|
|
|
cq, I'll answer. It depends upon the "religion" and the religionist in the first question.Question 1 applied to Islam: 0 (zero)
Question 1 applied to Fundy-anythings: 0 (zero)
Question 1 applied to a Catholic or other mainstream: 5-6 (five to six).
Question 1 when applied to a religionist trying to justify their faith with their version of "science": 0 (zero) Question 2 applied to Sean and other s of his ilk: 7-9 (seven to nine).
Question 2 applied to the catweasel crowd: 0 (zero)
I could go on with those kinds of comparisons, but I think you get the drift. The context is all important when answering that question.
|
|
|
|
Modified by cq at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 14:06:51
|
|
|
|
That would be the point in that one. I'm not saying that they cannot put on a good show of tolerance, but the actions (or lack thereof) in the face of the extremists in their midst doesn't paint a pretty picture, at all. The fact that "mainstream" muslims (or those who try to portray themselves that way) are financing madrases and providing the very material that is a horror to read (with appropriate government stamps, no less). I'm not talking Iran...... I am talking the "moderate" country of Saudi Arabia! I've seen that material, it has official approval and was published by the Saudi government. The point is this...... where are the moderates? Moderate christians abhor, vocally and vehemently, the antics of the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells (never mind the David Koreshes of the world). They stare them down and make no bones about their disdain for the likes of Jerry and Pat. Think about it...... a couple hundred people in Britain protesting against the madness doesn't amount to a spit in a bucket. Let the MAJORITY of muslims do this, vocally, visibly and vehemently (to include turning the assholes in who are extremists) and I will change my mind..... until then...... not a bloddy chance! I am as tolerant of islam as they are of me...... ZERO!
|
|
|
|
NAR, you singled out "Islamist" as one of the mainstreams that you had zero tolerance for.Now you've made it clear that you think there's no such thing as a non-fundamentalist mainstream Muslim, because there are not enough (for your preference) examples of Muslims who are brave enough to challenge the extremism that is rapidly turning their religion into public enemy number one - as perceived as such by the less intelligent sectors of American society (from the White House up!). Islam is huge - I think I'm not wrong in saying (from memory) that globally, it has the biggest adherence of all faiths. If your tolerance of Islam is, as you say, "zero", and your 'understanding' of that faith is that all born into it are your enemy, then all I can say is ... what hope is there for dialogue?
Related link: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Islamist
Modified by cq at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 16:44:33
|
|
|
|
They are the antithesis to tolerance. Their own book (koran and others), as has been pointed out hundreds of times, is quite specific in this regard. Tolerance isn't in their lexicon.THere are probably "some," like american muslims, who have twisted the book to mean something "internal" with regard to jihad, but that is a twisting of the book. Jihad is NOT internal. So, as long as someone thinks that it is ok to use force to "convert me," then they are my enemy...... YES, they are my enemy if they even "think" that! Because, when push comes to shove, they will permit it to happen...... as they already are by not turning in the extremists amongst themselves. That leads to only one conclusion: They are all extremists. Don't use the "fear" argument, either. There is no excuse for it. If they aren't willing to stop this madness at the risk of their own lives, then they are worthless as humans! Peiod.... end of discussion. They "allowed" it to exist, they paid for its existence financially and they perpetuated it with their documents. Therefore they are responsible to stop it, no matter the cost. Get my point? You cannot dialogue with madmen! THeir religion, their book, says Jews and Christians "kill them all!" That is madness, that is genocide, that is NOT tolerance. Until they renounce that, there is nothing to talk about. It's as simple as that. All you can do is take the actions required to stop the madness. But, let me be utterly clear..... if you want ME to tolerate YOU, then you will receive my tolerance in the same measure that you provide. Exactly the same! That is why I mellow when someone at least gives me my "due." That is also why I am so "intolerant" of Marshall, for example. He doesn't have a toleratn bone in his body. Understand too, that "tolerance" is not "approval." There is a world of difference between those two words. Anyway, that's my take. We are at war with a religion UNTIL that religion (the vast majority of practioners) are willing to stand up and tell the extremists where they should "pack sand!"
|
|
|
|
Hi NAR, Just so you know where we stand - you are apparently at war with my family - I have two degrees of separation from on one side an Israeli and on the other an Algerian. I'm not going to take up arms against you right now - but do try to understand how much you sound like one of those murderous extremists you condemn. Nik
|
|
|
|
Nik,
Are you muslim? That would be a fundamental question, right?There is one difference and that is that my taking up arms was in response to an attack, not to provoke one. I recognize the enemy, but not one "shot" would be fired unless I was fired upon. You don't see the difference? I said in my previous post, I tolerate those who tolerate. I do not tolerate intolerance. Muslims don't have to agree with my lifestyle........ they just have to tolerate it. Unprovoked attacks on my homeland do NOT qualify as "tolerance." Maybe that wasn't clear before, so there is my personal stake in the ground. Again, Islam has the problem. Islam created the problem or, at the very least, the environment for the problem. It is Islam's to clean it up. If you are Muslim, then it is your responsibility to clean up your ranks. If any christian, outside Tim Mcvey's personal little group of conspirators, had known about his attack, they would have turned him in immediately. When a hate-filled firebreather enters a mosque, can we say the same of muslims? Me thinks not!
Modified by NAR at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 17:38:37
|
|
|
|
Dear NARI know your moniker is an acronym for "New-Age Redneck", but sometimes I really do wonder why. Redneck you say? Surely there must be SOME Rednecks who aren't as intolerant as you? But by your "reasoning" - even if there are, I should condemn them all as much as I do you! .
.
.
Yes (and it's not easy for me to be so outspoken) - for such a blatant outpouring of bigotry and hypocrisy - I condemn you. Pity really. I'm sure we could dialogue quite well - if it wasn't for ... wasn't for what? Something I'm as capable of being guilty of myself?
Related link: http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/8395.html
Modified by cq at Sat, Jul 08, 2006, 11:17:21
|
|
|
|
What a load of hokum..... "I condemn thee, NAR!"What makes you think I give a damn about what you think? What makes you think anyone does? That little missive of yours reminds me of the times when priests would threaten "excommunication" and all that nonsense! You are quite correct, I am ABSOLUTELY intolerant of an intolerance that states, quite clearly, that it is ok to kill any group of people. The bible doen't say it's ok to kill muslims nor does the torah. Yet, the koran says it is ok, nay a MUST, to kill every christian and jew they see (unless they convert to islam). Well, guess who "fired" the first shot, cq? THe koran, maybe? Get off it..... you are defending the indefensible! That religion is hell-bent on converting YOU to its nonsense!
|
|
|
|
Look mate. Your blanket condemnation of and incitement to hate ALL Muslims because of some of the verses in the Koran is well out of order.It's a scripture they inherited over 600 years ago. What do you expect them to do? Censor it? Can you really see that happening? But one thing seems pretty certain: sabre-rattling and rabble rousing isn't going to make things any better. What is that going to achieve? You think the moderates should be bullied into speaking out against the extremists? Well, if so, I only hope such a stance doesn't make things worse - for all of us.
Modified by cq at Mon, Jul 10, 2006, 14:13:14
|
|
|
|
You think the moderates should be bullied into speaking out against the extremists? Well, if so, I only hope such a stance doesn't make things worse - for all of us.
That's exactly what should happen and no, there is no other solution. Islam's an ugly, dangerous cult that has to be attacked where it's weakest, on its margins, on its fringes. We need to persuade all who call themselves Muslims but who simultaneously respect, however much, our cherished and hard fought for civil liberties, to press hard against those less sympathetic to that view. That's the only solution I can think of. If you've got a better one, let's hear it.
|
|
|
|
'If any christian, outside Tim Mcvey's personal little group of conspirators, had known about his attack, they would have turned him in immediately. When a hate-filled firebreather enters a mosque, can we say the same of muslims? Me thinks not!' I haven't followed all the thread, so don't know who McVey is, but, as for the 2nd and 3rd sentences, I think you are wrong in UK terms. In regard to Abu Hamza, who was recently convicted of various terrorist related charges, and who preached religious hatred in the Brighton and Finsbury Park mosques for some years, he was reported on multiple occasions to the British police or MI5 by moderate muslims, including, I am practically certain, by a number of clerics, but no one took any action against him. Hamza provided inflammatory literature for susceptible people, praised universal jihad and extolled Quaeda and the enactors of 9/11 quite openly. He also seems to have been a link in a chain which led gullible young Muslim males to indoctrination centres in Pakistan or even through to training camps in Afghanistan. The supposition may be that the intelligence services thought it better to keep him under observation, but in light of later happenings, it seems to me quite bizarre that he wasn't arrested much earlier and charged under anti-terrorist legislation. Under the UK system, charges have to be brought by the Crown Prosecution Service, which is run by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is in turn responsible to the Attorney General, who is a government minister. In other words, the decision whether to act against Hamza was never a police decision, whatever information was recurrently supplied to them, but plausibly a government one. I personally find this totally bizarre. I am also fairly perplexed by Prime Minister Blair's statements earlier this week that now is the time for all Muslims to acknowledge that the west in its recent interventions in the Middle East has no anti-Muslim agenda, and never had. That they must all en bloc reform their thinking on this (or else?). In a sense, this type of statement is really tiptoeing between the raindrops. Yes, one could say that 'international terrorism' was the enemy in regard to Afghanistan and Iraq, but this doesn't totally gel with the overall outlook propagated here since 9/11 that all Muslim countries are per se suspicious as potential supporters of or sympathisers with terrorism. And, of course, it leaves aside the suspicion among not only many Muslims, but indigenous nationals too, that the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq were possibly motivated also by the desire to safeguard future energy sources. I think it would have been more helpful if Tony Blair had said that he acknowledged every type of thinking among Muslims, but would encourage any oppositional thinking to government foreign policy to be in future via legitimist political avenues, rather than the seductions of off-the scale clerics or fundies. This would be in line with various attempts being made within Muslim circles by secular groups, who are striving hard in this direction - namely to deflect susceptible Muslim youth into patterns of secular thought and political action. Blair sounded (maybe from my immediate reaction) like he was telling all Muslims to belt up about their animosities towards his personal actions. In so saying, I note and respect Derm's comments on the other forum. But if we were to accept that Muslims have an entrenched reaction of regarding all brethren societies as part of the ummah above all, despite their sometimes ghastly political and social realities, then the overriding need here nationally is to encourage especially young Muslims into the political process, rather than just belting up about government policy as Tony is maybe saying, as, of course, it could reflect adversely on his own decisions in recent times. Best wishes to you personally, and hope you are well, Anthony
|
|
|
|
Karen Arsmtrong is a fool but this is the wrong forum for this discussion. You know that.
|
|
|
|
I'm hedging a bit here though, 'fool' is too strong a word. I see her as being blinded by her own niceness, a middlebrow with pretensions to omniscience and being accepted as an "expert" because she once was a nun. The sheer incompetence, not of her research, but her lack of critical faculties drives me to distraction but then again I've read all her books.
|
|
|
|
Armstrong's attempt to assuage the brooding storm of concern and outrage at what the Islamic world has wrought is feckless. Indeed, as I look the word up (because I haven't used it for years), I notice that it rallies conotations of both incompetence -- your term -- and idiocy -- mine (over on the other forum). Bingo. The woman must stop. She's certainly not helping things.
|
|
|
|
Well, seeing as nobody has seen fit to answer your question publicly, I hope the owner of this forum doesn't mind me giving you a stepping-stone towards you finding the answer to your question!Marshall's posts can be found at http://www.drek.us/aaa/index.shtml Whether s/he no longer posts here by choice or necessity, I don't know.
Related link: http://www.drek.us/aaa/index.shtml
Modified by cq at Sat, Jul 08, 2006, 10:27:04
|
|
|
|
Hi OckerJust to fill you in a bit more. Marshall only posts on the Bongo forum these days. He isn't a premie, but both his parents are premies, and (if I remember correctly) both are still practising and active premies. His posts are mainly political, and he's left wing. He was recently banned from the Bongo forum because of his 911 conspiracy theories that some people found offensive. But he's been let back in on the condition he doesn't talk about those theories. Hope that helps. Stardust
|
|
|
|
cq,
Given its absolutely dismal reputation, if it was a "science," it would have been dead and forgotten long ago. This topic has nothing to do with science. Religion is NOT scientific, therefore everything based upon it is not, as well. It would do well for you to discontinue using my profession to try to get a dig. It won't work and it makes you look utterly stupid by trying to make a connection that doesn't exist. Once again, I don't apply "science" to discussions about religion becasue religion and spirituality are NOT, repeat NOT science!
|
|
|
|
What I should have said was that tarring all Muslims with the same brush ...is not very INTELLIGENT of you!
|
|
|
|
Then what do you call it when someone, such as yourself, refuses to acknowledge that the koran is FULL of phrases that are both anti-semitic and anti-christian, specifically?What do you call it when a few "westernized" muslims (the vast MINORITY) twist the meaning of jihad to mean something "internal," vice what it is and what the vast MAJORITY of muslims interpret it as? What do you call that, cq? I tar-and-feather the majority, the vastest possible majority, other than the few living in the west. The majority deserve it. The "keepers" of the holy sites deserve it. So, have you met any muslims outside your country and the west? I'd say that you likely haven't, whereas that is where most of my experience resides. I know what the muslims of the west think (even thought there are a large number of extremists there, too). If you want the flavor of muslim thought, read the OFFICIAL documents published by the Saudis (the keepers of the most holy place in islam..... that stupid rock to which everyon bows). Then come talk to me about "intelligence" or lack thereof.
|
|
|
|
But I notice you've started to change your tune. First it was all Muslims you demonise, now it's all but the 'few' ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4385768.stm ) living in the west.So let's examine this prejudice of yours. What makes the 3 million Muslims living in France so different from - say - the ones I lived with for six months in Kashmir in the late 70s? Have you ever considered that your hysterical anti-Muslim rants are increasing the likelihood of more attacks? Just what kind of holocaust are you hoping for?
Modified by cq at Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 15:23:00
|
|
|
|
While I am with you on anti-Islam I think it may be possible that NAR is confusing Islam with Islamism but don't you think you've pretty well shot yourself in the foot by thinking that anti-Muslim rants increase the likelihood of more attacks?
|
|
|
|
Let's compare this to the premie community. Anti-premie rants are mostly ignored by the majority of premies. The bongo catweaslers however ...I'm sure you get the idea.
|
|
|
|
Do you honestly believe otherwise? Delusions of grandeur I have not! These are my own opinions, not those of anyone in power or who possesses the power to deal with it in a substantive way. In other words, I doubt that a single muslim or islamic extremist has any intention of reading this and even if they did, what difference would it make to them? They are intent on ending YOUR way of life. YOU are intent on letting them by doing and saying nothing to offend them. That is the real point, which I am sure they get (if they read here). They understand how to interpret fear........ that is what the terrorism is all about, ya know!
|
|
|
|
Honestly, NAR, what are you talking about? Of course it has an impact!We (as a small social group) influence each other and our attitudes and opinions influence others. And what you said certainly influenced me, though I'm glad to see you've now tempered your condemnation to the extremists among the muslim world. And fear? Frankly, your somewhat (forgive me) hysterical outburst earlier sounded like it was strongly motivated by that very emotion. No offense intended. You might not agree, but I am strongly of the opinion that demonising moderate moslems is not in anyone's interests. But let's take this over to the other forum, OK?
|
|
|
|
QUESTION 1: applied to extremist/fundamentalists = 0 QUESTION 1: applied to everyone else = 10 My tolerance depends on the circumstances... whether or not they directly infringe upon the liberty of others. QUESTION 2: applied to extremist/fundamentalist premies = 0 QUESTION 2: applied to all other premies = 10 Considering how obsessive I have been over the years with my own `spiritual/religious quest` I can hardly turn around and deny anybody else the opportunity to make similar mistakes in their own sweet way. Bless em all 
Modified by milarepa at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 14:26:14
|
|
|
|
It depends what 'tolerance' implies - what consenting adults do in their private spaces doesn't concern me at all whatever their beliefs or world view. If someone is advancing an argument that I disagree with I'll probably take issue with it, again whatever the beliefs or world view of the individual. If someone is engaged in activities that IMO undermines the well being of my family, community, society or world at large I may well seek to impede what they are doing - again whatever the beliefs or world view of the individuals involved. I don't like Rawatism, I think it is a deeply damaging belief system but the only basis I have for being 'intolerant' of it is when it is promoted using dishonest and disingenuous methods or is operated as no more than tax exempted fan club. I have good reasons to be very 'intolerant' of certain premies and they've done a great deal to keep me interested in Rawat world - but if the Rawat organisations completely cleaned themselves up and operated openly with independent boards - if Rawat acknowledged his failings as a teacher - if he apologised to all those ex premies who have been telling the truth and if he explicitly stated he was nothing special and that he forbid any premie - including those in India from giving him any deference - then I'd really have no interest in giving a moments further thought to Rawat or to premies. Is that tolerance or intolerance ? Nik
|
|
|
|
I think you're asking for too much private information, cq. I don't like this kind of poll. It's like every other poll which has questions that are too general, by given a sliding scale, plus it implies (or I'm inferring from the questions) that #10 is the "best" answer. Too PC or something. I don't suggest that anyone who's using their real name here answer this poll because if anyone puts down low numbers on any of these, it will just provide more food for the Elan Vital monitor and hate-group propaganda machine that claims ex-premies are intolerant of religion. I'm not answering this poll. I would suggest to everyone who posts here, to just be who yourself. 
Modified by Cynthia at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 15:06:49
|
|
|
|
... and, personally, I've never had a problem with posters remaining anonymous.Cynth, if a sliding scale of 1 to 10 is "too general" for you, how about a scale to the power of 10? Not as difficult as the "yes or no" choice beloved of ... some, surely? You must be well aware that, although registered as a "church" in the USA, Elan Vital is keen to dismiss religious belief as a factor in choosing those who it/Rawat deems ready to be shown the techniques of "Knowledge". A recent promotional article said quite clearly that "Knowledge" has nothing to do with religion OR spirituality. The whole point of this exercise was to differentiate between those who are intolerant of religion and those who are intolerant of premies - and how the two are not necessarily interlinked.
|
|
|
|
You must be well aware that, although registered as a "church" in the USA, Elan Vital is keen to dismiss religious belief as a factor in choosing those who it/Rawat deems ready to be shown the techniques of "Knowledge". A recent promotional article said quite clearly that "Knowledge" has nothing to do with religion OR spirituality. It's not recent. TPRF and EV's websites have been stating that in the faqs for years now. Rawat has said this for decades, and also said that it's easier to convince atheists to receive K, accept him, than religious people. Where's the promotional article? I don't tolerate the Prem Rawat is the lord (or even special ) belief-systems held by some premies. But I don't hang out with premies. I don't care about religions, but I have a live and let live" attitude this and I don't tend to argue with people about religion unless they are say, telling me I'm going to burn in hell, that I'm an infidel, or if they knock on my door asking to talk to me about God, in which case, I tell them something to get rid of them. It's not religious intolerance to confront a premie on this board. For many reasons.
Modified by Cynthia at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 16:52:41
|
|
|
|
Oh wow, I had forgotten that satsang. It was so old, wasn't it back when he was wearing white Indian clothing? Didn't he say something like "you might not believe this but it was easier to convince an atheist, someone who didn't believe in scriptures even ... Or did he give it in Australia?
Do you remember the details?
|
|
|
|
Hi, I don't know when he said it, only that he did and it was repeated a lot in my neck of the woods. It may have been Australia.
|
|
|
|
Of the belief?
I'm afraid; though I try to be polite; I'd score pretty low generally across the board, as long as I can make it clear that I am not critical of the person but of the belief they hold.
I am quite convinced that belief serves no good purpose, the lack of full knowledge and no belief can feel so awesome, even just looking out the window at the clouds; there is no point in tying it down to anything. Leaving it open is awe.
Belief is the world's major problem as far as I'm concerned. Not that I'm always arguing with my local Christian populace, though I do sometimes with the vicar.
But the day came ten years ago when I knew I had to avoid contact with premies because something inside refused to pass up the opportunity, if I saw them in the street or found myself on the phone with them, to share my feelings, and realisations re: maharaji. I could not stomach sharing any common ground like: how lucky we are, what grace... ya di ya di ya..
I found it very disturbing. I chose in the end a reclusive life.
I still loved the person as an equal human being you understand. I mourned the loss of their friendship.
I'm not weighing rights and so forth, of course people have the right to think and believe what they like.
I just have no reason to think religious belief of any sort has an advantage and many, many reasons to consider it harmful.
In terms of the expression of that feeling, I try to keep my observations general so that they might apply universally.
I didn't introduce those others to their religion so I don't feel responsible as I do with premies where I played an active role in bringing people into the cult.
I keep my feelings to myself more now, except here on the forum.
In terms purely of the person perhaps 5 would be an ideal. This would not alienate them from further discussion with excessive intolerance, but allow room for the facts to be expressed in a balanced way, without a who cares, anything goes attitude. I don't know, jeez what a question!
Lp
Modified by LP at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 16:55:05
|
|
|
|
It's the believer rather than the originator of the belief I meant.... and I was going to differentiate between the two,LP, but thought it might confound the question. I used to believe in the same spiel that most premies were fed in the early days - ie that belief was folly. You either "know" or you don't. Hence the (capital/upper case "K") Knowledge. But a few decades down the line, and I'm really not so sure. Premies seem to be required to believe that the teachings of the early years never happened, and that Maharaji/Rawat never presented as "Lord of the Universe". The beliefs change, but who remain as the believers - and why?
Modified by cq at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 15:37:58
|
|
|
|
I used to argue against belief then, in the way you said, but looking back we believed a lot. We believed m was the lord for a start! We believed being close to him gave special power or grace. we believed doing holy name gave some sort of a special power, some believed, a kind of invulnerability.
The beliefs have been altered, but I doubt that much has changed beneath the surface, only the presentation. The revisionism is disturbing by association.
Lp
Modified by LP at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 16:33:46
|
|
|
|
You "doubt that must has changed under the surface". Pardon? Or is it a case of old wine in new bottles, or just another Freudian lips? LOL!
Modified by cq at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 15:56:14
|
|
|
|
Modified by LP at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 16:40:49
|
|
|
|
The reality of Rawat's divinity is an intolerable proposition. But I can tolerate the existence of cults and cultists - Rawat, included - provided the rest of us are free to rip the piss out of them when they open mouths without putting brain into gear. The ongoing propagation of Rawat's implicit Godliness by his supporters is tolerable, provided they can take the flak. I can tolerate premies joining in ex-premie forum discussions, provided my criticising their worldview doesn't make me intolerant according to your worldview... The main problem here is your 1-10 scale, unless you can provide some definitions for calibration. What sort of thing does a Level 10 intolerant type do? A number 5? A number 1?
Modified by Nigel at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 15:29:43
|
|
|
|
Hi Nigel.I get the "intolerable" aspect of what you say about Rawat's "divinity", but how are the goalposts for premies and exes ever going to be in the same field? Divinity is defined as being what? - that which is perceived as being divine? If so, we gave credence to the LOTU, but did that make Rawat and his "Holy Family" divine for us, just because we believed it? Well, yes, it did - for us premies. And we're now on the "other side" - promoting the logic of getting as far away from that belief system as humanly possible. But the football field we played that mind-set in was in a country far from where the World Cup finals are played. Rawat is, as yet, very small fry.
|
|
|
|
>provided the rest of us are free to rip the piss out of them when they open mouths without putting brain into gear. < Er - why the condition that they first have to open mouths without putting brain into gear? Surely a mark of a free society is that everyone is free to mock, satirise and ridicule whoever we please regardless of whether they are cogent or not. The only limit surely should be that the mockery, satire or ridicule not be used by the strong to undermine the weak ? N
|
|
|
|
"mockery, satire or ridicule not be used by the strong to undermine the weak ?" Sorry, but there can be no limits. Naturally, those tasteless enough to do such things should be treated appropriately with mockery, satire or ridicule!
|
|
|
|
>Sorry, but there can be no limits< The role of 'humour' in the promotion of agressive racism and sexism has too long a history to go unchallenged. The Nazis started their anti Jewish propaganda not with political statements but with vitriolic cartoons. Attacking the powerful with humour is healthy - attacking the downtrodden with anything, including humour, is not healthy. N
|
|
|
|
I hesitate to say this here on this forum because nobody here knows that I am an outspoken judeophile who considers the positive contribution made to modern society by Jews in the last 2 centuries to be almost unbelievable when you consider how few Jews there are/were. But at the time of the beginnings of the Nazi "attack" through vitriolic cartoons they were the powerless ones and there were a considerable number of wealthy, "powerful" Jews in Germany.
And as far as I am aware the German press of the 1940's was not full of cartoons of starving Jews being rounded up, beaten and burnt to death to the general amusement of the readers: "Nein, nein, die Belsen Kartoonishers sind mehr foonnier dann die Auschwitzen, Donner und Blitzen, slappen die Arsen, Heil Hitler hast only ein left Ball!"
The problem I have with your very worthy sentiments is who judges who should be allowed to be ridiculed? Some people on this Forum are so worthy they are insulted by ridicule of Prem Rawat. So publish and be damned is my watchword.
|
|
|
|
>Er - why the condition that they first have to open mouths without putting brain into gear? Surely a mark of a free society is that everyone is free to mock, satirise and ridicule whoever we please regardless of whether they are cogent or not. The only limit surely should be that the mockery, satire or ridicule not be used by the strong to undermine the weak ? But I was thinking specifically of forum interactions where premies drop in. Elsewhere on the web I have spent long, happy hours 'interacting' with New Age cultists in terms that verge on the impolite (can you imagine?). In the case of talking to premies here, I think it is fine to point out that, say, their last comment was 'idiotic' - though probably better to show through argument why the comment was idiotic without necessarily using that word. Let them arrive at that conclusion in a moment of quiet reflection later, maybe when under their blankets, pretending to meditate. The least productive approach, IMO, would be to come straight in with 'you are an idiot', as that will most likely shut off channels for future, constructive exchanges. For me, cq's question has more to do with pragmatics than ethics. And everything you say about freedom of speech I agree with, 100%.
|
|
|
|
I have modified your questions to refer specifically to premies. QUESTION 1: On a scale of 1-10, where would you place yourself in terms of tolerance to premies? Intolerant (0) to tolerant (10)? 10 – Very tolerant of premies. QUESTION 2: On a scale of 1-10, where would you place yourself in the need to be critical of premies? Intolerant (0) to tolerant (10)? 10 – Absolutely no need to be critical of premies. Who am I to tell people how to live? If they read this site and EPO and still choose to remain premies, then so be it. If they don't, then so be it. IMO, it’s caveat emptor, laissez faire and all that.
Modified by Steve at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 15:44:22
|
|
|
|
"I have modified your questions to refer specifically to premies".And now who the f**k knows who's saying what about whom?
|
|
|
|
Look, I can see the value of your question, but please - start a new thread for it, OK?
Modified by cq at Sat, Jul 08, 2006, 10:35:57
|
|
|
|
I don't think this discussion should be on The Prem Rawat Talk Forum. Interesting though the subject is, in my humble opinion it should be discussed on The Non-Rawat Talk Forum . . . http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/nonrawat/
Modified by Steve at Sat, Jul 08, 2006, 15:57:20
|
|
|
|
I'd like to see how you score yourself, before showing you my hand.
In the words of the immortal Amarillo Slim.............when you sit down at the table & you don't see a sucker, you're it.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for reminding me, Pat. It's certainly easier to ask the questions than answer them.Me? I've discovered I'm less tolerant than I thought, scoring a three for Q1, and a four for Q2. Why do I give premies a slightly easier time? Perhaps because I've experienced the depths of Rawat-induced delusion myself, and can give them some leeway for that. If that makes me a sucker in your eyes, so be it. I'd prefer to respect you though.
|
|
|
|
That's alright then.
The beauty of enigmatic quotes is that they can be taken either way. I'm pleased to note that you aren't trying to sucker anyone yourself.
I wouldn't say that I give premies a hard time. I have a couple of good friends whom I've known since schooldays who are premies. Despite arguing the toss vehemently with them, we remain friends. Mind you they haven't had anything to do with EV for years. That's a different type altogether, & I wouldn't give those buggers the time of day, but as I don't know any, it's irrelevant.
On this board I'm prepared to cut Sean plenty of slack, because he obviously isn't a propagandist for the cult, Julie too, even though I'm almost certain if I ever met her in real life, I'd want to get away asap.
Thanks for the Oxford cop story. I don't know what the country's coming to. In the old days any self respecting student on the razzle, would've stolen the horse, painted it blue, & left it in the Chief Constable's front garden.
|
|
|
|
Aha! OK then, Mr "pleased to note that you aren't trying to sucker anyone yourself"Well, if I was a poker player, I'd say "you would say that, wouldn't you? Raise you tuppence-ha'penny. LOL!
Modified by cq at Sat, Jul 08, 2006, 11:32:21
|
|
|
|
On a scale of 1- 10. I wouldn't want to place myself within any number about Prem Rawat, for he's worse than a zero! What about the One question, Who is Guru Maharaj Ji? But then again, I'm just trying to stay 'on topic' here.
Modified by Hilltop at Sat, Jul 08, 2006, 00:46:32
|
|
|
|
First question:
I can't use a fixed numeric quantity. My tolerance of
another's views is a function of their tolerance of mine.
Plus a small positive constant on my part for presumed
goodwill. Also, I think it tends to evolve over time as we
interact more, so making it an iterative function.
For example I have a Christian friend at work, an engineer
no less, who believes that the Earth is 6000 years old
and that Noah included dinosaurs in the Ark. I do not
mock him for this, even behind his back. I honor the
fact that he believes in God so strongly that he is
willing put himself on the line regarding natural history.
Second question:
I think we need each other. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Modified by Hilltop at Sat, Jul 08, 2006, 02:14:42
|
|
|
