Don Davis article (Idealogy digression)

Don't fret for those billions living under a spacefaring taliban - in case
you haven't noticed, the ways of sharia do not allow for economies that will
support such things as the industrial base, research and such necessary for
these undertakings. In addition, the ideologies attendant with their
'civilization' do not tolerate any innovation or free thought, and cut off
half their brainpower from the very start by eliminating women from the
system - all things I would think requisite for getting a good start into
spacefaring. The current wasture of trillions of dollars while perpetuating
abject poverty and brutal oppression, and a long history of virtually no
advances of note anywhere within that system speak volumes. All of which
dates back many centuries prior to the usually blamed western powers
interference for oil or whatnot. No, what you should be concerned about is
how such a system is being pushed into Europe and other western countries,
the former vanguards of the Renaissance, and the places that offer the best
hope for realizing our dream of getting off planet.

And by the way, those who push this horrible system have absolutely no
compunction whatsoever about using their military methods to change the
regimes that you may live under to those more of their own liking.

-Val

>From: "John Frazer"
>Reply-To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Don Davis article (Idealogy digression)
>Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 00:54:22 -0000
>
>Mr Davis wrote earlier that there seems to be coming, a major clash
>between societies: the Muslim world and the rest -specifically the
>West.
>
>I second that, but I have to take exception to the idea that
>the "Islamo-Fascists" are attacking us only because they hate our
>freedoms or our moral failings. They surely see many things in our
>culture as symptomatic of the sickness, but their answer isn't more
>morally stringent behaviour -no sex outside marriage, no reproductive
>freedoms or failing marriages.
>Their antagonism with us started with the professional politician
>class using the military to fight -regardless of freedom- for the
>botom line of the big money which put them into their offices. In
>this conflict, they couldn't care less about our marital infidelity
>and bare female midriffs.
>Secondly, perhaps less immediate but more fiercely, their social and
>moral differences with us are irreconcilable. Their only moral demand
>is that everyone everywhere must and will eventually follow Islam.
>That will take care of the political/economical clashes too, since
>all leaders in any office will be religious leaders.
>We could be all living the protestant idealogical dream of James
>Dobson (or alternatively the Catholic version...), and their intense
>hatred of our idolatrous and sinful ways would be no less, because in
>their view, there is only really two fundamental divisions in the
>world: Islam, the regions of peace under God's laws, and the rest of
>the world.
>
>I second Davis' idea that the best hope for space is for differrent
>idealogies to find their own ways. I mourn in advance the billions
>who will be forced by accident of birth to live under a space-faring
>Taliban's ways, and also those living under the world view of Rev
>Dobson and Robertson -otherwise known as the "American Taliban", as
>well as those stuck in colonies formed by the Mormon church or the
>Vatican. The difference is that unlike religious fervor for "saving"
>those living in repressive societies, I don't feel the need to take
>military action in the form of a New Crusade to change the regimes
>these people suffer under.
>
>A few articles which some here might like:
>
>The War Against Fundamentalism
>by Cenk Uygur
>www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-war-against-
>fundament_b_5898.html
>We are not fighting a war against terror. Terror is a method of
>warfare. Fighting against terror is kind of like fighting against
>rifles. It misses the point. The question is who is behind the
>terrorism and why?
>
>How can we possibly win a war when we don't even know who the enemy
>is?
>...
>Perhaps this is what you get when you have a president who
>doesn't "do nuance." But putting aside who is at fault for this
>misguided war and whether they purposely chose to mislead us with
>ambiguous titles like the "war on terror," let's get to the heart of
>the issue -- what are we really fighting against?
>
>I have a simple answer -- fundamentalism. Muslim fundamentalists
>believe it is their moral duty to fight a jihad against the West.
>They are guided by their strict, literal reading of the Koran (helped
>along by hateful imams who select the worst parts of the Koran).
>
>But we are not just aligned against Muslim fundamentalists. The
>problem is broader than that. It is Jewish fundamentalists like the
>Gaza settlers and Christian fundamentalists like Tom DeLay who want
>to drive us further into this conflict. They also rely on their
>absurd interpretations of their religious texts.
>(cont'd)
>
> If You're a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/if-youre-a-christian-
>mu_b_9349.html
>
>The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience
>http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2005/001/3.8.html
>
>Muslims and The West After 11th September
>By Pervez Hoodbhoy
>www.chowk.com/show_writer_page.cgi?pen_name=Pervez+Hoodbhoy
>(snipped)
>Fearful of backlash, most leaders of Muslim communities in the US,
>Canada, and Europe have responded in predictable ways to the Twin
>Towers atrocity. This has essentially two parts: first, that Islam is
>a religion of peace; and second, that Islam was hijacked by fanatics
>on the 11th of September 2001. They are wrong on both counts.
>First, Islam - like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or any other
>religion - is not about peace. Nor is it about war. Every religion is
>about absolute belief in its own superiority and the divine right to
>impose itself upon others.
>(cont'd)
>
>"Time to Stand Up!"
>http://ffrf.org/timely/dawkins.php
>
>"Monotheism and its Discontents"
>http://www.isebrand.com/Gore_Vidal_Monotheism_1992.htm
>
>Janet Baker wrote:
> > Regarding Iraq... it is such an ideological war that
> >it seems if we would cease so many of the activities
> >that muslims object to and lead more virtuous, family
> >friendly lives, we could save a whole, whole lot of
> >money and use it on space projects.
> > Iraq seems even more of a quagmire than Vietnam did,
> >and their terrorists seem even more dedicated than
> >Vietnam's Freedom Fighters, except their aim is
> >(their version of) social virtue rather than people's
> >communes; your piggy bank is safe. Think of how much
> >government money could be saved if we women would just
> >dress more modestly and men would stop acting like
> >horny dogs and stick with the women they marry.
>
>and
>
> >... my brilliant idea of all us anti-war folk
>resolving to lead extra virtuous lives, especially regarding sexual
>ethics, and thus de-arm the terrorists and use the money we'd save
>for space programs...
> > We'd first re-criminalize the wholesale murder of unborn children
>(and
>get ahead in the population game, too, which muslims are currently
>winning by like four to one). Then we'd voluntarily hurt
>pornographers in the pocketbook by absolutely refusing to buy their
>products. And we'd get married and stay married. Man, they wouldn't
>know what hit them!
> >
> >'Cause we probably never never will win in Iraq or elsewhere in the
>Muslim world, as you say. And they never never will quit. Because
>unlike Vietnam which just wanted to be comfortable like the West but
>by another economic path, Muslims don't want to be like us in any
>way, fearing the social havoc our many freedoms bring, in their
>demented way of seeing it.
>

Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!