arif

This is sad. I will say one thing. I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of Betsy. I would submit that someone who is not a Canadian citizen, and who is found guilty of hate speech or hate crime ought to be deported immediately. But A Canadian citizen cannot be deported but must be dealt with under Canadian law with our nation taking responsibility for holding the person accountable. Thus ethnicity or religious background doesn not imply that deportation is the correct action.The FLQ terrorists could not be deported to France for example. We face an impediment also to deporting someone who faces a risk of torture, this a covenant of our nation pledged with the nations ratifying the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. Lawmakers and law enforcement should show no hesitation in applying the law and providing security save when there is violation of civil rights and due process. Would that the rule of law was always satisfying, but if it were it would likely lead to injustice. I encourage all Canadians to uphold vigorously the rule of law and standard of conduct in civil society, where religion is separate from state. Do not show accomodation to hateful action and speech and be proud of the accomplishments of Canadian civil institutions of liberty and tolerance, therefore do not tolerate intolerance. Remember the accomplishments of Rosemary Brown, Tommy Douglas, MLK, Rosa Parks and a great many others that define the best of our culture. Muslims should recall the freedom of thought and conscience of the golden age of Islam that predated the Renaissance and Enlightenment and influenced them, the work of Nasr din Tusi, Avicenna, the Ikwan as-Safa, remember Rabia. Remember Ibn Gabirol and who tought him, and who learned from him. The Enlightenment, the rational and humanistic foundation of civil institutions and modern democracy, and enlightenment, that spiritual depth of insight are what shall survive the current confusion of the world, give no heed to the blind and protect enlightenment by living thusly. We have encountered supremacists bent on violence before, such as the KKK. Their religious attachments are as obscene as the speaking of God's names in this quoted threat. The important thing to remember is also how easily all religions are given to hypocritical manipulations, indoctrination and cult-like behaviour. We rightly recoil with disgust. One has little control over what others do, only one's own behaviour, to which alone one is accountable to God. Yet, hope for something to improve does not seem to affect anything. Fear is what is desired by the threat. The only thing for me to do is hold steadfast to ethics, rationality, faith and the spirit of who we are as a people. I've said more than I meant to, most of it pointless. be well arif

Problem: a muslim family dispute could very easily BE a criminal offense. When a muslim man beats his wife, do you think she's going to speak up when asked if she wants to abide by the sharia dispute mechanism? NO! She's going to OK it. Wife beating is a common practise in muslim households, even approved of by the Koran. This new "shari dispute mechanism" smells of the stuff in Australia, where police handbooks suggest lesser action against muslim wife-beaters out of "respect for religious habits and traditions". I posted the Australian example months ago, and titled the post "is Canada next"? Guess what? we ARE next. What a disgusting country. As a Muslim, I'm totally against Sharia law having any legal basis in Canada. I thought we went through this already and decided no? In the Ontario case, there were many Muslims opposed to Sharia, and voiced opposition. I don't even believe in Sharia, it is not the word of God, it is some clerics interpretation. As an example, the Koran says "no compulsion in religion", yet in Afghanistan they want the death penalty for conversion. It's obvious to me that the Sharia there is completely opposite to what the Koran says. It's obvious that it is faulty, artificial, a tool for the powerful. If so, why are Muslims so attached to it? my 2 cents, Arif

What do you mean by potential? What I mean by equality is valuing. I don't mean that people are the same. There can be equality in diversity. I mean that I see you as an equal, even though we are different. You equal worth to me in society. While people don't treat people equally, when they see each other as equal, they see that each of us has the potential to make the best choices available to us. I agree that the state should be careful on how it treats people differently. You can treat people differently and support equality, or you can treat people the same or differently and support inequality. I've used disability as an example. The state does not give everyone a disability pension, it gives it to those who cannot work because of their disability. One definition of discrimination is simply making distinctions, so yes it is discrimination. The definition of discrimination in legal terms ie. discrimination is illegal, is not the same. In that case, a building that does not provide wheelchair access discriminates access to the building based on disability. In the first case, the discrimination is justified because we see that a market-based, productivity-based society discriminates naturally against those unable to work, so correcting the discrimination gives the disabled person (close to) adequate resources to survive, on the basis of their basic equal value to individuals who can work. One note is that some disabilities can be overcome in terms of a person finding work. In this case, our pension system can actually work against that because there are disincentives to returning to work. You may be able to reenter the workforce only in a job that pays $10 without benefits, but your income takes away your benefit for the medication you need to buy, and if your meds are very expensive, it makes no economic sense to return to work. A lot of young people can work at $10/hr no problem without benefits, and I'm not suggesting every pizza hut employee must have benefits. In this case, there is inequality, because two people might be just as good as employees in a job, but the disabled person can't get off disability. Although we have some programs providing continued benefits even while the pension income is replaced by employment, they are far from adequate, so there are still many disincentives. This may seem to support your notion that as we attempt equality we end up with inequality etc. But the reality is that you need a disability support system, because many will never be able to work, and others may need time to recover, or may need to quit work. But we do need a system, that as you said, supports potential. My crazy ideas on equality come from working with homeless, psychiatric survivors, developmentally delayed, alcoholics, immigrants, refugees, people with HIV/AIDS, and from being a psychiatric survivor myself (so I have papers to prove I'm crazy!). I've seen how people with all of these labels are devalued and feel devalued, but having experienced being on either side of the 'nursing station' if you will, I understand that though we occupy different stations in life, we're equal in value as human beings. I have only a sense of fortune that I've gone from spending a good year of my life (at different times over five years) in a psychiatric hospital, that now I'm in a management position in an international organization. I don't feel that I'm superior to some friends who are still in and out of hospital, nor inferior to another friend who went through that and is now a surgeon, just more fortunate! Again, my sense of equality has to with valuing, not exact treatment, so that equal valuing can result in different treatment for different people. And I hope all of us have the opportunity to fulfil that potential. I will soon be lucky enough to travel to Africa. One of the things we find unacceptable in the world is unequal valuing of life itself across the world. This means that we have much less adequate treatment protocols for HIV in 'resource-poor' settings. With the contsraints we have, we can only give a single nevirapine dose to mothers with HIV to prevent mother--child-transmission. While it's better than nothing, and cuts transmission in half, anyone in the West would get the full cocktail and reduce by 95%, and they would get treatment and nutrition support for that treatment for life, while the mother in Africa will likely die and orphan their child. That the WHO can have different protols of treatment for people reflects reality, and is unavoidable, but in principle, it violates medical ethics. Therefore, it is an ideal that we should work towards to live up to those ethics. Cheers, Arif

Argus, your scholarship of muslim history is limited and obviously biased. we've been experiencing successive empire-building world-domination themes for thousands of years. we've had the Greeks, the romans, the mongols, the crusades, communists, colonialists, and we have the nice and subtle neoliberalists backing the multinational corporations, and the muslims too. I understand that. But the Greeks and Mongols are no longer a threat. Even if their tone had not moderated, their numbers have. The Muslim world's numbers continue to grow, and yet, they do not appear to be growing more moderate. Granted that what you say sounds quite logical. But that does not alter what is. Even if we manage to get all the Jews out of the occupied territories and set up some sort of Palestinian state, I do not think this would reduce the level of religiously inspired violence or antagonism towards others which is rife in the Muslim world. The religious intolerence emenating from the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran are not the result of failed states, for both nations are comparatively well-run and wealthy by third-world terms. Yet they appear to be the primary source of the intellectual inspiration for religiously inspired violence. The young, well-off Saudis volunteering to be suicide bombers are not the products of poverty, violence and desperation, after all. The Saudis are a product of the unholy marriage of an exceedingly regressive and fundamentalist Wahabbi interpretation of Islam, with a corrupt House of Saud, which hoped to gain political authority by gaining the sponsorhip of Wahab. The US has no difficulty in providing the wealth by buying the oil - so you get an awful mix of corruption, money and power that legitimizes itself through relationship with Wahabbism. Wahabbism has its attraction because it is fundamentalist and literalist, though its use of literal authority is selective and without context, it attracts those who wish to reject modernity. And though you and I appreciate modernity and see it as more good than bad, it is possible to create a laundry list of its negative points, especially when the West carries its colonial and economically imperialist baggage. I have no sympathy for the Wahabbis in general, especially those who embrace its tenets even having had access to a broader education and opportunities. Iran was better off with the Shah, yet it was the colonial nature of the Shah that encouraged the Revolution. What followed was great regression and oppression of dissidence. Khotami offered hope of reform, but his hands were tied by the power of the clerics who held authority over police, and even Khotami backpedalled on his promises to the Iranian youth. Now it is much worse, as Iran's leader is apparently insane. for those countries, I agree that there is great threat. I would agree that the current greatest threat the world that is using religion as a force, are the Islamists. It is as you say. But remember that Khotami was being urged by the Iranian youth to reform. We know that China is a great threat, we know what it's done to Tibet. But we remember the students of tian'nammen square, so we cannot say that Chinese imperialism is a Chinese cultural force, no more than we can say that Islamism is integral to Islam itself. I often pondered how I would address a North African culture that practiced female genital mutilation. I'm no cultural relativist, and full well believe that the practice is wrong, but instead of demeaning an entire culture as backward and hopeless, I would look and see where the effort is from within that culture to change the practice. In this case, the absence of FGM in other cultures shows those cultures that the practise isn't necessary, while cultural relativism would reinforce the validity of it. We all influence one another, that's why these forums are great. You'll find those people who are saying look, we've got to stop doing this, you support them from outside the culture, and soon enough, governments are banning the practise. You have people in that culture who've traveled and opened their eyes, and they move to change. We're going to change it, I'm willing to commit my life to it, to bring peace. Arif

Freedom means all or none, and there is no shortage of criticism here for all religions, though Islam may be the 'flavour of the day'. Howver, true strength, faith and fortitude require rising above criticism, not combating it. I think maybe I'm misunderstood, I'm not trying to combat criticism, and you'll find that I'm very critical of Islam. but it is like if you really care about democracy for instance, you would be critical of democratic governments when not acting in the spirit of democracy, you would still believe in democracy. It's the distinction between insult and criticism, which if there is no distinction, why the guideline. And if the guideline, what does it mean - if anything? For the record, I will take even the prayer mat threads as criticism rather than insult, but I don't speak for everyone. I described to Argus my two reactions to the cartoons. In a sense, I do agree with the cartoons, I especially like the one about running out of virgins - but the thing is that there are multiple interpretations of them, some of which are insulting and some of which are not. And I loved it on South park, when Cartman was doing the Christian rock record - but I know that Christianity's much deeper than alot of Christian rock that they are making fun of, and it doesn't make me feel that Christianity itself is silly. But thinking of that made me understand, that maybe something good will come out of this - I'm sure that there are tons of Christians who dig southpark, in the future, maybe muslims all over will feel fully part of society and feel left out if we're not made fun of! Arif

Argus, your scholarship of muslim history is limited and obviously biased. we've been experiencing successive empire-building world-domination themes for thousands of years. we've had the Greeks, the romans, the mongols, the crusades, communists, colonialists, and we have the nice and subtle neoliberalists backing the multinational corporations, and the muslims too. the thing about ignorance and fear is that it escalates conflict, it sends both sides to the extremes, it sets out a reactionary tone, rather than a proactionary one. it works like this, you take the middle east - palestine in particular. you have mostly arabs, some jewish people, some christians - you have the occasional conflicts and such. then the brits come along with their wonderful record of divide and rule, they start slicing up the pie. there is plenty of immigration. now, even in canada where immigrants are contributing greatly to the economy, there can be a backlash. in palestine you have a 3rd party colonialist controlling while playing on the divide and rule strategy. Then they create a state of israel in that land with historic ties to judaism and in response to the holocaust, israel relies on zionism for great immigration to ensure ethnically based majority in the region, palestinians are marginalized. palestinians all along are not without blame politically and civilly in antagonizing immigrants and not showing goodwill to the reality of the need for israel following the holocaust. the brits pull out with a number of border and land disputes and a lingering sense of injustice and animosity. palestinians and israelis dispute these for the next half century, except that aid from the US goes primarily to israel. israel creates a modern, democratic state while palestinians remain stateless. none of justifies the escalation of violence on civilians by the palestinians, which further destabilizes the region and reverses their progress toward a solution. over the years many israelis and palestinians develop relationships and seek peace through moderation. yet violence diminishes their voice, violence is reported by the media where ordinary progress is not. palestinians continue with violence against civilians that contravenes the most basic international law, israel routinely contravenes these laws as well. then hamas gets elected setting us all back. Failed politics and long-standing patterns of conflict-escalation and reaction create the context for the rise of religious violence, as the regression to simplistic, emotionally charged and violent interpretations becomes attractive to the desperate. the spirtually degraded clerics who can take advantage of this energy gain an upper hand. when insults are heaped on top of this, on everyone in the group, some will carry on rejecting violence, for others its yet another push in the direction of accepting a solution that offers divinely-inspired rage in the place of shame and helplessness. It's no crime to understand a situation, and it has nothing to do with tolerance or being a bleeding heart. Understanding a situation is important for those who wish to solve problems, less important for those who simply want to chirp away on the sidelines. peace, Arif

I want to reprint something from one of the threads I'm in because I believe it is apt here in answer to this. I think that the only thing which is ever going to cause reform to occur among Muslims is criticism of the current practices of Islam, of the current interpretations of the Koran, of the way Islam is being preached and taught. In other words, you need to attack some sacred cows in order to bring about change. That cannot happen within the Muslim community, certainly not within the Muslim world. Any criticism of the Koran or the interpretations of it is forbidden. If we in the West also censor ourselves, by government fiat or private "common sense" then there will be no change in the way Islam is taught or preached. The changes in Christianity over the centuries were not instituted by the churches out of the kindness and goodness of their hearts. They were brought about through ceaseless campaigning and criticism and debate and discussion and disagreement which was openly expressed and which deeply, deeply offended and outraged many believers over that time. If they hadn't been pushed, Christianity would still be burning people as heretics. The problem with Islam is that it hasn't been pushed. And what you and others are saying is that it must not be pushed - ever. Granted, there were some riots and a lot of people were feeling prickly and offended. But I can't help wondering if a lot of people weren't also feeling a sense of guilt and discomfort about WHY their religion was being depicted in the way it was, and didn't stop to think with some anger, at all those within the Muslim world who had provoked such feelings and continue to provoke such feelings. Because the fact is that a criticism of Islam over violence is more than fair. The criticism was valid and necessary. Just because some people didn't like it is no reason to not do it. I believe that the cartoons which provoked this recent spate of Muslim topics were valid criticism, and I also believe that most of the discussion on this issue, and most of the criticism (not all) of Islam and the great mass (though not all) of those who practice it are valid. Even if you are offended by it. That's funny, I just read that thread and wanted to respond. I have no problem with criticism, and you are wrong to say that Muslims cannot be critical. I have said it before and will say it again that terrorist violence is heretical. I will say that Wahabbi influence on Sunni Islam has been disastrous, that literalism and fundamentalism are backward in principle and in the results they bring about. I have no problem in criticizing the interpretations, and will go so far as to place the revelation in context - that there are universal ethics within, but a large part of the revelation is relevant exoterically to 6th century Arab contexts. Further, from the beginning there has been interpretation, and the Wahabbi movement wants to lay absolute authority with the early interpretations where a literal interpretation does not suffice. As a Shia muslim, interpretation is guided by the Imamate so as to be temporally relevant. You may find that Shia Ismailis have undertaken the most reform and are most at ease in the modern West, in part due to the leadership of the Imamate and being the only Shia sect to have a living Imam today. That does not mean that a great number of other Shias and Sunnis are digusted with the actions of the radicals, that they have not undertaken reform. And then there are the Sufis, who have carried a deep spiritual vision forward through 14 centuries, the Sufis who are most likely to be engaged in interfaith peace movements with progressive Jews and Christians and others. You see our Islam as a uniform monolith when it is not. Everyone says that the moderates ought to speak out, but we must have the right to be respected as Muslims. Thus, if there is a slander that attacks all Muslims and they are included, our voice of peaceful protest against that slander ought to be respected. You do not think we will simply turn around and say that yes, you are right, the religion is all wrong, we have all been devils trying to take over the world. What is the sense of reforming it then? Is it not easy in times of conflict to forget to discern? It's easy to group all Japanese during WWII and intern them, their association with Hirohito and the kamikaze's merely by nationality. It's easy to lump crime with black culture, it's easy to dismiss all aboriginals as alcoholics, it's easy to forget the damage to the world that colonialism has done, but shall we say that all whites are colonialists - I think not. It is not true today, and was not even true when Europe counted as property the entire content of Africa. All it takes is a belief in the decency of all people to get by this. If you believe that Muslims are by and large decent people, you would have faith in our courage to reform, instead of making it more difficult by heaping insult upon insult, and assuming we have no mind of our own, by indicating no respect for the positon we are in. So again, I ask you as I have asked others to join with Muslims who are faithful to Islam and believe that violence is wrong, and definitely wrong in the name of Islam, support us as your allies. I actually have both feelings about the cartoons. I do understand the satire. I see the cartoonists intent, as satire is supposed to, to reflect reality as a caricature. Since it is a reflection, what it is reflecting is what these so-called Muslims have done themselves, which is to represent Islam as violence, as suicide bombing. The image of the prophet (pbuh) with a bomb on his turban is a caricature of the message that the radicals have created. In this sense, these radicals created the cartoon, the cartoonist merely acted as a mirror. At the same time, when I see it it is like punch in the stomach, it hurts. I understand that the origin of the cartoon is the violence and have little problem with the cartoonist, but why repeatedly publish the thing? What is freedom of speech if it is reactionary, as if it has to be published to say it is free speech, wouldn't it be equally free to refuse to publish it? This punch in the stomach is also the realization that this is what people think of me as a muslim, it may even be what people think of themselves, as martyrs in the defence of Islam through their violence. The whole thing is sickening to those with a knowledge of the history of Islam. You are free to insult and assume, you are also free to think beyond the insults and assumptions. The fact that you set out a prayer mat five times a day in remembrance of God, that you congregate as a community of faith has nothing to be ashamed about. And it is not each Muslim's personal responsiblity to put an end to terrorism, those who wish to take up the criticism can do it, but those who just want to live, pray and work are just like you. If you are a catholic, It woldn't be fair to call upon you personally to get the pope to change his policy condoms, though i would support anyone efforts and struggles on the issue. And if this is part of your life that helps you and brings you closer to God, and you are out to live a normal life, that is fine. That being said, I'm not of the temperament to do the regular thing myself, so I intend to seek out and establish a movement of muslim pacifism, why? It kills me, it destroys my spirit, every time on the radio I hear another suicide bombing, and it is not just because the Koran or the hadith says that to kill an innocent person is like killing all of humanity, it is because that is a natural human reaction. It is because it ought to be a natural human reaction for anyone, that it says that in the Koran. That is why I maintain that among the contextual exoterics of the Koran, there are universal and eternal truths. We need your help to reverse the fundamentalist/literalist/extremist/radical trend. It is by working together with respect that we will actually accomplish this. I'm no longer interested in the 'critics' who cannot be bothered to make the necessary distinctions. Will you be the first supporter of this muslim pacifist movement idea? with utmost peace, Arif

I was trying to point out the obvious, that Jefferson et. al had made progress in introducing equality as a fundamental principle of the founding of a nation, but at the time, women and non-whites were not included in "men". If they were, it would have been immediately obvious that lack of suffrage for women, and slavery were inconsistent with the declaration. So as women and non-whites came to be seen as equal, that meaning has changed, yes in the 20th century (it took that long!). Now, we can take this more rational meaning and examine its implications. ---- I've got no dispute with this argument (nor freakygirl's comments, though she should know I'm happily married!). I'm arguing for a more philosophical view on fundamental equality. People are free to see others as unequal, though if they were too deeply examine this, they could see that it would be difficult to establish objectively such judgments. Such judgments may be useful, but are not absolute, so that while freakygirl would see as as unequal, I good mental exercise for me is to see as as equal fundamentally. I have noticed that when I do this, it is ultimately freeing. The state should follow the highest level of ethical philosophy and treat people as equal according to their needs and rights. When people have the capacity to secure their person, shelter and basic needs, and their civil liberties are protected, they are free to work within a meritocracy. If significant barriers exist on this, or civil liberties are curtailed, this freedom does not exist. The state has an obligation therefore, in saying that it is treating its citizens equally, to control those things that are within its mandate that interfere with a level playing field. I would leave the extent of the governments mandate open to debate. Further, if citizens cannot (and in this some cases are clearer than others) secure their person, shelter and basic needs, the state has an obligation to intervene, whether directly (favoured by socialists), or making sure that charities can fill that need (preferred by conservatives). This argument stems from the statement that people are created equal, which we take to understand that even those with severe disabilities are equal in the eyes of the state, so that if the state has encouraged a capitalist system, it must recognize that not all are able secure capital. If there are protections for risk-taking, like corporate welfare and bankruptcy, there ought to be protections for those without the capacity to compete in the marketplace. It must be understood that treating people equally does not mean taxing all at the same rate, treating all students in primary school the same regardless of their advantages and disadvantages. This is not equality, it's uniformity. In the case of bankrupty as a protection for someone putting up risk in a venture, and protection for vulnerable people, the contexts are completely different - but the notion that there should be protections for all is a notion based in equality. Further, though you say we treat each other unequally and treating people in our personal lives has little to do with the declaration, on a philosophical level, feeling superior to anyone based on endowment seems only ego. We often do, and probably should, make value judgments about ourselves and others based on character and merit that are within our control. But even these can be suspect with thorough examination, so the utility of those judgments must be questioned, and yes, sometimes they do have utility. It is much more satisfying to err on the side of an assumption of equality. Establishing objectively either inequality or equality may not be possible, so without a good reason, why should we make a judgment of inequality? Ethical arguments may use positive evidence, but their assumptions cannot be verified empirically. The logical positivists did not feel that ethics had anything to do with truth. These are axioms by which rational arguments can be made and then supported with empirical evidence. The axioms themselves represent the heart of humanity and it's highest desires, it's desire to be in accord with nature. The corporate CEO that passes by someone with cerebral palsy in a wheelchair might feel superior, but this is a useless subjective judgment. Maybe they beat their wife and kids, waste their money, and bully their way to the top of the company. Maybe the person with CP is adored for his wit and wisdom and creativity, even if he can't work. Most of the time we don't have all the info and make superficial judgments. Whatever criteria we choose are artificial, we cannot know for sure if they are valid to the equality we seek. Cheers, Arif

Many of the threads in this forum concerning Muslims are insulting (prayer mats, muslims and nazis etc.), maybe not to everyone, but to Muslims, and efforts to engage intelligent debate seem futile. Repeatedly I have sought people to make the distinction between Muslims and radical terrorists acting in the name, not the spirit, of Islam. I do wish for free speech, but this forum has guidelines which are not being observed in the current climate of animosity towards Islam. I'm only objecting because there are these guidelines, if you want to change them and allow insults I have no power over that. Obviously, since I am a pacifist Muslim, I wish nothing against anyone, only an explanation of the guideline. The unfairness of this is that given the tone of many on this forum, my complaint could now be seen as indicative of stereotypical Muslim intolerance towards free speech, which is now supposed to include the right to insult, but I didn't write your guideline, and I wonder if it can be applied fairly to all third parties in the current environment. Islam is not a nationality, is it considered a third-party? I am curious as I'm about to launch a site that includes forums, what is your governance procedure for these issues?

Leafless, Democracy is the highest form of government, yet why is it failing all over the world? - hint elections don't equal democracy. Capitalism is fine, but one of the reasons it works relatively well in the West and doesn't cause vast unhappiness for us is that we've had a strong labour movement and social democracy to counterbalance, and our nations have the economic power in the world. Shift to the globalization of capitalism without those protections, and you have the globalization of poverty. Consider this quote on the failure of global capitalism, from UNICEF in the eighties, regarding the crushing debt engineered by SAP through the Bretton Woods Institutions. "...and when the impact becomes visible in rising death rates among children... then it is essential to strip away the niceties of economic parlance and say that what has happened is simply an outrage against a large section of humanity. The developing world's debt, both in the manner in which it was incurred and in the manner in which it is being "adjusted to", is an economic stain on the second half of the twentieth century. allowing world economic problems to be taken out on the growing minds and bodies of young children is the antithesis of all civilized behaviour. Nothing can justify it. And it shames and diminishes us all." - Peter Adamson. I would point out that things got worse in the 90's, and the Gleneagles Summit is like this. Suppose we were to assign an arbitrary number of 100 to Africa signifiying its level of crisis. I would say Gleneagles reduced that to about 97, still a long way to go. Look, if you want markets all over the world to drive a world economy and a stable world, you'd be better of having healthy people working, buying and creating, then sick, dying and desperate. Social capitalism? Margrace, I appreciate your comments regarding Islam. Trying to educate people about the religion as a whole, it's positive impacts throughout history etc. is a frustrating battle these days. What we have is not a "clash of civilizations", but a clash of ignorance. arif

Jefferson stated that all men are created equal. The current constitution of the US makes "men" equivalent to all human beings, even if Jefferson meant white males. They have taken the spirit of his equality, and extended it to all human beings, recognizing that races and genders are equal, are we agreed on that? That we should go back to the original meaning seems utterly stupid in the light of what we now know. Why it appears as mixed Leftism may be that I have attempted to make the discourse unladen with left-right ideology. What does it mean for the state to treat people equally? If I am born into a poor family, I'm at a disadvantage in education and future income. So, if the government gives everyone, rich and poor, $1000 for post-secondary education, that $1000 can easily be spent at the campus bar by the rich, while I would not be able to afford the $5000 min/year to attend school, unless I work full-time which may impact on my studies thus reducing my chance of future employment. That would not be treating people equally, because the significance of the $1000 is completely different according to contexts beyond the control of the individual. Such a system would only superficially be treating people equally, while in fact favoring the endowed. Student loans are therefore available to students who demonstrate their need. I'm not sure what you mean. It may seem simplistic because I'm trying to keep the post as short as possible. I do not think there exists a freedom that is without costs. If a business is free to pollute as much as they want, that imposes a cost on future generations. I would like to argue that though the endeavour of creating extrinsic equality is not the purpose of state, creating equitable conditions is. Further, greater equality provides a non-tangible freedom, the freedom from unequal social relationships. While I would submit that a degree of inequality in power, prestige, status etc. is inevitable and desirable in a meritocracy, a fundamental equality of humannes is freeing. I can't imagine the barriers that exist in marital relationships, for instance, where one partner dominates the other and does not consider them an equal. It is absolutely freeing to be married to someone who I regard as equal. There is a barrier that is erected when my students travel overseas, when absolutely poor people know that the person is from the West and desperately want them to give them some money. How absolutely freeing it would be if Africa stood strong as a civilization equal to the West, and we will get there by beginning with a fundamental notion of equality from which equitable action arises, and extrinsic inequality that follows is never absolute and is based on merit. While meritocracy implies that all must earn their place in society, equity implies that they have that opportunity. Even clients I work with with severe intellectual disabilities have expectations on their behaviour, though neglect is out of the question and the work of the agency is to provide the best possible conditions for them to create their quality of life and contribute to the home and community. I have heard one prof say that bringing in a Western conception of self-esteem, which is given without any merit, is damaging to the people she works with, ex-child soldiers, victims of rape etc. Though they are cared for, they are expected to contribute even from the beginning of their re-integration into society, that contribution being essential to re-integration. I would submit that the creed "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability" is not inconsistent with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happinness." It is complementary. The pertinent question of this thread is about freedom and equality. Potential for what if we don't have that? Arif

I hope people can wrap their heads around this one, Islam is against terrorism (if the terrorists can speak for it, why can't the moderates?). Terrorism is the greatest threat to Islam. Islamist terrorists are fundamentally heretical to the faith. More Muslims die because of Islamist terrorism than non-Muslims. Therefore, Muslims ought to fight alongside the rest of the world against Islamist terrorism. Please join me in that fight, not include me as part of the enemy. arif

Many of the posts here arise from ideas about notions like equality and freedom, and tensions arising from the left and right on these ideas. Here I'll attempt an analysis of this. Jefferson wrote in the Dec. of Independence "all men are created equal", and the idea of equality was enshrined in Western culture. John Locke had similar ideas coming from the UK. In the beginning, this did not extend to racial minorities or women, but eventually it did as these groups made it evident that they were, and that the word "man" is meant to mean humankind inclusive of non-white and non-male humans equally. We can establish therefore that equality is a fundamental concept of Western society. The phrase, however, says that we are created equal, and we have not established what is meant by equality. There are all manners of genetic differences that endow one person with more abilities than another. We are not talking about being created equal in terms of genetic endowment (although it may be argued that those with the most disadvantage in genetics are among the most loving among us, indicating possible balancing). What we are talking about is equality in valuing individual members of society by society. Each member of society is valued equally, regardless of genetic inequality. Now, we are introduced to inequalities of nurture as well. Insofar as one person's upbringing is more beneficial than anothers that person may achieve more than the other, have more moral character, more friends, money etc. Nurture is going to shape a person in ways they cannot control. It seems inevitable that across the population, people endowed with better nurture are going to do better. Yet, we can still maintain a fundamental valuing of members by trying to mitigate negative effects of family nurturing, with a society that offers other supports, not necessarily governmental - could be a culture of a "village raising a child". Whether on the left or right, decent people will reach out to relatives or friends who we see to have been negatively affected by factors beyond their control. The third challenge and most significant challenge to equality is freedom, free will or choice. In my conception, I see freedom and responsibility as increasing with amount of choice and power a person has. A child is less responsible for what they do because they have less control, whereas more of the responsibility lies with the parents and society, although it is the responsibility of the adult world to transfer that responsibility in stages until the child can assume adult-level responsibility. A person faced with being murdered is not criminally responsible for killing or injuring his attacker when their choice is limited to that action. Yet, even with all of the forces of nature, nurture and circumstance, there are a great number of choices a person can make, and for that they are responsible. How does this effect equality for people who are able to determine to a great degree their health, income, education etc.? What role would a government have in intervening on the effects of these choices? Yet, all of us must recognize that even when we have had success we have made some bad choices and errors we shouldn't have. How able would we be to judge whether someone else is fundamentally unequal to us in intrinsic value based on the difference in our choices? Someone may have been there for us to set us on the right course. Other effects of choices are due to chance. My drastic driving error of not checking my blind spot would have no consequence if there was no car in the lane, someone else might be a quadrapeligic because of that. It seems very arrogant to attempt to compare my value as a human being, even if I could eliminate all of the things that person was not responsible for, to someone else's and to be able to say definitively that we are fundamentally unequal. Yet I must reconcile that with the fact that for myself, making good choices is an important part of valuing myself and others. Furthermore, it would be disingenous not to have a "meritocracy" in society. Society ought to reward good behaviour and punish bad, not out of the idea of the intrinsic superiority of one over the other, but actually out of a sense of setting out the conditions by which people can compete on a level playing field where there are rules and consequences. This is the concept of equity, distinct from equality but related. An attempt to establish fair conditions (equity) on the basis of intrinsic equality is distinct from the endeavour of creating extrinsic equality. Thus, it would not be necessary to pay doctors the same as store clerks (although I would say nurse-doctor equity is a question that deserves consideration). It would not be necessary to make relative all competing interests and ideas. It extends to abandoning the notion of cultural superiority, while not abandoning key ideas of a culture, such as equality itself. When other cultures are approach one another with respect, common and universal values can be agreed upon, and cultural baggage tends to be abandoned. Thus we begin with fundamental equality, address intervention with a notion of equity, and address freedom and competition as most advantageous when the equality is respected and equity is the foundation. That's all for now. Arif my (existential) poem in this existence it's possilbe to live in agony and die in peace you can realize dreams or miss, just barely you can sleep with a clear conscience while I lie awake in fear the golden child genius and the drunken failure born from the same seed humanity and you can't avoid this whatever is presenting as your life hide if you must sleeping long hours in dreamy bliss but best to be awake as the knife-blade cuts and the wine is upon your lips as the sun rises to embrace and accept embraces

Let me begin by saying that noone likes the Nazi comparison being thrown around willy-nilly. Michael pointed out some important distinctions between Nazism and Islam. It's interesting to note that the Nazi's used a Sanskrit symbol with an essential benign meaning, in fact a symbol of the Jain religion. The Jain religion is actually an ultra-pacifist religion, very ascetic and some adherents do not even eat from a plant that has been uprooted, only plant life that can nourish without losing it's own life, and some Jains even wear a mask over their mouth so as to not kill insects as they walk in the street. The swastika used by the Nazis is actually backwards and is more like a swavastika. The (original) swastika is designed in clockwise rotation, while the swavastika is designed in counterclockwise rotation, swastika actually symbolizing being with the current of nature, and swavastika against it - which is an interesting footnote. In any case, the use of religious language, symbolism etc. does not translate into a representation of that religion. The swastika (or swavastika) now unforunately represents Nazism, but Nazism is the antithesis of Jainism which produced the symbol. But Hitler claimed to be Christian, yet we can only find in him an antithesis in him to Christian religious ideas of "love they neighbour", and "love thy enemy", while any basis in Christianity for his program can only be linked to obscure and bastardized interpretations. Now, when we take Islamic religious violence it's not as clear and we are caught up also in facing what is happening now, without the luxury of hindsight. Yet, if we take Koranic and hadith-based religious ideas, we have injunctions like "there is no compulsion in religion" and "to kill one innocent person is to kill all of humanity", and injunctions against suicide. In this light, suicide bombings and terrorism can only be seen as heretical. Just as Hitler ought to be seen as heretical in any attempt to link genocide with a Christian basis. But we are facing what is happening now, and let me say that as a crisis for the world and the West, it is double a crisis for Muslims. We cannot equate Islam with Nazism, yet Muslims and the rest of the world face a dangerous trend in Islam. That trend must be reversed, and rather than fighting ignorance with ignorance, I hope that the rest of the world help Muslims fight that trend. One way we have been fighting the trend is through scholarship, and if you are so inclined, I would invite you to investigate good intellectual work in Islam that addresses the ill-conceived notions of the extreme. But the battle cannot be won from the Ivory Tower alone. The Muslim world needs a vast improvement in education leading to opportunities, better standard of living. Madrassas that teach the Koran by rote and hate towards other religions have got to be replaced by modern education emphasizing pluralism, knowledge and universal values, just as that education ought to be global, it also ought to provide Muslims with a much broader, deeper and more appropriate to modern life understanding of Islam. Democracy will not follow just from elections, but from strengthened civil society and the nurturing of nascent freedoms and their responsibilities. I encourage you to put aside sweeping generalizations about Islam, so that you can see that Islam may be your ally against radical Islamism. Islam as a faith is as far away from radical Islamism as Jainism and Christianity are from Nazism. Make your distinctions and know your enemy. For your enjoyment, below I have pasted two poems, one from a Muslim poet, one from the Jains - I'll let you guess which is which! I am wishing members of all faiths and backgrounds great peace and happiness, from this Muslim! (could such a wish be emitted from a Nazi?) Cheers, Arif Know other creatures' love for life, For they are like you. Kill them not; save their life from fear and enmity. All creatures desire to live, not to die. Hence to kill is to sin. A godly man does not kill. Therefore, kill not yourself, consciously or Unconsciously, living organisms which move Or move not, nor cause slaughter of them. He who looketh on the creatures of the earth, Big and small, as his own self, comprehendeth this immense world. Among the careless, he who restraineth self is enlightened. ------------------------------------------------------------------- You who are not kept anxiously awake for love's sake, sleep on. In restless search for that river, we hurry along; you whose heart such anxiety has not disturbed, sleep on. Love's place is out beyond the many separate sects; since you love choosing and excluding, sleep on. Love's dawn cup is our sunrise, his dusk our supper; you whose longing is for sweets and whose passion is for supper, sleep on. In search of the philosopher's stone, we are melting like copper; you whose philosopher's stone is cushion and pillow, sleep on. I have abandoned hope for my brain and head; you who wish for a clear head and fresh brain, sleep on. I have torn speech like a tattered robe and let words go; you who are still dressed in your clothes, sleep on.

The CBC has no commercials on radio, I love that. Is the CBC tv funded by the govt.? If so, why the same number of commercials as other stations? What's wrong with having a public broadcaster, when there is plenty of room for private ones too? What's the amount of funding they get per year? Despite the orginal post's criticism of the content, there is some real crap on the private stations, and CBC has some amazing content that you wouldn't find elsewhere, Ideas, massey lectures etc. Arif