From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.arabic,alt.sex,soc.culture.turkish,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.asean,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: UNHRC condemns the Khomeini regime AGAIN--Victory for the Resistance
Keywords: Law, Nazism, Apartheid, Islam, Sexual Dysfunction
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:26:17 GMT
Organization: Quake Public Access

In article <Bv83BK.H4s@ucunix.san.uc.edu> minhaszt@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Zafar T Minhas) writes:
>In article <11231@crackers.clearpoint.com> martillo@nero.clearpoint.com (Joachim Martillo) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep21.184534.27030@sarah.albany.edu> ys3359@thor.albany.edu (Yazmasterj) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep21.030421.20187@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu> rached@sample.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rached Zantout) writes:

>>>>What would you (western idealist) would like to do for people who brake the law.
>>>>Here in US (the mother of all Democratic countries) they put them in Jail. I
>>>>guess this not violating their human rights is it? Then why is it not allowed
>>>>in Iran.

Putting criminals in jail is not the problem.  The definition of the crime is
the problem.  In enlightened coutries, the state puts people in jail for
theft, murder, rape, fraud, etc.  In other countries, people are put in jail
for expressing unpopular ideas, denying the existence of God, making too much
money, etc.  The definitions of the crimes are the problem, not the fact of 
punishment.

>>But under the principles of Enlightened Western Civilization and in
>>contradistinction to backward Islamic primitivism, there are certain
>>rights which states must not legislate away.  

I suppose this is just a technicality, but the government can never legislate
a right away.  Rights exist even if the state chooses to ignore them.

>>>>In Iran the LAW is that women have to be veiled, if you want to judge the 
>>>>Iranian governemnt (or any other government) you have to judge them by 
>>>>their laws and not by the laws of other countries. 

>>An argument so stupid that Afrikaner apologists for Apartheid and
>>German apologists for Nazism refrained from making it.  If Nazis are
>>killing people in accord with Nazi law, we civilized people are
>>obligated to destroy Nazism.  If the South African government is
>>legally oppressing blacks according to the principles of Apartheid, we
>>civilized people must destroy Apartheid.  If Islam requires the
>>oppression of women, we civilized people must destroy Islam.

I would not go that far.  What needs to be destroyed is islamic fundamentalist
governments, not necessarily Islam itself.  People could still be muslims
under a proper secular government.

>>Moreover, because our culture is superior to Islamic primitivism and
>>provides the best way to organize human society so far, we civilized
>>people can and probably will destroy or neutralize Islam in the near
>>future without hardly any effort.  If Islam is not emasculated in the
>>way of its fellow mindlessly stupid Abrahamic religions (Christianity
>>and Judaism), Iraq shows the future of Islam.

I hope you are right.  Remember though, that christian medievalism ruled
europe for 1000 years before it finally gave way.  As long as the vast
majority of the population holds radical religious ideas, they will 
likely choose a radical religious government.

>This is typical of the 17-19th century European colonialists attitudes 
>towards all people of the third world. This is a by-product of the RACISM
>that they had towards all 3rd world people especially the ones in Africa.
>The end product of your attitude, whethe Islam wanes or not is the complete
>and utter destruction of all non-europeanized lands. Is this the kind of
>civility that was taught to you at Harvard? 

Unfortunately, I am sure that he didn't learn that at Harvard, but it is true
anyway.  There is such a thing as cultural primitivism.  There is such a
thing as religious fanaticism.  There is such a thing as irrationalism.
A culture infused with these is not as good as a culture without them.
This is NOT a racist point of view (although certainly some racists might
agree with it).  I suppose you could call it "culturist", but some 
cultures ARE better than others!

>Well it is clear to me and has
>been clear for a long time that western thought has always assumed itself to 
>be superior, 

It IS superior!  Unfortunately, it is not perfect, but it is certainly the
best thing so far.  What makes you think that it isn't?  Do you think that
no culture is better or worse than any other?  Or do you just not think that
western culture is good?

>even thought it can not prove itself to be so, 

Actually, it can easily do so.  It does this by providing a method (reason)
and a criterion (human life).  Perhaps you might want to use the method of
revelation or irrationalism and the criterion of God's will, but those are
invalid.  I can demonstreate that as well if you wish.  You may or may not
agree, but that doesn't change the facts.

>and it has the
>ability to brain wash weak-minded Uncle Tom's like Martillo to mindlessly
>parrot Western attitudes without even knowing where they came from.

Do you not think that people can freely consider these questions and come to
reasoned conclusions about them?  Do you think that westerners are all 
brainwashed?  Or do you think that they inherited their ideas genetically?
One thing I find interesting is that unlike most cultures, westernism is
open to everyone and has come to dominate many countries far outside the
traditional "west" (such as Japan and Korea).  Why are you so skeptical of 
the ability of individuals to think for themselves?  Are you personally
unfamiliar with such behavior? 

>>>>In the scandinavian countries (some of them) you can walk naked. Does this 
>>>>mean that US is violating human rights when police arrest any one who 
>>>>shows his genitals in public?

I suppose that depends on where it is happening.  If he is doing it next to a
busy street, he might cause an accident.  If it's on a nude beach, they would 
be violating someone's rights.

>>Maybe.  Justifying mindlessly stupid sharia laws by referring to US
>>hang-ups is hardly persuasive.

Certainly.  The laws of the US are not perfect.  In fact, there are a great 
many problems with them.  I never said the west was perfect.  I said it was
better than islamic primitivism.

>>>One cannot justify a law simply by way of its existence.  God gave us brains
>>>and the capacity to exercise our judgment.  

We have them, but God had nothing to do with it.

>>Rousseau's definition of freedom is relevant.  A people is free when
>>they submit to laws of their own making.  

That is a worthless definition.  Being enslaved by one's countrymen is no 
better than being enslaved by a foreign power.  Freedom is properly an
arrtibute of the individual.  Freedom is the ability to think for oneself
and to act on those thoughts.  Since it is possible for such actions to 
limit the freedom of others, laws must exist to prevent this, but otherwise,
the government should keep it's hands off.  If it acts otherwise, it
is not generating freedom, it is generating tyranny.

>>A people like the Iranians
>>who must obey sharia hermeneutic law is in fact enslaved.  Either the
>>Iranians have freely submitted to sharia law in which case Iran
>>represents pre-modern barbarism and should be dismantled so that
>>Iranians can be trained to modern civilized behavior, or the Iranians
>>are forced against their will to obey Sharia in which case the Iranian
>>government is criminal and must be destroyed so that an acceptable
>>civilized government can take the place of the current regime.

The fact is that there's a mix.  Some people want to abide by those laws.
Others would prefer not to, but have no choice.  NEITHER is free in any
important sense when they are forced to act this way by the government.

>So in either case, you want to see the country/race/people/one of the above/
>all of the above of Iran utterly and completely destroyed. This is typical
>of the civility of yours postings martillo. Ahem.... Ah martillo,.... Go to
>hell.

Do you think that Martillo would want to prevent you from practicing your
religion?  I don't think that's his positon (and it's not mine).  What is
at issue is whether the muslims ought to be allowed to force OTHERS to abide
by their religious laws.  I think islam (and religion in general) is wrong.
I also think that a properly moral state should allow people to make mistakes
of that kind as long as they don't use force to make others abide by their
mistakes.  Does that surprise you?

>>>How do the laws restricting the choice of clothing in Iran benefit the
>>>society?  Do we honestly expect that if women let some hair show or wear
>>>something besides black, the whole country will fall into a frenzy of
>>>illicit sexual liasons?

Since the source of the law is religious rather than rational, appeals to
the irrationality of the laws will not change the minds of those who 
support them.  No rational argument can ever prove to someone that Allah
Jesus or Moses said something false, right?

>>These Islamist slavers argue so irrationally to a great extent because
>>they suffer from massive coital deprivation.  

Oh come on.  I think you are going way too far here.  Most muslims are just
trying to be good people according to the rules they have been taight since
childhood.  Sure, these rules are bad, but most of the practitioners don't
realize this.

>>No woman would want to
>>fuck such loosers who invariably treat women as inferiors whose only
>>purpose is to gratify men.  Usually, they have no idea how to copulate
>>properly and often confuse anal and vaginal intercourse when they
>>attempt to have sexual intercourse with some poor human female forced
>>into a marriage with one of them.  

Do you have some first-hand evidence the rest of us are unaware of? ;-)

>>The unmarried ones are in a
>>constant state of irrational sexual heat, and the married ones are
>>crazed because in their heart of hearts they know that they are
>>sexually incompetent.

>>Because these Islamist yo-yos are so sexually incompetent, they have
>>to guarantee that their wives are virgins on marriage (because Allah
>>forbid their wives would be able to compare Islamist sexual
>>dysfunction with normal male sexuality).  Well, to guarantee that
>>their wives are virgins on marriage, the Islamist yo-yos must create
>>massive barriers to unmarried human females ever having the
>>opportunity for normal heterosexual female sexual gratification.
>>Making women wear heavy shapeless black tents is the starting point
>>for this program.

Oh come off it.  I thought you were trying to make intelligent arguments
before.  Now you are just being insulting.  Cut it out.

--Brian
From: moussavi@hplred.HP.COM (Farshid Moussavi)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:28:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: some REAL discussions, please
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA