Posts with Comments by skoosh
The “concept” of a “religion”
Sorry. In newspaper articles, it used to be standard procedure.
And, I know, last word. I don't expect or need a response. I just needed to get that off my chest. Hopefully, I've been able to explain my feelings on this a little better.
And, I know, last word. I don't expect or need a response. I just needed to get that off my chest. Hopefully, I've been able to explain my feelings on this a little better.
Further clarification from Choudhary, to wit: Personally, I am totally opposed to the stoning or capital punishment.... I abhor the idea and practice of stoning of homosexuals anywhere.
What I said was that I accept what the Quran says. The holy Quran does not state anywhere at all about the stoning of homosexuals.
That last point is affirmed by Zain Ali, as Randy quoted above.
I think comparing Choudhary (a Labour MP) to a guy who joined the Anti-Semitic Party misrepresents his position on public policy, to say the least. What is really in Choudhary's heart? How does he really feel about homosexuality? Well, as long as he's willing to defend and advance the rights of homosexuals in society, even at a potential political cost to himself, the issue of his deep-down personal feelings seems moot. Would Karl Lueger have done as much?
Yes, Choudhary's comments were incredibly offensive. No, he probably doesn't really believe that homosexuals should be executed. (We've already agreed on that.) And I didn't question whether his comments were newsworthy (in the sense of being important enough to be re-reported); my grievance is with the way the news was produced, and the context (semantic and social) in which it was packaged as it zipped around the world. As Zain Ali pointed out, "I do feel totally let down by the double-dutch of Ashraf Choudhary, but then again I have heard him proclaim several times that he does not represent Muslims. Rather, he claims to represent New Zealand's ethnic communities." Yet, he is made to represent Muslims anyway, in New Zealand and around the world, even though he wasn't enough of a theologian to know that the Qur'an per se doesn't call for homosexual people to be stoned. (And can you blame him? After all, how many Christians, even non-homophobic ones, know that Jesus never condemns homosexuality in the Gospels, but specifically condemns divorce?) Because of that, 60 Minutes was able to trip him up with a question based on a false premise. And the rest is history.
Why does this bother me? I've been thinking about it for the last three days. Here's a reason. The truth embodied in the phrase "Muslim homophobia" is like the truth embodied in the phrase "black criminality" or "Jewish liberalism" (as seen in that glowing Karl Lueger article linked above). What is it really telling us (most of whom are susceptible to certain cognitive biases) about "those people"?
In the U.S. forty years ago, it used to be standard procedure to identify the race of a suspected criminal, if he wasn't white. Nowadays, it isn't. There is an argument to be made (and some people make it) that the problem of violent criminality is more severe among black people than others, and therefore we shouldn't be afraid to highlight and specifically condemn black crime as such. There is also an argument against doing th
More....
What I said was that I accept what the Quran says. The holy Quran does not state anywhere at all about the stoning of homosexuals.
That last point is affirmed by Zain Ali, as Randy quoted above.
I think comparing Choudhary (a Labour MP) to a guy who joined the Anti-Semitic Party misrepresents his position on public policy, to say the least. What is really in Choudhary's heart? How does he really feel about homosexuality? Well, as long as he's willing to defend and advance the rights of homosexuals in society, even at a potential political cost to himself, the issue of his deep-down personal feelings seems moot. Would Karl Lueger have done as much?
Yes, Choudhary's comments were incredibly offensive. No, he probably doesn't really believe that homosexuals should be executed. (We've already agreed on that.) And I didn't question whether his comments were newsworthy (in the sense of being important enough to be re-reported); my grievance is with the way the news was produced, and the context (semantic and social) in which it was packaged as it zipped around the world. As Zain Ali pointed out, "I do feel totally let down by the double-dutch of Ashraf Choudhary, but then again I have heard him proclaim several times that he does not represent Muslims. Rather, he claims to represent New Zealand's ethnic communities." Yet, he is made to represent Muslims anyway, in New Zealand and around the world, even though he wasn't enough of a theologian to know that the Qur'an per se doesn't call for homosexual people to be stoned. (And can you blame him? After all, how many Christians, even non-homophobic ones, know that Jesus never condemns homosexuality in the Gospels, but specifically condemns divorce?) Because of that, 60 Minutes was able to trip him up with a question based on a false premise. And the rest is history.
Why does this bother me? I've been thinking about it for the last three days. Here's a reason. The truth embodied in the phrase "Muslim homophobia" is like the truth embodied in the phrase "black criminality" or "Jewish liberalism" (as seen in that glowing Karl Lueger article linked above). What is it really telling us (most of whom are susceptible to certain cognitive biases) about "those people"?
In the U.S. forty years ago, it used to be standard procedure to identify the race of a suspected criminal, if he wasn't white. Nowadays, it isn't. There is an argument to be made (and some people make it) that the problem of violent criminality is more severe among black people than others, and therefore we shouldn't be afraid to highlight and specifically condemn black crime as such. There is also an argument against doing th
More....
Recent Comments