Re: Current Issues in Religious Tolerance

Greetings;

Pat Kohli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 
> When you categorize infanticide as typical of the Arab-Islamic mind, 

I did no such thing.  I did post a few reports on this outrageous
behavior, which are clearly a significant factor in middle-east
unrest.  Those reports are in the public news media.  I quote such
reports in their entirety when feasible, so as not to be taking
anything out of context.
Again, you have misrepresented my position.  Your motive for doing so
mystifies me.
> > >

> > ... a quote from a columnist who was pointing out
> > that while in the USSR there were pro-democracy forces, the Middle
> > East, having no history or experience with democracy, relies on
> > autocratic and theocratic solutions.
> 
> I'm not buying the excuse.  1) The USSR was not a democracy before the
> Bolsheviks - there was no democratic tradition,

Very well, I condensed my response too narrowly, not anticipating your
emphasis on this point.  Even so, the commentator was pointing out the
contrast between the Russian people, who did have pro-democracy
movements in their country, and the seeming absence of that in the
Arab dictatorships where terrorism seems to emerge.  The answer as to
why that is so may contain a key to helping solve the middle east
crisis (if one can properly call a fifty-plus years ongoing tragedy a
crisis).
I still await some positive, contributory response from you, instead
of the personal attack.

>   "I used to tell my students that the American dream is best described
> as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now I am convinced my
> students were right and I wrong. I learned the hard way when the
> Americans ruined my life,   confiscated my liberty and ended my
> happiness. 
> - Dima Tareq Tahboub, after her husband, a journalist, was killed at the
> Baghdad office of Al Jazeera.
> http://www.arabia.com/newsfeed/article/english/0,14183,427157,00.html

I'm not familiar with the specific incident.  It may or may not be
accurately represented in the report.  I have stipulated more than
once that the USA has indeed committed inexcusable wrongs.  But I
separate those from the general pattern and purpose of US policy.

While I lived in Japan in the mid-1970s, I occasionally encountered
anti-American bitterness there, by people who had lost loved ones in
WW2.  One can only sympathize with their grief.  A political
discussion is pointless in such a circumstance, and would indeed only
deepen the bitterness.
> 
> > Democracy can be and should be introduced to the Middle East.
> > Again, your interest seems not to be in illuminating the discussion,
> > but on killing the messenger.
> 
> Robert, if I seem impatient with bold faced bigotry, and hypocrisy, I'm
> kool with that. I am in no way interested in killing the bearer of such
> bigotry and hypocrisy, though; I'd much rather make an example of him.

You have yet to honestly point out any bigotry on my part.
It is simply a foregone conclusion to which you seem predisposed to
arrive by any route, however convoluted.
> 
> > All I did was point out that Mr Arafat does not send HIS OWN children
> > out on suicide missions--- only the children of others.  And that was
> > quite clear in context.  But I'm the one who's hateful?
> 
> Not so.  You falsely alleged that his wife was a Christian, and this
> implies that she has apostasized from Islam, a nasty libel, on your
> nasty part.  

Aha!  Now I understand.  I wondered what you were talking about when
you accused me of accusing Mrs Arafat of apostasy.  I simply shrugged
it off as another of your distortions.  But very well.  If Mrs Arafat
is indeed not a Christian, and my quoted source was wrong on this
point, then I will willingly and sincerely apologize to any affront.

The point of the quote was NOT Mrs Arafat.  It was Yasser, who will
celebrate the deaths of suicide/homicide bombers, so long as they are
other peoples' children.
> 
> This was pointed out to you at the time, so that you might correct your
> libel for the benefit of others who might be reading, and might mistake
> your lies for facts.  At that time, right after your libelous lie, you
> did not choose to correct it; a correction at this time would be less
> efficacious, sadly.  Then, you chose to mock me, "So then tell me, where
> do Arafat's family live?"

I was not mocking anyone.  Had you simply used less inflammatory
criticism, I would have understood your point immediately.
 
> I find it sad that you approach your personal attacks with such
> carelessness.  It would seem to me that if you had any concern about
> personal integrity, you'd either avoid libeling Mrs. Arafat, or try to
> correct yourself when you were caught it.  But you carry-on like it is
> some game, and you get points for smashing more furniture, and then
> belching loudly when you are asked to clean up your mess.
> 
And this last from you is a good example of what I mean.  Instead of
measured words, you choose to characterize me as "smashing furniture,"
etc etc.

Your overly-worded displays of personal animosity against me seem
grounded in some deeply rooted anger, which my remarks unintentionally
arouse in you.  I'm sorry about that.
My intention is not to provoke wrath, but rather, to promote
thoughtful discussion on a topic which, quite understandably, has a
deep emotional component.

I refuse to walk upon egg-shells.  I think that the topics I mention
are germaine to this forum, despite your opinion to the contrary. 
They are surely controversial, nor do I shrink from that.

If in the future I no longer respond to the personal component of your
remarks, please take no offense.  For I will gladly respond to
issues-oriented statements.

Please accept my sincerest best wishes!