HINDU-MUSLIM VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

[redstar2000]

This is from an article posted by swapna on another board...


In the last three sections of this paper we have seen how women in this country cutting across religion have been the victims of communal violence the question that we must now ask is, is it possible for them to do anything about it? Gabriele Dietrich, a reputed Indian feminist activist and ideologue would answer this question in the affirmative for two reasons. Firstly she would point out that "Women’s groups have begun to cross the barriers of caste, class, language and religion, more than any socio-political force in the last 15 years. This potential needs to be fully developed." She says this in the context of the massive mass base that the communal forces have developed and goes on to point out that a similar mass anti-communal mass base has to be developed, in her contention the women’s movement is that mass base. Secondly she argues that, "In the women’s movement we are faced with drastic choices of values and very ultimate questions of meaning. We are grappling with secular answers to questions that were traditionally dealt by religion." She says this to counter the ideological sway that communalism seems to have on people by offering them a collective identity within which ultimate questions of meaning and collective values can be answered. To her again the women’s movement offers an alternative view of life that can be used to counter the menace of communalism. To effectively do this however she would point out the following - that we would have to reinterpret the religious texts, traditions, myths, rituals and festivals from a women’s perspective. Also required would be an attack of all oppressive religious practices as well as a working towards a separation of church and state at the level of legal and political institutions.

http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?boar...&num=1074889556 (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=womenslib&action=display&num=1074889556)

The details of this report are not for the "weak of stomach"...they are truly horrifying examples of what men do who take their religious beliefs seriously.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Men dont beet women because of religion. How many women beaters are there who beat their wives, girl friends, etc who are not muslim, hindu etc. I would imagine it is a very similar number preportionally. Religion is just an excuse, you know this but you bring up muslims and hindu's anyway, with no referance to other women beaters. Whats up redstar, are you a racist?

:redstar2000:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 12:15 PM
Men don't beet women because of religion. How many women beaters are there who beat their wives, girl friends, etc who are not Muslim, Hindu etc. I would imagine it is a very similar number proportionally. Religion is just an excuse, you know this but you bring up Muslims and Hindus anyway, with no reference to other women beaters. Whats up redstar, are you a racist?

:redstar2000:
Had you bothered to read the report, you would have seen that this concerns much more and much worse things than simply beatings.

Religion "is just an excuse"?

Nice try.

Am I a "racist"?

No, but you are a fake leftist.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Pete]

Surely, a woman who has changed her clothes at the end of her menstrual period is the most auspicious of women. When she has changed her clothes at the end of her menstrual period, therefore, one should approach that splendid woman and invite her to have sex. Should she refuse to consent, he should bribe her. If she still refuses, he should beat her with a stick or with his fists and over power her, saying: 'I take away the splendour from you with my virility and splendour.'Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 6.4.6-7


Men dont beet women because of religion.

What was that Enigma?

Note: I did not read the article, I just remembered reading this passage that legitimized rape and found it worth mentioning seeing Enigma's denial of religious condonning of such actions. Albeit not all Hindus live by the words of the Upanisads, some do (in a nation of 1billion it is almost a sure thing).

-Pete

[kadamangudy]

Seems like another rant against the BJP to me.
They are much better then their predecessor, the
extremely corrupt Congress Party. Although I still realize the
horrendus nature of the events in the post.

Also, what does nuclear testing have to do with "manliness."
The Indians just wanted to be another Nuclear Power, it has
nothing to do with the BJP's desire for masculinity.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

coming from both Hindu and Muslim background, this news doesn't really shock me sad to say...

Will it ever change? Who knows...liberating a religion can never happen...it's like trying to get stubborn Catholics (which my father converted to) to accept homosexual marriages. Talk about mission impossible...

anyway, it is devastating, but honestly, as outsiders, the best thing we can do is just learn more and more about the situation. Understand the why behind the action, maybe that'll bring you closer to their reality.

The WORST thing we or anyone can do is impose our ideals onto them. It's hard I know, even for something like this, but we're not impirealists (or at least I hope we're not!)

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 29 2004, 06:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (redstar2000 @ Jan 29 2004, 06:20 PM)
[email protected] 29 2004, 12:15 PM
Men don&#39;t beet women because of religion. How many women beaters are there who beat their wives, girl friends, etc who are not Muslim, Hindu etc. I would imagine it is a very similar number proportionally. Religion is just an excuse, you know this but you bring up Muslims and Hindus anyway, with no reference to other women beaters. Whats up redstar, are you a racist?

:redstar2000:
Had you bothered to read the report, you would have seen that this concerns much more and much worse things than simply beatings.

Religion "is just an excuse"?

Nice try.

Am I a "racist"?

No, but you are a fake leftist.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas [/b]
Had you bothered to read the report,

No i didn&#39;t read the rport I read what you posted. However I have just read the report, not that it can be counted as a report, what proof does this person provide? None, why should this story believed? Anyone can write a horror story and put it on the internet and claim it to be true. And even if it is true westerners in the 20th century have done just as bad, yet they didn&#39;t claim it to be because "the bible said so".

I will say it again, acts of violance such of this are not because of religion they are because people with major problems need an excuse, religion is a useful scapegoat. It always has been and likley always will be.

Am I a "racist"?

Clearly.

but you are a fake leftist.

No but you are a reactionary idiot.

What was that Enigma?

religion doesnt cause men to beat women, its just an excuse.

[bubbrubb]

I have to say that the majority of the things going on over there are very backward. Its human rights.. this people are some freakin dumb and backward(not trying to be rascist but most are)

[redstar2000]

However I have just read the report, not that it can be counted as a report, what proof does this person provide? None, why should this story [be] believed? Anyone can write a horror story and put it on the internet and claim it to be true.

So, those feminists in India made it all up, did they?


And even if it is true, westerners in the 20th century have done just as bad, yet they didn&#39;t claim it to be because "the bible said so".

Arguable...appeals to "divine providence" were and are quite common among western imperialists going back as far as we have records. The crossbow was condemned as an un-Christian weapon...but sanctioned for use against heathens. And in the first years of the airplane, it was considered "acceptable" to bomb "savages" from the air (the Italians were first, against Lybya, in 1911&#33;)...though thought unacceptable in war between "civilized" (Christian) nations.

George Bush is certainly just as devout as Osima Ben Laden...but much deadlier.


I will say it again, acts of violance such of this are not because of religion, they are because people with major problems need an excuse...

If someone perceives a "major problem", then they attack what they perceive to be the source of the "major problem".

To serious believers, those who believe in other religions or none at all are a serious problem by definition.

They "must" be converted or killed.


The WORST thing we or anyone can do is impose our ideals onto them. It&#39;s hard I know, even for something like this, but we&#39;re not imperialists (or at least I hope we&#39;re not&#33;)

Well, in a practical sense, the point is moot. There&#39;s nothing immediate that any of us can actually do about the situation there.

But suppose there was?

Suppose it were in our power to violently retaliate against those responsible for these atrocities against women?

Suppose every time there was an incident of this nature, we were in a position to execute a few hundred "religious leaders" of the group responsible and demolish a few dozen of their most "precious" holy buildings?

Think they&#39;d learn better? After a while?

Maybe?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 04:13 AM

However I have just read the report, not that it can be counted as a report, what proof does this person provide? None, why should this story [be] believed? Anyone can write a horror story and put it on the internet and claim it to be true.

So, those feminists in India made it all up, did they?


And even if it is true, westerners in the 20th century have done just as bad, yet they didn&#39;t claim it to be because "the bible said so".

Arguable...appeals to "divine providence" were and are quite common among western imperialists going back as far as we have records. The crossbow was condemned as an un-Christian weapon...but sanctioned for use against heathens. And in the first years of the airplane, it was considered "acceptable" to bomb "savages" from the air (the Italians were first, against Lybya, in 1911&#33;)...though thought unacceptable in war between "civilized" (Christian) nations.

George Bush is certainly just as devout as Osima Ben Laden...but much deadlier.


I will say it again, acts of violance such of this are not because of religion, they are because people with major problems need an excuse...

If someone perceives a "major problem", then they attack what they perceive to be the source of the "major problem".

To serious believers, those who believe in other religions or none at all are a serious problem by definition.

They "must" be converted or killed.


So, those feminists in India made it all up, did they?

I would Imagine some person wrote it at home, then posted it on the net, to make a point, I doubt Indian feminists had anything to do with it. But again even if it is true, which is conceivable I suppose, religion is just an excuse, I would Imagine similar acts of atrocity would have been performed with or without religions influence.

Arguable...appeals to "divine providence" were and are quite common among western imperialists going back as far as we have records.

yes religion is a tried and tested excuse to get away with killing people and stealing power. Why change a winning formula.

The crossbow was condemned as an un-Christian weapon...but sanctioned for use against heathens.

Not surprising.

And in the first years of the airplane, it was considered "acceptable" to bomb "savages" from the air (the Italians were first, against Lybya, in 1911&#33;)...

I doubt that hey were considered savages because of their religion but rather due to their life style and culture, etc.

George Bush is certainly just as devout as Osima Ben Laden...but much deadlier.

Arguable, but Hitler was much deadlier than both of them, yet was not particularly devout.

[redstar2000]

I would imagine some person wrote it at home, then posted it on the net, to make a point. I doubt Indian feminists had anything to do with it. But again even if it is true, which is conceivable I suppose, religion is just an excuse, I would imagine similar acts of atrocity would have been performed with or without religion&#39;s influence.

This is a product of an English boarding school "education".

I can fix up the spelling and the punctuation...but there&#39;s no way to edit out the stupidity.

The idea that large numbers of people in northern India have some kind of mystical propensity to commit savage atrocities on women in the absence of religious fanaticism is simply...breath-taking.


Yes, religion is a tried and tested excuse to get away with killing people and stealing power. Why change a winning formula?

Why do you continually assert that it is an "excuse" and not a motive?

Do you think that large numbers of people just "naturally" want to commit horrible atrocities and think to themselves "hey, if I did it in the name of Allah or Vishnu, I could get away with it"?

That doesn&#39;t make any sense&#33;

Unless you have some Hobbesian notion of "human nature"--that we are all "savages" at heart awaiting the opportunity (or "a good excuse"&#33;) to go out and really do a whole lot of evil shit.

Another lesson from English boarding schools?


...but Hitler was much deadlier than both of them, yet was not particularly devout.

Well it&#39;s known that Hitler was raised Catholic by a mother who was devout. He certainly had no use for Christianity nor is it likely that he ever took seriously the efforts to revive the old Teutonic paganism.

But he also invoked divine providence--at least in public.

And considered apart from its objective economic and political characteristics, there is certainly a sense in which Nazi ideology itself had religious characteristics. I think it is entirely possible that he sincerely believed that a people (Volk) can be chosen by "God" to rule the world...and that "God" would send to his chosen Volk a "redeemer", a "great leader", to accomplish the "divine purpose".

Had the Nazis won their war of conquest and built a successful empire, it&#39;s interesting to speculate whether the secular or the religious version of Nazism would have ultimately become the most influential.

Hitler as the "German Moses" would make a very appealing myth to the "master race".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 05:02 PM

I would imagine some person wrote it at home, then posted it on the net, to make a point. I doubt Indian feminists had anything to do with it. But again even if it is true, which is conceivable I suppose, religion is just an excuse, I would imagine similar acts of atrocity would have been performed with or without religion&#39;s influence.

This is a product of an English boarding school "education".

I can fix up the spelling and the punctuation...but there&#39;s no way to edit out the stupidity.

The idea that large numbers of people in northern India have some kind of mystical propensity to commit savage atrocities on women in the absence of religious fanaticism is simply...breath-taking.


Yes, religion is a tried and tested excuse to get away with killing people and stealing power. Why change a winning formula?

Why do you continually assert that it is an "excuse" and not a motive?

Do you think that large numbers of people just "naturally" want to commit horrible atrocities and think to themselves "hey, if I did it in the name of Allah or Vishnu, I could get away with it"?

That doesn&#39;t make any sense&#33;

Unless you have some Hobbesian notion of "human nature"--that we are all "savages" at heart awaiting the opportunity (or "a good excuse"&#33;) to go out and really do a whole lot of evil shit.

Another lesson from English boarding schools?


...but Hitler was much deadlier than both of them, yet was not particularly devout.

Well it&#39;s known that Hitler was raised Catholic by a mother who was devout. He certainly had no use for Christianity nor is it likely that he ever took seriously the efforts to revive the old Teutonic paganism.

But he also invoked divine providence--at least in public.

And considered apart from its objective economic and political characteristics, there is certainly a sense in which Nazi ideology itself had religious characteristics. I think it is entirely possible that he sincerely believed that a people (Volk) can be chosen by "God" to rule the world...and that "God" would send to his chosen Volk a "redeemer", a "great leader", to accomplish the "divine purpose".

Had the Nazis won their war of conquest and built a successful empire, it&#39;s interesting to speculate whether the secular or the religious version of Nazism would have ultimately become the most influential.

Hitler as the "German Moses" would make a very appealing myth to the "master race".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
This is a product of an English boarding school "education".[/i]

It wasn&#39;t in England.

[b]I can fix up the spelling and the punctuation...

:rolleyes:
still hung up on that?

but there&#39;s no way to edit out the stupidity.

You care to disprove anything I&#39;ve said or just insult me? I think the latter is always going to be the winner when "debating" with you... (mud slinging would be a better description as that is all you are capable of (put that in your papers, if it still gets any traffic.))

The idea that large numbers of people in northern India have some kind of mystical propensity to commit savage atrocities on women in the absence of religious fanaticism is simply... breath-taking.

The idea that large numbers of people in the USA, Britain, France, Canada, Australia, etc have some kind of mystical propensity to commit savage beatings on women in the absence of religious fanaticism is simply... breath-taking as well.

Funny trend isn&#39;t it, men commit acts of atrocities against women, beatings to rape and murder all over the world, yet if these occur in India they must be because of religion.

Great logic redstar, you&#39;ll go along way... preferably floating face down in a river after a priest has stabbed you in the back with a knife edged crucifix. That would really be poetic justice.

Why do you continually assert that it is an "excuse" and not a motive?

because it is, how many 50 year old Mullah&#39;s (forgive the spelling if its wrong) do you see strapping explosives to them selves and walk into a packed bus? None its always indoctrinated teenagers, who have been lied to. Religion is their cause its true, but even without religion another cause would be found by the old men in positions of power and influence.

That doesn&#39;t make any sense&#33;

To anyone who isn&#39;t brain dead, your damn right it does.

Unless you have some Hobbesian notion of "human nature"--that we are all "savages" at heart awaiting the opportunity (or "a good excuse"&#33;) to go out and really do a whole lot of evil shit.

No, I would not presume to generalise all humanity, but such individuals do exist, its a shame they tend to end up in the white house and teaching children, etc.

Another lesson from English boarding schools?

The only religious education I received in boarding school was that religious people need to wake up and smell reality, because they chat a load of crap, but who am I to tell them they are wrong? No the vast number of lessons I leaned which have proved you wrong time and time again were in my local comprehensive.

He certainly had no use for Christianity nor is it likely that he ever took seriously the efforts to revive the old Teutonic paganism.

Ahh time for celebration, you actually for once have got it right. I don’t imagine it will last.

But he also invoked divine providence--at least in public.

Another example of religion being used by people in power for their own ends.

And considered apart from its objective economic and political characteristics, there is certainly a sense in which Nazi ideology itself had religious characteristics. I think it is entirely possible that he sincerely believed that a people (Volk) can be chosen by "God" to rule the world...and that "God" would send to his chosen Volk a "redeemer", a "great leader", to accomplish the "divine purpose".

So I have read... I have also see it completely annihilated by competent historians, who do not believe that Hitler was quite like that. Having read a little of Mein Kampf I never got that impression. He certainly believed that the German speaking peoples and Aryan race were significantly better than everyone else, and he certainly hated minorities, but the idea that he thought that the German people were god is simply not true, as he himself was not German. I have also seen numerous quotes where Hitler showed himself to be an atheist... but then again Hitler is notorious for on one had saying one thing, and on another contradicting himself.


Hitler as the "German Moses" would make a very appealing myth to the "master race".

Hitler was not German.

[Guerilla22]

I think it&#39;s obvious to everyone that throughout the world there are many different cultures and religions and in every culture and pretty much every major world religion (with the exception of Buddhism) there are certain beliefs shared by a society of religious group thar are discriminatory against someone.
In some cultures/ religions women are very oppressed and almost every scoiety discriminates against hommosexuals. The problem is that those who practice organized relgion tend to discriminate against someone, simply because they claim that some sort of holy text deems it right or not right.

Here&#39;s an idea: why don&#39;t we stop paying attention to institutions of group thought, like organized religion start thinking for ourselves, and then come to our own conclusions about what&#39;s right and what&#39;s wrong.

[redstar2000]

Great logic redstar, you&#39;ll go a long way... preferably floating face down in a river after a priest has stabbed you in the back with a knife edged crucifix. That would really be poetic justice.

And you have a nice day too, Enema. :)

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[revolutionindia]

asdf

[revolutionindia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 12:16 AM

Surely, a woman who has changed her clothes at the end of her menstrual period is the most auspicious of women. When she has changed her clothes at the end of her menstrual period, therefore, one should approach that splendid woman and invite her to have sex. Should she refuse to consent, he should bribe her. If she still refuses, he should beat her with a stick or with his fists and over power her, saying: &#39;I take away the splendour from you with my virility and splendour.&#39;Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 6.4.6-7

[
the upanishads have become corrupted and defiled while passing thorugh the hands and the mouth of man.

[redstar2000]

The Upanishads have become corrupted and defiled while passing through the hands and the mouth of man.

I wonder why Christians and Muslims have never tried that excuse.

That is, you quote something really rotten from one of their "holy books" and instead of trying to "interpret" away the plain words, they could just say "oh, that&#39;s a corrupted passage copied wrongly by a wretched sinner".

That way, they could "get away" with anything.


Death to MOdi (Chief minister of Gujarat)

and


An eye for an eye policy will only lead to a blind world.

and


The majority of Hindus are peace loving and god fearing.

and


All religions a just a shadow of what they were in the past at the time of their origin.

They have mutated into something unrecognisable and filled with filth and bizarre practises.

and finally


God save the world

It&#39;s pretty obvious that these statements all contradict each other...to the point of incoherence.

Perhaps that reflects the confusion in India today...where religious warfare is still "on the agenda" among both Muslims and Hindus.

My point in starting this thread was as an illustration of what people will do when they really take religion seriously...even if it is "corrupt" and full of "bizarre practices".

It&#39;s downright unbelievable what the "god-fearing" are capable of when they can really "cut loose".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Zanzibar]

I find it odd how many marxists are fine with attacking christianity and judaism. However, when someone attacks Islam they are up in arms. A socialist favours no religion. A socialist fights for the proletariat, not the gods.

Marx spoke of all religion when he declared it the opiate of the people :huh:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 08:56 PM
I find it odd how many marxists are fine with attacking Christianity and Judaism. However, when someone attacks Islam they are up in arms. A socialist favours no religion. A socialist fights for the proletariat, not the gods.

Marx spoke of all religion when he declared it the opiate of the people :huh:
You are quite right, of course.

One reason is that western Marxists have little direct contact with Muslim atrocities in countries where Islam is more or less the "official religion".

If people had a chance to see "sinners" have their heads chopped off for "adultery" every Friday afternoon "after prayers" in New York&#39;s Central Park...then I expect there would be some sharp re-evaluations taking place.

Another factor is the present conflict between Islam and U.S. imperialism...there is a kind of knee-jerk reaction among many leftists that any enemy of U.S. imperialism must be, in some sense, "virtuous".

They often come very close to saying that the "only" way you can really oppose U.S. imperialism is by openly supporting whoever U.S. imperialism attacks.

If Bush is a reactionary turd (which he is), then it "logically follows" that Osama bin Laden "must" be "a pretty decent guy".

Sooner or later--and usually sooner--this kind of "reasoning" lands you in the shit. You end up trying to defend the indefensible...and looking like a fool.

Saying, for example, that this or that Muslim atrocity was a consequence of "culture" and not Islam itself.

What rot&#33;

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Exploited Class]

I wouldn&#39;t go as far as saying that religion is the only excuse to commit violence for these reasons.

Two people can read the same book and get two different meanings out of it. Northern India, where a lot of these crimes against women are happening is the United States&#39; South. You know the place where the Promise keepers, who declared that the bible gives them "control and final say in the orders of the house family." These are rural areas, and they fall to the same problems that rural America does, poor education, uneducated heads of households, spousel abuse. I think that there are a lot of variables that play into this but those are the primary reasons.

Those areas are just dynamite areas with long fuses, with bad repeatedly taught examples of treatment to women, with little education different. Poverty stricken areas, filled with stressed.

Now religion isn&#39;t the reason behind all this poverty, stress and poor education (unless the church has say in education). It is however the device that points the "release" or "coping" mechanisms towards women. These are highly religious people in very horrible living conditions, and they use religion and what it teaches to cope through violence towards women.

Religions are heavily slanted against women, and when society creates these horrible conditions, those coping mechanisms fall back to these age old "TRUTHS handed down by god" to allow for them to do this.

As far as western society not "attacking muslim" religions. Right now they have enough of the world attacking them. There is a whole western world that hates, "rag heads" and "sand niggers". That is a fire that is burning hot enough and doesn&#39;t need me to fuel that fire. Granted we know that they aren&#39;t evil people right and that they are just people, but they are right now being targetted not just by our heads of state. It is dangerous being them right now is what is comes down to, although I might be able to seperate the difference, I don&#39;t want my voice getting mixed in with the mob of hate. They have their baskets full. I am not taking or promoting their religion or culture but I don&#39;t want to give more reason for the hate mobs to hate their targets. However, I am not siding with Osama because he is against an imperialist nation. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. I should feel comfortable having my friends over to my house and I don&#39;t think Osama or Saddam fit that bill.

Two of thier countries are now occupied by world forces, there is plenty floating around that is negative towards them and their religion, "70 virgins await them, they hate pork shoot them with bacon... they can&#39;t see allah if they are buried with a pig..." My statements don&#39;t need to mix in with all that.

Also Osama isn&#39;t religious, I doubt that he believes very much in what he does. The upperclass hardly ever is except to stay favorable to the lower class. But luckily religion teaches obedience and just accepting everything by blind faith, so he is just taking these people and using religion to control them like religion leaders do with their followers.

[revolutionindia]

asdf

[RedAnarchist]

I&#39;m a Communist and therefore am not overtly religious. But some poeple are, an that is their choice. We cannot force people to be Communists, because they will only become even more rligious or even more conservative.

[redstar2000]

Well, I was going to be "nice" and just pass over your muddle, but since you insist...

1. Saying "death to MOdi" and the "eye for an eye" statement obviously contradict each other. If you adhere to the latter, then, to be consistent, you must "forgive" MOdi. If you kill MOdi, then MOdi&#39;s relatives and supporters will come looking for you...and not in order to give you a big wet kiss.

2. The Hindus that have the opportunity to commit atrocities against women in the names of their gods seem to be willing to do so.

I&#39;m guessing that there are very few Muslims around in most parts of India; that they are concentrated in the north, up towards the border with Pakistan.

Thus, even if a Hindu wanted to commit an atrocity against a Muslim woman...in most parts of India, it would be too much trouble to find one.

So your assertion about "peace-loving Hindus" seems doubtful to me. It certainly doesn&#39;t "follow" from anything that you&#39;ve said thus far.

3. It could be argued with at least equal validity that it is precisely when religions are "new" and in the first flush of their success that they are the most brutal and inhumane.

The ink was not dry on the emperor&#39;s decree making Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire when the Christians fell at once on the followers of the old pagan faiths...stealing their temples, arresting and killing their priests and priestesses, prohibiting their ancient rituals, etc.

And, of course, the Christians fell on each other as well...but they had been doing that for at least a century before their "rise to power".

Prior to the rise of Islam, the tribes of Arabia had engaged in endless fratricidal war by savage methods...and Islam simply directed this savagery against the unconverted. During the "Crusades", when Jerusalem and other towns changed hands with some frequency, both Christians and Muslims cheerfully slaughtered one another&#39;s civilian population...and both agreed that Jews should always be murdered.

To the extent there is any historical accuracy to the Torah (Old Testament), the Hebrews--when they had the opportunity--were equally amenable to mass murder...right down to killing the livestock that they captured.

I would surmise that the rise of Hinduism is "lost in the mists of time"...but I would be shocked if it&#39;s initial spread were not at swords-point.

And was there not a Buddhist empire in Northern India at one time?

I doubt very much that it can ever be shown that religions either "progress" or "degenerate" over time...their behavior is generally always bad.

4. In saying "God save the world", doesn&#39;t it occur to you to wonder what the divine fuckoff has been up to for the last 60 centuries or so?

If there was a "god" and "it" "wanted" to "save the world", could "it" not have done so long before now?

Why should "it" listen to you...or any mortal?

Maybe "it" "enjoys" human pain and suffering, ever think of that?

Or maybe your ideas on this whole matter are just a muddle of inconsistencies and contradictions.

When you say "God has nothing to do with religion", aren&#39;t you really saying that you find all the existing religions "distasteful" but don&#39;t want to give up the idea of "God"?

But if "God" doesn&#39;t like any of the existing religions--since they are "corrupt" and full of "bizarre practices"--why doesn&#39;t "it" start "its" own?

You know, fill up the heavens with "its glory" and announce to humanity "This is the proper way to worship ME&#33;"

"And here are MY real commandments...obey or I will surely smite thine ass&#33;"


Communists should stay out of matters concerning god and religion. Something that they do not understand and [are] ignorant about should not be discussed.

Why not? The godsuckers usually know as much about communism as a mud turtle -- that never stops them from denouncing communists as "agents of the devil" and "evil incarnate".

In fact, some of us know a great deal about the real history of religion...and it&#39;s pretty ugly.

Why shouldn&#39;t we say so?


Redstar,read this carefully

In this world there are four types of people

1.Those who don&#39;t know that they know not...

Do something about your ignorance

Since you&#39;ve already placed me in your "first type" -- I don&#39;t know that I&#39;m "ignorant" -- I see no possible way I could follow your doubtless well-meaning advice to "do something about my ignorance"...I&#39;m not aware that I&#39;m "ignorant".

Do you expect me to take your word for it?

You don&#39;t have a prayer. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Guerilla22]

I definitely don&#39;t subscribe to the idea of forcing anyone to believe anything. No we are not right to tell others to believe, however I think that everyone is well aware of the fact that the ones who are trying to force their beliefs on other people, most often tend to be people who follow an organized religion.

I don&#39;t think that you&#39;ll find too many socialist that are going out of their way to get others to share their beliefs. The problem with society (at least that of the USA) is that these people, who follow organized religion, are constantly butting into everyone else&#39;s lives, trying to tell them how to live and what&#39;s wrong and what&#39;s right.

We need a society of free thought, not the group think mentality of those who practice religion.

[Edelweiss]

I will say it again, acts of violance such of this are not because of religion they are because people with major problems need an excuse, religion is a useful scapegoat. It always has been and likley always will be.

Well, of course the problem is caused by "people with major problems need an excuse, religion is a useful scapegoat", nevertheless the practisized and organized religion in many countries IS covering and supporting such acts. When you look at countries like Iran, where the stoning of women who comitted adultery is part of common law, it is a totally useless to have a stance like "it&#39;s the evil people not the religion itself".
I don&#39;t neccesarily have a problem with organized religion in our times in general, I can only speak about the Christian church, but it does without question fullfill a certain, and often essential social care, especially for underpriviliged and socially weak. Something which the state is doing lesser and lesser in most capitalist countries. Nevertheless it has to a logical conclusion for every leftist to fight against any attempts to politicize religion, and to allow religion to control any parts of society beside that social care. Never forget that religion ALWAYS is a rectionary concept, which is used by the ruling class as a tool to stabalize their rule, and to justify and push through their interests.
BTW Enigma: You are constantly accusing Che-lives of exaggerated "political correctness" but your stance which nearly totally denies all criticism of religion, is in fact the kind of PCness we really don&#39;t need here at Che-Lives...

[Christopher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 05:15 PM
Men dont beet women because of religion. How many women beaters are there who beat their wives, girl friends, etc who are not muslim, hindu etc. I would imagine it is a very similar number preportionally. Religion is just an excuse, you know this but you bring up muslims and hindu&#39;s anyway, with no referance to other women beaters. Whats up redstar, are you a racist?

:redstar2000:
True, not because of religion. Considering that such extreme behaviors are always unconscious in origin, we have to acknowledge that population stresses play a dominant role. Infanticide was practiced with a degree of humanity by ancient peoples. Burning pregnant women shows a separation from the mores of religion that respects life.

Witht he insanity of our world we should be considering unconscious factors the western mentality rejects. Dream state communications could create unconscious motives engaged by a group in purely animalistic efforts to protect the future. Their religion makes them a group and does provide persecutorial guidelines that embrace, historically, the pack mentality taking such action.

My question is;
If it is an unconsciously directed action, is an understanding of the unconscious adequate to explain and treat such bejaviors justified in the eyes of women and others who learn of such tragedies? Is it justified by people who consider themselves civilized?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 12:13 PM

I will say it again, acts of violance such of this are not because of religion they are because people with major problems need an excuse, religion is a useful scapegoat. It always has been and likley always will be.

Well, of course the problem is caused by "people with major problems need an excuse, religion is a useful scapegoat", nevertheless the practisized and organized religion in many countries IS covering and supporting such acts. When you look at countries like Iran, where the stoning of women who comitted adultery is part of common law, it is a totally useless to have a stance like "it&#39;s the evil people not the religion itself".
I don&#39;t neccesarily have a problem with organized religion in our times in general, I can only speak about the Christian church, but it does without question fullfill a certain, and often essential social care, especially for underpriviliged and socially weak. Something which the state is doing lesser and lesser in most capitalist countries. Nevertheless it has to a logical conclusion for every leftist to fight against any attempts to politicize religion, and to allow religion to control any parts of society beside that social care. Never forget that religion ALWAYS is a rectionary concept, and to justify and push through their interests.
BTW Enigma: You are constantly accusing Che-lives of exaggerated "political correctness" but your stance which nearly totally denies all criticism of religion, is in fact the kind of PCness we really don&#39;t need here at Che-Lives...
Well, of course the problem is caused by "people with major problems need an excuse, religion is a useful scapegoat", nevertheless the practisized and organized religion in many countries IS covering and supporting such acts.

Though you are entirely right in saying "organized religion in many countries IS covering and supporting such acts" I reject the idea that this is any basis for banning organised religion, I also reject the idea that religion is intrinsically "evil" or wrong. Of course their are those in religious groups who hold such fucked beliefs, that women are inferior etc, but I believe that they join the clergy to use as a platform to spread their beliefs and to gain power, just as such people enter politics etc.

When you look at countries like Iran, where the stoning of women who committed adultery is part of common law, it is a totally useless to have a stance like "it&#39;s the evil people not the religion itself".

I would imagine you could ban religion in Iran and such crimes would occur, rather because it has become almost a tangible part of the culture.

Nevertheless it has to a logical conclusion for every leftist to fight against any attempts to politicize religion,

Well I would agree with that, because the people with political aims and who join the church are clearly out for the power and the social status which a position in a major church brings.

Never forget that religion ALWAYS is a rectionary concept,

I reject that concept as well, I could quote you lines from the bible which are clearly not reactionary, quite the reverse, as well as major religious figures who pushed for extensive political change in favour of the working classes.

which is used by the ruling class as a tool to stabalize their rule,

Of course in most circumstances the above statement is the truth.

BTW Enigma: You are constantly accusing Che-lives of exaggerated "political correctness" but your stance which nearly totally denies all criticism of religion,

I do deny criticism of religion, I just attack foolish and clearly incorrect generalisations of religion. Being an atheist it would be very difficult for me to deny all criticism of religion.

s in fact the kind of PCness we really don&#39;t need here at Che-Lives...

What so you would rather ban/cage people for (god forbid) uttering the word "gay" than those who attack 80% of the worlds population and wish to oppress these people, stamp on their beliefs and crush their culture? IMO that’s a rather… odd view.

[redstar2000]

With the insanity of our world we should be considering unconscious factors the western mentality rejects.

The reason that science (not "western mentality" whatever that is) rejects the "unconscious" as a means of communication between people is that no credible evidence has ever been produced to support that assertion.

The fact of the matter is that both Muslim males and Hindu males have been taught from childhood that "slaughtering the unbeliever" is perfectly acceptable to and even required by the gods under certain circumstances.

What circumstances? Ask your nearest "holy man"...he will tell you as "god" speaks to him on a regular basis.

If all memory of the gods were suddenly erased, do you imagine that these people would still engage in mutual slaughter?

Really?

:redstar2000:

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 06:24 PM
The fact of the matter is that both Muslim males and Hindu males have been taught from childhood that "slaughtering the unbeliever" is perfectly acceptable to and even required by the gods under certain circumstances.
I assume you are refering to individuals and not the people in general.

If that is the case what you are saying is true, but I could name you examples of people wishing to wipe out other cultures, without referance to religion, so your what exactly is your point?

[redstar2000]

I assume you are referring to individuals and not the people in general.

No...I was referring to people in general.

Most religions condemn individual murder for personal gain within the "community of believers".

Outside that community, the rules "are different". When believers find themselves with the opportunity to convert or exterminate the unbeliever, the gods--at least if the "holy books" are to be believed--look with favor upon a vigorous propagation of the faith. Atrocities are considered either an unfortunate necessity or a positive good.

That atrocities have taken place in which religion played a negligible role is certainly indisputable...though closer examination might turn up a few surprises.

The Nazis did not murder the Jews because they considered the Jews to be "Christ-killers" who refused to accept the "true messiah".

But many pious German protestants were not at all adverse to draconian discrimination against the Jews leading up to the holocaust itself. From the time of Martin Luther onwards, they had been taught that "the Jews are our misfortune" and that blows against them were "blessed by God".

Likewise, the U.S. and the British did not invade Iraq in order to make it a "Christian nation". But I can imagine the circle of folks who hang out with John Ashford perceiving the whole event as a further humiliation of Islam--"a false religion"--and a great triumph for "the true faith". Certainly Ashford&#39;s "Justice Department" has delighted in the systematic humiliation of American Muslims...they&#39;re clearly "having a good time".

Tony Blair is pretty devout too, is he not?

What I&#39;m suggesting in this thread is that religion has proven to be uniquely well-suited as an ideological rationale for conquest, murder, and assorted atrocities.

Your defense of religion relies on the observation that people would behave badly even if the whole world was atheist.

No doubt they would. But I personally think that fewer would behave badly...and those that did would find it harder to "justify" both in the eyes of others and in their own eyes as well.


...those who attack 80% of the world&#39;s population and wish to oppress these people, stamp on their beliefs and crush their cultures?

I couldn&#39;t overlook this personal tribute you paid to me, so I&#39;ll return the favor: your "atheism" is as fake as your "leftism".

:redstar2000:

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 04:00 AM

I assume you are referring to individuals and not the people in general.

No...I was referring to people in general.

Most religions condemn individual murder for personal gain within the "community of believers".

Outside that community, the rules "are different". When believers find themselves with the opportunity to convert or exterminate the unbeliever, the gods--at least if the "holy books" are to be believed--look with favor upon a vigorous propagation of the faith. Atrocities are considered either an unfortunate necessity or a positive good.

That atrocities have taken place in which religion played a negligible role is certainly indisputable...though closer examination might turn up a few surprises.

The Nazis did not murder the Jews because they considered the Jews to be "Christ-killers" who refused to accept the "true messiah".

But many pious German protestants were not at all adverse to draconian discrimination against the Jews leading up to the holocaust itself. From the time of Martin Luther onwards, they had been taught that "the Jews are our misfortune" and that blows against them were "blessed by God".

Likewise, the U.S. and the British did not invade Iraq in order to make it a "Christian nation". But I can imagine the circle of folks who hang out with John Ashford perceiving the whole event as a further humiliation of Islam--"a false religion"--and a great triumph for "the true faith". Certainly Ashford&#39;s "Justice Department" has delighted in the systematic humiliation of American Muslims...they&#39;re clearly "having a good time".

Tony Blair is pretty devout too, is he not?

What I&#39;m suggesting in this thread is that religion has proven to be uniquely well-suited as an ideological rationale for conquest, murder, and assorted atrocities.

Your defense of religion relies on the observation that people would behave badly even if the whole world was atheist.

No doubt they would. But I personally think that fewer would behave badly...and those that did would find it harder to "justify" both in the eyes of others and in their own eyes as well.


...those who attack 80% of the world&#39;s population and wish to oppress these people, stamp on their beliefs and crush their cultures?

I couldn&#39;t overlook this personal tribute you paid to me, so I&#39;ll return the favor: your "atheism" is as fake as your "leftism".

:redstar2000:

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
No...I was referring to people in general.

Well that certainly supprises me, as I would have never expected such a generalisation even from you...

I can understand stating that some people are brainwashed to be killers, but to say all Muslim and Hindu males in general have been taught to kill people etc, is shocking, and simply not true.

Most religions condemn individual murder for personal gain within the "community of believers".



But of course, Religions in general have very strict views of morality and generally condem murder as sin, etc.

Outside that community, the rules "are different". When believers find themselves with the opportunity to convert or exterminate the unbeliever, the gods--at least if the "holy books" are to be believed--look with favor upon a vigorous propagation of the faith. Atrocities are considered either an unfortunate necessity or a positive good.

That is simply not true, the vast majority of Muslims I have spoken to about attrocities such as 9/11, condem it for what it was. Yet that was a strike against the foreign heretic. Not all muslims believe in Islamic Jihad (sp?).

But many pious German protestants were not at all adverse to draconian discrimination against the Jews leading up to the holocaust itself. From the time of Martin Luther onwards, they had been taught that "the Jews are our misfortune" and that blows against them were "blessed by God".

Then you can see that the jews were blamed for the economic hardship that Germany was suffering under, and have accepted that amoral nazi&#39;s used this as an excuse to achieve their own sick goals.

But I can imagine the circle of folks who hang out with John Ashford perceiving the whole event as a further humiliation of Islam--"a false religion"--and a great triumph for "the true faith". Certainly Ashford&#39;s "Justice Department" has delighted in the systematic humiliation of American Muslims...they&#39;re clearly "having a good time".

Well I have never personally witnessed this view,and I would imagine even if it does exist, which I reject, then it is held by a very small minority, and as around 60% of US citizens still agree with the war, it suggests that your conclusion that religion caused this war to be false.

Tony Blair is pretty devout too, is he not?


As I am aware not especially, Bush openly shows his Christianity as an election ploy to gain Christian votes, over here views are vastly different, not as much importance is placed upon relgion, and it rarley appears in British politics.

What I&#39;m suggesting in this thread is that religion has proven to be uniquely well-suited as an ideological rationale for conquest, murder, and assorted atrocities.

Yes you have made that cystal clear, however when one looks deaply at the situation you can always see individuals exploiting the religious masses to effectivley trick them into commiting or condoning acts of attrocity. A fine example is the taiping rebelion.

I couldn&#39;t overlook this personal tribute you paid to me, so I&#39;ll return the favor: your "atheism" is as fake as your "leftism".

Do not flatter your self, that statement was to all of the people who voted for religious username blocking, not you especially.


:redstar2000:

[Christopher]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 5 2004, 06:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (redstar2000 @ Feb 5 2004, 06:24 PM)
Christopher
With the insanity of our world we should be considering unconscious factors the western mentality rejects.

The reason that science (not "western mentality" whatever that is) rejects the "unconscious" as a means of communication between people is that no credible evidence has ever been produced to support that assertion.

:redstar2000:
[/b]
Have you ever heard of the book called "The Hundredth Monkey"? Not the one written by Ken Keyes. I am talking about the original book written by 23 Japanese biologists studying the Macaca Fuscata on and Island called Koshima. Keyes was probably on acid when he read it and left out ALL of the good material observation the bios made. The bios could not get the parties financing the research to print the truth about what they learned.

The bios used their own savings to publish the book. There were only 10,000 printed. I read it twice in about 1986 or 7. So science, as western mentality is so heavily invested in is somehow spared the "credible evidence" by an invisible force that sucks up books. Aside from that, here is what a 1933 law dictionary, Blacks Law 3rd ED. page 9-11 had to say about hypnosis.

"And perhaps the exercise of a telepathic power not as yet fully understood"

http://truthasaur.com/local/images/blacks911.jpeg

Then, psychology has coined a term called "transference" in relation to hypnosis. Every definition of it describes unconscious information that gives the hypnotist "feelings". Feelings are unconscious and controlled pften by the limbic system. When you have thoughts the limbic system can trigger you to have feelings based on your conditioning around the thoughts.

So I have produced some credible evidence. It is not conclusive evidence. But what do we really need to realize that events as serious as the crusades or the inquisitions were ACTUALLY BASED in something real. Much of our history s based in utterly fantastic religious beliefs. or spiritual or whatever. Look to Mount Olympus for more detail.

[redstar2000]

Christopher, putting something in a dictionary does not make it "credible evidence".

I&#39;m aware that there have been some interesting studies of primates in Japan regarding the spread of "cultural innovations" (like washing food before eating it)...but, as far as I know, it has nothing to do with the "unconscious". Young female monkeys seem to learn the trick first...by watching older monkeys do it...then the young males learn it.

Supposedly, it was an adolescent female monkey that first figured it out...she dropped the food into a stream by accident, picked it up, and realized it tasted better without sand on it.

I will not comment on "transference"...everything I&#39;ve seen on the subject emphasizes its completely subjective character. Like the "unconscious" itself, even its existence is still hypothetical.

Perhaps we shall someday know enough about the brain to speak in knowledgeable ways about these phemonena...at this time, it all sounds like meaningless babble to my ears.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Christopher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 04:47 PM
Christopher, putting something in a dictionary does not make it "credible evidence".

I&#39;m aware that there have been some interesting studies of primates in Japan regarding the spread of "cultural innovations" (like washing food before eating it)...but, as far as I know, it has nothing to do with the "unconscious". Young female monkeys seem to learn the trick first...by watching older monkeys do it...then the young males learn it.

Supposedly, it was an adolescent female monkey that first figured it out...she dropped the food into a stream by accident, picked it up, and realized it tasted better without sand on it.

I will not comment on "transference"...everything I&#39;ve seen on the subject emphasizes its completely subjective character. Like the "unconscious" itself, even its existence is still hypothetical.

Perhaps we shall someday know enough about the brain to speak in knowledgeable ways about these phemonena...at this time, it all sounds like meaningless babble to my ears.

:redstar2000:

This aspect of credibility seems to be a judgement call on your part. It appears you are selective with "credible" in that I can produce evidence from a credible source and it is not seen as credible, but you have produced NOTHING at all that says telepathy or unconscious communications do not exist.

I have retold the original "Hundredth Monkey" story here as I recall it with a number of the biologists observations.

http://truthasaur.com/psychology/100th.html

Here is an opening statement from a civil action I filed in a California Superior Court. You will find no direct denials by the defendant. What you will find are carefully compiled statements from my reponses to interrogetorries that define the essence of hypnotic activities that Indigenous Shaman are capable of. Keep in mind that I NEVER used the word "telepathic" in my legal pleadings. The defendant brings that word into the record.

http://home.earthlink.net/~argus1/images/telehyp1.jpeg
http://home.earthlink.net/~argus1/images/telehyp2.jpeg
http://home.earthlink.net/~argus1/images/telehyp3.jpeg

The above court documents end with the statement "according to the plaintiffs legal research. Do you realize how much research would be required to know that "spectral evidence" had not been deemed relevant in any American Court since the Salem withch trials? Be assured that I did not do that research and that the Indigenous people know because they&#39;ve been trying to get it deemed relevant since Salem. What this all means is that you are communicating with a person that has had unconscious information made conscious and that conscious information includes many pieces of information that have all the indications of being telepathically communicated information.

Your insistence on credibilty of a unspecified type suggests that you have confidence and rely on American Courts, publishing, academia etc, etc and rely on them for definitions of reality that might counter or make meaningful the babble your mind produces as interpretation when confronted with my information. Which becomes a selective double standard because I have posted a scan of a page of a law dictionary, one of the more credible sources a person in the western world can find. If this is not true, then indicate which sources you feel are credible.

Transference occurs during hypnosis and of course, the very nature of it makes it subjective, it&#39;s known first by the subconscious. It is widely documented. Produce some evidence, if you can, that says it cannot be telepathy.

[redstar2000]

This aspect of credibility seems to be a judgment call on your part. It appears you are selective with "credible" in that I can produce evidence from a credible source and it is not seen as credible, but you have produced NOTHING at all that says telepathy or unconscious communications do not exist.

I don&#39;t have to. In science, the burden of proof is on the person who makes the positive assertion.

If you wish to assert that "telepathy" exists, then you must provide the evidence to support your assertion.

It&#39;s just like all the "god" arguments. The believers say that "you can&#39;t prove God doesn&#39;t exist". I don&#39;t have to; the burden of proof is on them.

Yes, by the way, "credibility" is a "judgment call". If someone claims that another person has been "influencing their behavior" through telepathy, my "call" is that plaintiff is a nutball.


Your insistence on credibility of a unspecified type suggests that you have confidence and rely on American Courts, publishing, academia etc, etc., and rely on them for definitions of reality...

I&#39;m actually pretty skeptical of every "source" of information, official or otherwise. But if some poor sod told me that Jesus appeared to him in a dream and said that I was "going to Hell"...I would not consider that "credible evidence" of the existence of Jesus, Hell, or my ultimate destination.

As I noted earlier, there were attempts back in the 1930s and 1940s to pin down telepathy in a laboratory setting...they came up empty.

As far as I&#39;m concerned that settles the issue.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Christopher]

Well I&#39;ve provided some proof and you&#39;ve proven you are incapable of using it. So much for science or any other knowledge for that matter. Things shall be as you see them and you&#39;ve disavowed any responsibility to support your contentions.

Be sure the US government, CIA etc. likes and supports your beliefs. Corporations honor your position and the courts that made them persons think you are the best thing since powdered garlic.

Your motto whether you know it or not;
Onward Imperialism death to human potential and sentience&#33;

[Comrade BNS]

HA&#33; this thread seems to be filled with your usual healthy dose of obtuse ignorance&#33; perhaps spreading from one certain individual who had the gall to start it?

let&#39;s go from the beggining shall we:


"Women’s groups have begun to cross the barriers of caste, class, language and religion,

very very true.....so redstar doesn&#39;t this straight away negate the entirety of you ignorant rants? If these womens groups have spread accross barries of caste, class, language....and *ahem* RELIGION then could it not be said that the violence is of a sociological rather then theological nature?


Suppose every time there was an incident of this nature, we were in a position to execute a few hundred "religious leaders" of the group responsible and demolish a few dozen of their most "precious" holy buildings?

followed by


Unless you have some Hobbesian notion of "human nature"--that we are all "savages" at heart awaiting the opportunity (or "a good excuse"&#33;) to go out and really do a whole lot of evil shit.

Another lesson from English boarding schools?


Redstar you weren&#39;t a Lourde&#39;s College boy by any chance?

moving right along from Redstar&#39;s illconceived, ignorant rants there were a few factual points which stung a little...


The article posted by swapna refers to the riots occuring in gujarat which took place when 60 hindus were burnt alive in a train by a muslim mob.
The muslim mob with apparently no provocation attacked a unarmed coach of a train in godhra and set it on fire killing innocent women,children,men.


Actually they were not unprovoked at all...these attacks came in the wake of the destruction of a local mosque by hindu radical group RSS, and then the storming of a housing complex inhabited by Muslim locals, resulting in the murder of 150 people, which was ignored by the police of Ahmedabad.


When you look at countries like Iran, where the stoning of women who committed adultery is part of common law, it is a totally useless to have a stance like "it&#39;s the evil people not the religion itself". (Malte)

I would imagine you could ban religion in Iran and such crimes would occur, rather because it has become almost a tangible part of the culture. (enigma)


Enigma you are arguing very good points in the face of blatant racism and facism...just one factual point i find a little offensive and grating, please don&#39;t take the following personally:

the stoning to death of people in Iran is most definately not part of the culture, so many people rightly protest when these acts are sanctioned by the ruling clerics who justify it by quoting outdated, outmoded concepts of Shari&#39;ah law (Islamic law). The legal system in Iran is brutal because the people have no power to reform it, and the tyrannical, backward looking clerics, do not reinterpret Shari&#39;ah law from it&#39;s primary sources (The Qu&#39;ran and the Sunnah) but instead invoke jurisprudence from the 13th cenrury. The Westminster system of law would to indeed be brutal if it was not developed and governed by the people and simply imposed decisions made in similar cases from hundreds of years ago. The problem in Iran is not culture or Religion, but the forceful interpretation of it.

which leads me to my next point, so ignorantly made obvious by Redstar


If people had a chance to see "sinners" have their heads chopped off for "adultery" every Friday afternoon "after prayers" in New York&#39;s Central Park...then I expect there would be some sharp re-evaluations taking place.

Firstly explain to me how religious law is any different to secular laws? both condemn and punish what the majority sees as morally wrong, so how dare you make ignorant value judgments on Islamic law. Secondly, how is the execution of Criminals in Islamic countries, in public, any different to prime time executions on cable TV in America? Sure you may not agree with the sentences these people have been given in their respective societies but who are you to make biased value judgements on what is right and wrong. Of all people you are probably least quallified to pontificate on subjects of religion, seeing as how you have made obvious your disdain for it.


I&#39;m guessing that there are very few Muslims around in most parts of India; that they are concentrated in the north, up towards the border with Pakistan.

Thus, even if a Hindu wanted to commit an atrocity against a Muslim woman...in most parts of India, it would be too much trouble to find one.

Consider yourself enough of an expert on Indian demographics to make flippant remarks on the state of a nation do you Redstar? my guess is that you guessed wrong.


Prior to the rise of Islam, the tribes of Arabia had engaged in endless fratricidal war by savage methods...and Islam simply directed this savagery against the unconverted. During the "Crusades", when Jerusalem and other towns changed hands with some frequency, both Christians and Muslims cheerfully slaughtered one another&#39;s civilian population...and both agreed that Jews should always be murdered.

Ok Redstar again we have complete ignorance, bias and racism in your posts. How were Arabic swords and spears more "Brutal" then saxon, bavarian or frankish swords and spears...don&#39;t put bullshit, FALSE, postmodern spins on a history you see as undesirable...yes the arabi tribes fought amongst themselves...so? the feudal kingdoms of Europe were no different. What&#39;s your point? oh sorry we already know what your point is, you history is far superior isn&#39;t it? you tall, fair skinned, pure-blood saxon.

And the Crusades? what don&#39;t make me laugh...you didn&#39;t perhaps base your historical point of view on the crusades from Mein Kompf did you? The christians slaughtered all non-christians, The muslims slaughtered all the ARMIES of Christendom... maybe you should read more on Sal&#39;adinh&#39;s capture of Jerusalem? and perhaps not Hitler&#39;s version this time hm?

So what we have seen here is a blatant ignorance of the subject... Redstar you have made it obvious enough times you have no fucking idea or understanding of what you are talking about, so HOW FUCKING DARE YOU PONTIFICATE ON IT&#33;

believe what you will redstar, you are perfectly entitled to your own beliefs, just don&#39;t use them to make value judgements on other cultures and ideological systems.

I think it has been made very obvious that religion does not enact it&#39;s believers to the opression of women, etc... BUT can be used to justify such acts. Therefore religion is not enrinsically evil or worng, but can be used as such.


Outside that community, the rules "are different". When believers find themselves with the opportunity to convert or exterminate the unbeliever, the gods--at least if the "holy books" are to be believed--look with favor upon a vigorous propagation of the faith. Atrocities are considered either an unfortunate necessity or a positive good.

so when the Qu&#39;ran says "look upon the unbelievers in virtue, and do unto them as Jesus (Salla Allaho Alaihi Wassallam) did unto the people of the book" it actually menat kill them, rape their women, and pillage? and it also carried the same message when it forbade it&#39;s believers from killing innocents, plundering land etc.. ?

Comrade BNS

[redstar2000]

Most of your sputtering rant is not worthy of a reply, BNS. You&#39;re just mad because I trampled on your favorite superstition.

Tough shit&#33;


Firstly explain to me how religious law is any different to secular laws? both condemn and punish what the majority sees as morally wrong, so how dare you make ignorant value judgments on Islamic law.

Because, asshole, as bad as many secular laws are -- and some are very bad indeed -- we don&#39;t chop women&#39;s heads off for adultery.

Nor, for that matter, do we mutilate their vaginas in order to preserve their "moral purity".

Does that make the difference clear, shit-brain?


Of all people you are probably least qualified to pontificate on subjects of religion, seeing as how you have made obvious your disdain for it.

I think I&#39;m the most qualified -- I see through all of your bullshit.

Hence your outrage&#33;


I think it has been made very obvious that religion does not enact it&#39;s believers to the oppression of women, etc... BUT can be used to justify such acts. Therefore religion is not intrinsically evil or wrong, but can be used as such.

You think something is made "obvious" just because you say it?

You can&#39;t turn over a rock anywhere in the Muslim world without some asshole mullah or imam crawling out to persecute women.

Yes, religion is intrinsically evil and wrong...and yours is probably one of the two or three worst&#33;

And don&#39;t try "quote hunting" in the Koran with me...the English translations are on line and I&#39;m sure I can find plenty of "kill the unbeliever" quotes if required.

Every "holy book" has "love & peace" quotes for ceremonial use...and bloodthirsty rape and pillage quotes for use when the opportunity arises.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have to go take a piss on the "holy meteorite".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[revolutionindia]

I&#39;ll be back

Astala vista comrade

[Invader Zim]

EDIT...

on consideration, I have decided to end this fruitless exercise of trying to argue with Redstar as he is far to set in his reactionary ways.

[Christopher]

Methinks Enigma has seen the writing on the flickering wall. Being a wholly amatueristic psychologist prone to fantasy of mind control as well as a creative slave to the arts if its about understanding our own behaviors as people; I&#39;m ashamed of Redstar. He&#39;s quite an intellect in many ways providing unique analysis of communism&#39;s many aspects, but his inability to remained focused with compassion underlines his angry labeling, generalizations and mental filters as well as denials not justified by the evidence.

Che Guevarra believed in love as a motivating force superior to any and lived with the knowledge that; people who knew love best needed to be empowered to use it. To do this he believed in communism. He may have been right but not while he lived. His vision could easily be applied to a more politically sophisticated people than we are. It may be the old saying "You can&#39;t get there from here."

Redstar is a very frustrated leader mentality frequently called a bully. His uses of bolding indicates competitive and dominate speech patterns. There is a rhythm to it that is effective but the intent is so out of context he rants. Different from, for instance, some of my own uses of caps to emphasize certain points.

What he is trying to do is about trying to help people but he spends his time hammering compulsive reactionary, isolationist views rather than observing the key to people filling peoples needs, unity.

[redstar2000]

I&#39;m ashamed of Redstar...

That&#39;s odd; how is it your fault that I am me...and not someone else?


Redstar is a very frustrated leader mentality frequently called a bully. His use of bolding indicates competitive and dominant speech patterns. There is a rhythm to it that is effective but the intent is so out of context he rants.

Yes, it&#39;s always possible that if you don&#39;t agree with me, I will "beat you up"...virtually.

If that disturbs you, perhaps message boards are "not for you".


What he is trying to do is about trying to help people but he spends his time hammering compulsive reactionary, isolationist views rather than observing the key to people filling peoples needs, unity.

Metaphysical trash&#33;

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Christopher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 03:52 AM

I&#39;m ashamed of Redstar...

That&#39;s odd; how is it your fault that I am me...and not someone else?


Redstar is a very frustrated leader mentality frequently called a bully. His use of bolding indicates competitive and dominant speech patterns. There is a rhythm to it that is effective but the intent is so out of context he rants.

Yes, it&#39;s always possible that if you don&#39;t agree with me, I will "beat you up"...virtually.

If that disturbs you, perhaps message boards are "not for you".


What he is trying to do is about trying to help people but he spends his time hammering compulsive reactionary, isolationist views rather than observing the key to people filling peoples needs, unity.

Metaphysical trash&#33;

:redstar2000
Wow&#33; It all seems to be about control and dominance. I feel communication is basically abused when it does not take a break; from the corporate prerogative for desirable behaviors taught to the consumers, to acknowledge human purposes.

Our words can meet a higher purpose, but only if we know what it is. Our words and the agreements that could come forth if we use the words carefully, with an intent that is deeply parallel to our instincts as individuals and groups, can protect life tangibly.

Children need to know adults can perform emotionally and intellectually in ways that use communication to protect life. The greater purpose of ALL that we do is to protect life.

I wonder if Redstar can agree to this, or is he too angry?

[redstar2000]

I wonder if Redstar can agree to this, or is he too angry?

I wonder what you are even talking about. You sound like you&#39;re working up some kind of "holy man" routine for a new California scam.

It&#39;s your life -- do with it whatever pleases you.

But if you bring a lot of metaphysical trash to a political message board, don&#39;t be shocked if you yourself get trashed.

The tolerance level for that garbage is falling.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Christopher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 01:04 AM

I wonder if Redstar can agree to this, or is he too angry?

I wonder what you are even talking about. You sound like you&#39;re working up some kind of "holy man" routine for a new California scam.

It&#39;s your life -- do with it whatever pleases you.

But if you bring a lot of metaphysical trash to a political message board, don&#39;t be shocked if you yourself get trashed.

The tolerance level for that garbage is falling.

redstar2000
Apparently the question is beyond him. Too absorbed in dissociating the values I try to share and refocusing in conflict.

The concept that everything we do, even cognitive operations of thought, has one primary purpose; to protect life; appears as more than Redstar can discuss.

Communism, idealistically, must be about meeting the peoples needs. How can Redstar be a communist? Perhaps he is infatuated with the imagery of camaraderie that media has portrayed communism in when patronizing the ideal. Perhaps it is the power a few communistic dictators have had that fuels his fantasies and the rhetorical attempts at dominating a topic.

No matter. What is important is that we use our communication skills to identify our fundamental needs and purposes then agree upon them. This concept has monumental power in human society and is one of the cornerstones of communism. I&#39;ve often used the concept to separate those of a group that have obsessive agendas that serve obscure motives and special interests rather than basic needs. Seemingly intelligent people suddenly cannot make the most fundamental agreements is what I&#39;ve witnessed. In a clinical setting this behavior would have them deemed psychopathic.

In America, where a silhouette of democracy still stands, we can; IF our ability to recognize and unify around our fundamental purposes is intact, IF our ability to reason is calm and focused enough to include those purposes; regain our democracy by unity.

Unity, a sacred thing.

[redstar2000]

Communism, idealistically, must be about meeting the peoples needs.

That&#39;s a typical mistake. Communism is not simply about economic equality.

It&#39;s purpose is the end of wage-slavery and the establishment of a classless society in which "the free development of each is the condition of the free development of all" (Marx).

It&#39;s not "just about the money".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Comrade BNS]

Explain to me how economic reforms would create a "classless society"? and look a bit more deeply into that question...I understand that communism would go along way to lessening class influence but how would it create a classless society?

Comrade BNS

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 20 2004, 08:23 PM
Explain to me how economic reforms would create a "classless society"? and look a bit more deeply into that question...I understand that communism would go along way to lessening class influence but how would it create a classless society?

Comrade BNS
What is Communism? (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1055977390&archive=1057041165&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 21 2004, 07:54 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (redstar2000 @ Feb 21 2004, 07:54 AM)
Comrade [email protected] 20 2004, 08:23 PM
Explain to me how economic reforms would create a "classless society"? and look a bit more deeply into that question...I understand that communism would go along way to lessening class influence but how would it create a classless society?

Comrade BNS
What is Communism? (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1055977390&archive=1057041165&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas [/b]

How did you come to your conclusions? I have always thought of communism along these lines: -

"1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children&#39;s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc."

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848

[redstar2000]

When the Communist Manifesto was being written, Marx and Engels expected revolutions to break out shortly in Germany, France, England, and the United States.

Thus, they drew up what you could think of as a "transition program" from the societies of their era towards a communist society.

These were measures that they hoped the new revolutionary governments would promptly put into place...that would lead towards communism.

To this day, Leninists still quote this passage of the Manifesto with admiration and even as a justification of their own "transitional workers&#39; state"...without regard to the fact that the points themselves have been obsolete for many decades or even longer.

Marx and Engels wrote very little in the way of explicit descriptions of communist society and when they did, it was usually "in passing" while they were discussing something else.

Interesting "hints" at what they had in mind can be found in Marx&#39;s The Civil War in France, The Critique of the Gotha Programme, and in Engels&#39; The Anti-Duhring. My "summary" definition is based on those sources.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas