2012 April 07 Saturday
Muslim Brotherhood Promoting Moderate Image In DC
Hey, we are really very charming. If they sent the right guys over they might really be very charming.
Members of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood began a week-long charm offensive in Washington on Tuesday, meeting with White House officials, policy experts and others to counter persistent fears about the group’s emergence as the country’s most powerful political force.
But what is a moderate, centrist Muslim viewpoint?
“We represent a moderate, centrist Muslim viewpoint. The priorities for us are mainly economic, political — preserving the revolution ideals of social justice, education, security for the people,” Sondos Asem, a member of the delegation, said Tuesday in an interview with reporters and editors of The Washington Post.
In Egypt to be moderate means to be moderate by Egyptian Muslim values. Well according to a Pew poll 84% of Egyptian Muslims favor death for apostasy (leaving Islam). That is what it means to be moderate in Egypt.
About eight-in-ten Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan (82% each) endorse the stoning of people who commit adultery; 70% of Muslims in Jordan and 56% of Nigerian Muslims share this view. Muslims in Pakistan and Egypt are also the most supportive of whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery; 82% in Pakistan and 77% in Egypt favor making this type of punishment the law in their countries, as do 65% of Muslims in Nigeria and 58% in Jordan. When asked about the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion, at least three-quarters of Muslims in Jordan (86%), Egypt (84%) and Pakistan (76%) say they would favor making it the law; in Nigeria, 51% of Muslims favor and 46% oppose it.
These numbers illustrate how the American Left's embrace of multi-culturalism is intellectually and morally bankrupt. All the different religions and value systems of the world are not compatible. Many cultural and religious differences matter a great deal.
Compared to the Saudis the Brotherhood are moderate.
"the American Left's embrace of multi-culturalism is intellectually and morally bankrupt"
The Left does not have a monopoly on morally bankrupt thinking. The Right insists we should stay in Afghanistan and pay for a regime where behavior like this is tolerated:
"The practice of wealthy or prominent Afghans exploiting underage boys as sexual partners who are often dressed up as women to dance at gatherings is on the rise in post-Taliban Afghanistan,"
According to the WVS, the % of Americans who believe men should be given preferential treatment over women in hiring is 7%. In Egypt, it is 89%. 53% of Americans approve of single motherhood; only 2% of Egyptians do. I don't find either of these things to be regrettable, but the multicult left presumably should.
"These numbers illustrate how the American Left's embrace of multi-culturalism is intellectually and morally bankrupt"
Overgeneralizing. Spitting out a comment like that only shows intellectual and moral bankruptcy. Define "American Left" first, and then we'll see if everybody agrees.
"All the different religions and value systems of the world are not compatible"
If a value system in one part of the world is not compatible with a value system in another, then it is not a value system:
No killing, no stealing, no cheating, no raping, no hurting can all be understood universally because that is objective, so we call that ETHICS.
On the other hand, no blasphemy, no turning your back to God, loving thy neighbour, no eating pork, no having "impure" thoughts, no masturbating, no fornicating, no euthanasia, no watching porn, etc, are subjective and cannot be equally accepted by everybody, so we call them MORALS.
We should rule our actions according to what is ETHICAL, because the world is getting smaller. If we base our actions on what we interpret as "moral", we are prone to become very cruel, as there have been so many actions in history that have been so "moral", but completely unethical. Please, get it right.
"In Egypt to be moderate means to be moderate by Egyptian Muslim values. Well according to a Pew poll 84% of Egyptian Muslims favor death for apostasy (leaving Islam). That is what it means to be moderate in Egypt."
Exactly, by wanting to be very moral, many religious idiots -in this case muslims- become very cruel. A little like christians during the Inquisition in Europe. and let's not forget that the Inquisition lingered up to well into the 1800's in some parts of America.
So god damned moral, but no mental ability to exercise healthy Ethics. But, hey, even in the year 2012 the majority of the population continues to believe that you need a religion in order to be ethical and respectful. Idiots continue to think that you need to be a christian in order not to kill thy neighbour. And let us not forget that Atheists and Agnostics are now the most attacked and discriminated minority in the U.S. Childish really, but very dangerous if unchecked as you can see in this video:
No I don't, your distinction between "ethics" and "morals" is silly. "Universal objective values" are neither universal nor objective. Do you really believe that everyone everywhere has always believed that "stealing is wrong"? How many people alive right now adhere to some variant of "stealing [from your clan] is wrong"? Are people "universally" more or less inclined to cheat an "outsider" than their father, or their cousin? Because the things you listed as falling under "ethics" are not equally accepted by everybody.
"and let's not forget that the Inquisition lingered up to well into the 1800's in some parts of America."
Yeah, the 1887 stake burnings of heretics in Cleveland by the Church were horrible.
What burnings were those you're talking about Papist?
Never heard of them.
"Yeah, the 1887 stake burnings of heretics in Cleveland by the Church were horrible."
What is worse about putting up with an idiot is putting up with an idiot with initiative; but a sarcastic idiot with initiative...(!)
OK Papist, let me see if I can explain really basic simple things to you: When I said that the Inquisition lingered up to well into the 1800's in some parts of America, I meant exactly that. I did not specify where because I thought it would be insulting to do it, since one or two users of this page know a little about History.
Well, I wasn't referring to Ohio or any one of those 50 united states which make up the country without a name between Mexico and Canada. Nor was I talking about the united states that make up Brazil or Venezuela. I was talking about Mexico; about the Mexican Inquisition, which lasted up until around 1820. And 1820 is a peridod well into the 1800's, isn't it? And Mexico IS in America isn't it? And it is so, as much as the nameless group of states united into a federation that you love to exclusively call "America", because there's no specific name for it, IS THERE?
People in more than 30 countries continue to call their respective country by its name and the continent by its name. By the way, the name "America" was given to the continent many years before the first Englishman set foot on it in the early 1600's. (Just in case you want to go into historical copyright, origin denomination or trade-mark crap)
Mexico -by the way- is also a group of united states officially called United States of Mexico or United Mexican States.
All I was saying is that even in America there was the penalty of death for apostasy, by the Inquisition. So simple... so simple. And you thought I was making shit up. You were so sure that the Inquisition had only taken place in Europe, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Inquisition
"No I don't, your distinction between "ethics" and "morals" is silly" Ethics and morals are based on acts on actions not on intentions or thoughts.
Your grouping of ethics and morals IS silly. We've all heard of Professional Ethics; it is taught in medical and law school, because it is objective. Perhaps you think "morals" can be taught(?), "professional morals??
I don't know what every person has believed in the past, don't be an idiot, but I am saying that every healthy human being has UNDERSTOOD that stealing is wrong, that killing (in itself) is wrong, that raping is wrong, even if he chooses to do it. And this has been so before christianity or islam told you it was so. Ethics exist since homo sapiens became homo sapiens.
When I talk about killing being wrong, please understand that I mean the act in itself, (killing somebody because he has different ideas to yours, for example). I'm not talking about reactively killing the person who is a death threat to you. That would be is ethically permitted, since you are saving a life: your own.
Every healthy human understands ETHICS, because it is objective; those who kill in God's name or in fatherland's name or in freedom's name have become sick of fanatic beliefs and dogmas. The disease is called alienation, because they got infected with morals. Its main symptom is BELIEF.
The belief that you are doing God's will and avoiding to offend him. The belief that you should defend that god's honor. The belief that your belief is the only truth. The belief that your god, country, city, is the greatest. That -as a muslim- you offend God if you eat pork or drink alcohol, that you -as a christian- offend God if you masturbate or have pre-marital sex.
Ethics are objective, morals are subjective. And what is objective has to do with knowledge; what is subjective has to do with opinion.
If a surgeon leaves cotton inside the patient's intestine after surgery, he's going against ethics, due to negligence, ill will or whatever, because nobody goes to the doctor to come out sicker whether you are muslim, christian, chinese, black, white, russian, indian, mexican, american, african, asian, etc. They all understand killing as wrong, -if they're healthy-, they all understand stealing as wrong, they all understand cheating as wrong. But not everybody agrees that drinking wine or jerking off is wrong.
Etc, etc, etc, Look, I gotta go. 'dlove to hang around explaining basic things to mcdonald's-coke fed idiots like you, but it's too tiring.
The difference between morals and ethics is origin. Morals are derived from culture i.e. the historical experience of a certain people. Ethics are the result of reasoning. You seem to be aware of the fact that there exist different moral systems (the product of different cultures), although you don't seem to be aware of the existence of differing ethical systems (the results of different logical constructions). Also, the words "objective" or "subjective" do not mean "correct" and "wrong".
Egypt is rapidly running out of foreign currency reserves to pay for the imported food, and within a few months starvation will start in Egypt, unless there is massive new foreign aid. We shall see how this will influence the rising religious groups in Egypt. It is important to notice that if Egypt becomes a fundamentalist country, even though the Sunnis are in general not allies of Shiite Iran, this will put extra pressure on the Saudi royal family. After Egypt, another coup in Saudi Arabia will be possible. This is the " Middle Eastern domino theory." Simultaneously, the European Union is collapsing because the economy will progressively get worse during the next few years, and this will probably strengthen the more right-wing anti-Islamic political parties in Europe. Thus in this paradigm, it is possible that gradually there will be a rising Islamic block opposed to Europe. This "opposition" of the united Islamic block against Europe within a few decades can involve hundreds of new nukes manufactured all over the Middle East.
"I don't know what every person has believed in the past, don't be an idiot, but I am saying that every healthy human being has UNDERSTOOD that stealing is wrong, that killing (in itself) is wrong, that raping is wrong, even if he chooses to do it. And this has been so before christianity or islam told you it was so. Ethics exist since homo sapiens became homo sapiens."