New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a
nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a
"Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed
considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense
initiatives more successful? Can such an application of
science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable,
necessary or impossible?
Read Debates, a new
Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published
every Thursday.
(5863 previous messages)
rshow55
- 03:00pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (#
5864 of 5866)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click
"rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for
on this thread.
From Islamic Beliefs http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/MiddleEast/Beliefs.html
" According to Islamic beliefs, the angel
Gabriel visited Mohammed in order that Mohammed might know
and declare the will of Allah. The sacred texts of the
Muslims, called the Koran, is a record of the meditative
utterances of Mohammed that his followers complied after his
death in 632 AD. Mohammed never claimed to be divine and is
not worshipped as such. In fact, the strict monotheism of
Islam will not allow for the worship of any other being but
Allah. This monotheistic view took root with Abraham, the
great patriarch of the nation of Israel who is considered
the first Muslim. Though the Muslims adhere to the authority
of the prophets of Judaism and Christianity, they do not
look upon Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God, but as a
man like any other prophet . Interestingly, followers of
Islam do not consider their religion to be completely
separate from Christianity and Judaism. Muslims claim to
worship the God of the Bible, professing Islam as the
ultimate revelation of God.
" Without any concept of a church or
priesthood, Muslims reject any kind of hierarchy within
their belief system. "
_ _ _ _ _ _
Is there really any reason that this foundation is
so inflexible that it is incompatible with modernity - with
the humanly reasonable needs of people who follow Islam - and
the humanly reasonable needs of people who must live securely
in the same world - and have a right to protect themselves?
If the system that has evolved from these foundations has
such inflexibilities - are they really justified on
religious grounds that truly deserve respect? Or are they
justified on grounds that Mohammed himself might laugh at and
scorn - if he was alive today?
These are practical as well as religious questions -
because they say a great deal about what we are angry about,
what we are fighting about, what is unsatisfactory between us,
and what might be done about it.
I have a logical point to add. The most fundamental logical
operator - the one that matters most is consistency - -
is peace, prosperity, and modernity in ways appealing to
almost all human beings inconsistent with constraints
built into Islam that are valid?
Where exactly? Could it be that somebody's logic is
wrong - that religious leaders of Islam, today and in the past
- may have been fallible mortals?
I have a feeling, both practical and religious - I don't
think Mohammed could approve, or the angel Gabriel could
approve, of restrictions that hobble and devalue the lives of
the followers of Islam - and make them far, far less as
practical human beings than they could otherwise be.
rshow55
- 03:24pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (#
5865 of 5866)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click
"rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for
on this thread.
A Voice to Calm the Angry Americans By ELAINE
SCIOLINO http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/17/weekinreview/17WORD.html
KHALED AL-MAEENA, the editor in chief of the
English-language Saudi newspaper Arab News, is an unabashed
America-lover. He studied in the United States, sent four of
his five children to American colleges and, with a tiny
budget, built a newspaper staff of young Saudi men and women
who are required to speak flawless English.
So when dozens of Americans who read his
newspaper on the Internet began to send him hate e-mail
after Sept. 11, he fought back — with deliberately moderate
words.
**************
They are interesting words - and people may reasonably take
them seriously.
But why, exactly, aren't American leaders to take the words
of Saddam Hussein seriously? Those words are a large, and I
believe justified parts of the reason why Americans are
insisting that Saddam disarm, as he has repeatedly agreed to
do.
Consider the Golden Rule - what would Saddam, or many on
the "Arab street" do to us? Why not judge that by their words?
rshow55
11/16/02 10:06am . . .
Real peacemaking would be a good alternative - and
everything for that is in place - negotiated and ready in
ample detail.
If real peacemaking is denied - why not fight?
(1 following message)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|