :)) >> Unlike some >> Holy Writ, though, none of the Bible claims to be infallible or absolute >> (unlike the Koran) > > Surely the Koran itself doesn't contain a claim to infalliability? > Isn't that just what people say about it? I refer you to Surah 2 ("The Cow") verse 2: as Dawood renders it "This book is not to be doubted". That chapter actually asks the reader to try to 'invalidate' the Koran. Surah 85 ("The Constellations") verse 22 (Dawood again) is "... Surely this is a glorious Koran, inscribed on an imperishable tablet." Surah 4 ("Women"), verse 82 (per Dawood): "Will they not ponder on the Koran? If it had not come from God, they could have surely found in it many contradictions." (But the contradictions seem to be easy to find <http://www.carm.org/islam/Koran_contradictions.htm>). [...] >> > That as well. But you see, a religion is `what people do'. Religions >> > aren't `what's written in the book on its own', they're `the sum total >> > of labelled cultures'. What people do, what they say, how they >> > interpret the `holy writings' (spit). Etc. >> >> Well, no; what people do in the name of religion is still only what people >> do. > > But what is a religion if not what people think and do? Perhaps the religion coud be described as 'what people should do', to dinstinguish it from what people actually do. >> The religion stands above all that. > > From my point of view, what a religion `is' - is, well, what people > think and do. I don't see that one could take any other view. There > are usually `holy' books or similar which are interpreted by people and > acted upon by people - and it's the thinking and doing of people that > `is' the religion if you ask me. > > Without the people, it's not a religion, it's just a pile of words. Yes; the religion is seperate from those who claim to belong to it. [...] >> Push to test. (click) Release to detonate. -- anon > > <grin> Arthur listened for a short while, but being unable to understand the vast majority of what Ford was saying he began to let his mind wander, trailing his fingers along the edge of an incomprehensible computer bank, he reached out and pressed an invitingly large red button on a nearby panel. The panel lit up with the words "Please do not press this button again". He shook himself. (From THE book) -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~
From: Rowland McDonnell on 7 Aug 2008 05:58
Whiskers <catwheezel(a)operamail.com> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet> wrote: > > Whiskers <catwheezel(a)operamail.com> wrote: > > [...] > > > The point is that you can't avoid brainwashing if you want to bring up > > human beings. My plan is to have a lot more diversity than we've > > currently got in the hope that it'll end up a lot more decent. > > There's a paradox in there somewhere. `Paradox' is a label for a semantic misunderstanding. > > [snip] > > > >> >> >> > It's just that too many religions end up teaching hatred and > >> >> >> > exclusion and lunacy. Just look at Northern Ireland. It's been > >> >> >> > getting worse since the nominal start to the end of The Troubles. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Rowland. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It isn't "religions" that are doing that - it's people. > >> >> > > >> >> > Well, yes - but what's a religion except `what people do'? > >> >> > >> >> Religions don't teach conflict or hatred > >> > > >> > Islam doesm unavoidably - just read the Koran. (it says lots of things, > >> > but it's hard to miss the exhortations to fight the infidel - and unlike > >> > the Bible, there's no bit tacked on the end telling everyone to be nice > >> > to each other; the Muslim view is that Mohammed's teachings supersede > >> > those of Jesus.) > >> > >> I have read the Koran. It's weakness (and some might say, its strength > >> too) is that it's a collection of remembered quotes ('recitations') taken > >> entirely out of context and sorted by (of all things) size. > > > > That depends on what translation you're reading. (unless you've read it > > in the original Arabic - go on, have you? I promise to be very > > impressed if you have). > > I can't read Arabic. Nor me. > The sorting of the chapters ("Suras") in the > canonical Koran is more or less by size; some translations try to sort > chronologically or re-arrange things to make it more readable, but that > sort of thing smacks too much of imposing a particular interpretation for > me to approve of those versions. On the other hand, surely any particular arrangement is a means of trying to impose one interpretation over another? > My own copy is the revised Penguin > Classics one by N J Dawood, 1999 reprint, with the Suras in the > traditional order. I've got that one - my reading of his notes to the reader is that the suras are in size order but that size isn't the sorting order. > I also refer to online translations and I've used my > local library. More than I've bothered. > >> Whatever you > >> might believe about the origin of the quotes, that leaves a lot of room for > >> interpretation. > > > > In some ways, but it's pretty crystal clear in places if you ask me. > > Taking passages or verses in isolation, is a mistake. Umm. Generally speaking, yes - but when the book cries out for killing the infidel (basically) in no uncertain terms, I don't see how that can be counteracted by anything at all - well, unless you've got a situation such as in Christianty where `this bloke comes along and says never mind all that old fashioned bollocks, *THIS* new message upersedes all that. God is love. Love thy neighbour. Love is all.' (etc) That'll do - but Muslims put the Koran above Jesus... > The traditional > main-stream Moslem view seems to be that the whole thing needs to be taken > only as a whole - absorbed into one's being, if you can get mystical > enough. Well, yes, certainly - and while I've not done that, there are bits that I still don't see could be `interpreted' in any way other than the rather nasty way they seem to be written (I put it like that because we've both got a translation). > That applies to the Bible too. Sort of. If you're a Christian, the old and new testaments should be considered in very different lights - the former being superseded by the latter. > But extremists and > fundamentalists do indeed take both books apart and choose to emphasise > only those parts that support their particular agendas; they're as bad and > wrong as each other. Ish. It depends on what they do with their warped interpretations. Those who use their interpretation as an excuse for murder are a lot worse than those who use their interpretation as an excuse for lesser sins and lesser crimes. > >> Even more so when the lack of vowels in the 'original' > >> makes some passages capable of many 'readings', > > > > Which is the problem with the fact that I've got a translation. > > Certainly translating something that's essentially meaningless isn't easy. > Dawood just ignores the Arabic characters whose meaning no-one knows which > occur as headings of some Surahs; for the rest of it, I think he uses the > "Cairo" text, which has vowel indications inserted to clarify (or impose) > particular readings on those passages where alternative vowels would give > other meanings. The Cairo text seems to be accepted as 'official' by most > Moslem scholars - although the Saudi Arabians (Wahabi puritanical > 'fundamentalist' sect) apparently print many copies these days and insert > additional text and notes which tend to support their particular > interpretations. That would explain the very fancy Korans being handed out at Freshers Fair (Manchester University, some years back) printed at the King Fahd Holy Koran Printing Works. I jest not - gorgeous hardback books, with the Arabic original on one page and the corresponding English translation on the facing page. I didn't find out they were being handed out until the day after when a friend of mine who had trotted along showed me what he'd picked up - for free! To anyone who wanted one! My guess is that there are different factions involved in a sort of `Koran printing war'. > But the vowel insertions do mean that even the Cairo > text is in effect an interpretation or even a translation, which I think > is an awkward point for those arguing the infallibility of the text they > rely on. Now there's a point that I'd not thought of before. > >>some of them so obscure as > >> to be essentially meaningless. The overall balance is towards peace and > >> tranquility, but sections are certainly open to the opposite 'reading'. > > > > Certain bits are not really possible to interpret in any way other than > > `kill the infidel'... > > See my comment above about about selecting bits out of the whole. > > >> (Not that I'm competent to judge either the original Arabic text or the > >> current versions, let alone the various interpretations - scholars devote > >> their lives to that sort of thing, and I haven't; I depend on reading what > >> scholars have written). > > > > Likewise. Some of the scholars are worse than the sort that work for > > the Pope. > > So refer to many scholars from different 'schools' and traditions. There is that. But the point I was getting at is that I don't trust any of them and don't know how to judge between them. <shrug> I suppose it all boils down to me objecting to almost all religions on various grounds. (I find it hard to object to Methodists, Eastern Buddhists, and the Ba'hai folk. Western Buddhists tend to be a poisonous lot.) [snip] > >> Unlike some > >> Holy Writ, though, none of the Bible claims to be infallible or absolute > >> (unlike the Koran) > > > > Surely the Koran itself doesn't contain a claim to infalliability? > > Isn't that just what people say about it? > > I refer you to Surah 2 ("The Cow") verse 2: as Dawood renders it "This > book is not to be doubted". Okay - but is that quite the same thing as claiming infallability? It could be understood to mean that if you sign up to the religion, doubt in the Koran is something you may not have, rather than it being a claim of absolute correctness? This is where the interpretation arguments come from - and it's a bit silly to be arguing in that way over a translation. > That chapter actually asks the reader to try > to 'invalidate' the Koran. Yeah, while stating that anyone who tries to do so will certainly fail. Mind you, all those so-called Muslims who get hot under the collar about anyone trying to question Islam - heh: such behaviour goes against the teachings of the Koran, yes? > Surah 85 ("The Constellations") verse 22 > (Dawood again) is "... Surely this is a glorious Koran, inscribed on an > imperishable tablet." A permanent record doesn't make infalliability. And in any case: inscribed on an imperishable tablet? That makes it not the original Koran which was only passed orally (not that that phase lasted for very long) >Surah 4 ("Women"), verse 82 (per Dawood): "Will > they not ponder on the Koran? If it had not come from God, they could have > surely found in it many contradictions." (But the contradictions seem to be > easy to find <http://www.carm.org/islam/Koran_contradictions.htm>). Oh yes. > [...] > > >> > That as well. But you see, a religion is `what people do'. Religions > >> > aren't `what's written in the book on its own', they're `the sum total > >> > of labelled cultures'. What people do, what they say, how they > >> > interpret the `holy writings' (spit). Etc. > >> > >> Well, no; what people do in the name of religion is still only what people > >> do. > > > > But what is a religion if not what people think and do? > > Perhaps the religion coud be described as 'what people should do', to > dinstinguish it from what people actually do. Yes, but who's making the judgement on what they should do? Any allegedly devoutly religious person will explain that they're trying to do what their religion tells them to - according to their judgement. Hence suicide bombings and religion-inspired murders of all kinds. It's all about people interpreting words. > >> The religion stands above all that. > > > > From my point of view, what a religion `is' - is, well, what people > > think and do. I don't see that one could take any other view. There > > are usually `holy' books or similar which are interpreted by people and > > acted upon by people - and it's the thinking and doing of people that > > `is' the religion if you ask me. > > > > Without the people, it's not a religion, it's just a pile of words. > > Yes; the religion is seperate from those who claim to belong to it. I don't see that myself. > [...] > > >> Push to test. (click) Release to detonate. -- anon > > > > <grin> > > Arthur listened for a short while, but being unable to understand the > vast majority of what Ford was saying he began to let his mind wander, > trailing his fingers along the edge of an incomprehensible computer > bank, he reached out and pressed an invitingly large red button on a > nearby panel. The panel lit up with the words "Please do not press this > button again". He shook himself. > (From THE book) Yes. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |