guys ...guys....

Boys, you have wandered far from the topic.

I’ve just checked in with what Scot had to say.

Roberto may have had a point in describing Scot's contribution as "a piece of intellectual drivel", though that does seem a bit harsh and Scot probably did get a good mark for it.

Ben P does seem to have put his finger on the pulse when he pointed out Scot’s lopsided treatment and it was good of Scot to acknowledge his error in only focusing on the “ingrained desire” of the West to have “a villain worth hating – the other”. I suppose that was just a bit of that "self loathing thing" that is endemic in academia and the left generally.

I would like to take Scot a little deeper into his analysis and I do so from an unashamedly Christian world and life view, for I am what Grace would call a “God botherer”, though I fear she may be “God forsaken”, though at another level I do admire her courage, but fear it is misplaced.

Firstly, I think Scott is correct to say that we demonise our opponents and fear that Pericles and ozaware may have done that to one another. Boaz, bless him, has a gentle spirit and I do like Aslan.
But let’s be honest. We all suffer from the same disease: SIN: rebellion against God and his ways and purpose for us, love of self and to hell with my neighbour if he stands in my way.

Going on.

I do almost agree with Scot that there is “no objective standpoint” though I think some are better than others at it and of course the Bible as the Word of God has all the objectivity that could ever be desired, so I claim without a blush.

Where I think young Scott is sadly adrift is in his apparent endorsement of the claim that ‘“reality” is a mere construct of language’. Not so fast! I think Scot is confused and is in fact confusing reality with propaganda.

I haven’t read Salman Rushdie’s “The Sataniuc Verses” but I have read Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilsations” and when Huntington says, “the underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power”, he is attempting to describe with language the reality of what he observes (and others too have observed). Likewise his statement, “Islam’s borders are bloody, and so are its innards” attempts to describe a reality that my Sudanese friends, fleeing Islamic persecution in their home country have conveyed to me. You don’t have to agree with Huntington, but you should at least ask to what extent he is in fact describing reality. I would say not far away. Try reading Bat Ye’or’s books – her latest on “Eurabia” is about to be published or get on Daniel Pipes’ website or http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/ and have a wake up call. And no, I don’t think all Muslims want to engage in jihad, at least of a violent nature, but there are enough that do to be a worry.
I would have liked Scot to have reflected on the fatwa placed on Rushdie. Is the fatwa simply “a mere construction of language” or language devised to give expression to a clear intent to murder the man?

I think also Scot could brush up on his history: the Crusades happened in response to Muslim conquest of Jerusalem and the harassing and murder of Christian pilgrims journing to the Holy City. His statement that “European imperialist advance of the early 19th century….. an act that justified murder, rape and enslavement” is way over the top, laughable, even reprehensible, vilification of the worst sort since those involved are long dead and at the very least this statement should have required a rewrite of the essay. Scot, please explain why the most vigorous branches of the Christian Church today are to be found in Africa?

At the end Scot asks whether we will succumb to the pictures Rushdie, Huntington, et al construct. No, we take them with a grain of salt, and in my case I certainly take Scot’s picture with a grain of salt.

DAVID !
me? gentle spirit ? :) thanx. Its good to see someone who is prepared to take time to closely analyze Scotts piece. I tended to just take a few juicy bits and go to town on them. You would well know the illustration of Paul about "the Body" :).. we need the nose, the ear etc etc.. all work together. So its all worthwhile.
Amen to the point about 'language describing reality' thats more the case. It actually depends on the people saying it, and their motives, as u pointed out in regard to propoganda.

David, I take exception to your implying that I have 'demonsied' Pericles. Read my posts re him again and realise that I (a) point out he made an intellectual mistake and (b) invite him to dialogue/debate.

There is no slur or 'demonising' Do NOT tar me with the bigots brush! Please retract the statement.

Also David, when you say that there are 'enough of the radical Islamists to 'be a worry', you grossly understate. That very same Daniel Pipes estimates there are 100 million in that 'radical' fringe of Islam.

Pericles, I'm disappointed. The "arrogance" your speak of is actually a simple statement of fact. As I say in the oz-aware overview, if a person does not know how to add 1 + 1 how can you expect him to add 1546 + 3452?

Therefore by your standard it is 'arrogant' for a maths professor to state that a student is incapable of doing the math.

Nuts, I've wasted time with you. And your next wisecrack clearly confirms that.

In fact, I'm outta here--got more meaningful things to do than intellectual navel-gazing. Those who need to, know how to find me.

DAVID.. your insightful analysis might be fruitfully applied to a piece by Philip Mendes titled

"There is no place for moral judgements in Australia" may 2005.

What I found curious is that he is Jewish, and co-edited a publication with a man named LEVEY.. see my comment on the article about ancestry etc. yet he makes statements like the above.
Truly amazing.

Wherever conflict exists, a religion is involved somewhere. Let me remind you all that we are hurtling through outer space clinging to a revolving ball of molten rock. Please go outside and be kind and helpful to whomever you might see.