quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ As Salutin has pointed out, there is a third rail of US politics that is separate from simple left/right economics. If you read the Texas GOP platform it's blatantly obvious that it was written by fanatics who believe that a Holy War must be created in the Middle East for Jesus to return. Since the early 80's the Fundamentalists have begun ingrafting themselves into the machine of government (as Jefferson warned us against), and are now in complete control of the Federal government, short of the US Supreme Court.

I certainly agree with your assertion, though I'm not sure about the article itself. Salutin brought out an interesting angle to the tortures with sexual oppression in fundamentalism, but I think most folks would agree that he's stretching things a bit to reach such a far-fetched conclusion. I know it's merely an opinion of his, but I would like stronger premises to support such notions.

Still, it's an interesting (and scary) angle.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I certainly agree with your assertion, though I'm not sure about the article itself. Salutin brought out an interesting angle to the tortures with sexual oppression in fundamentalism, but I think most folks would agree that he's stretching things a bit to reach such a far-fetched conclusion. I know it's merely an opinion of his, but I would like stronger premises to support such notions. Still, it's an interesting (and scary) angle.

Yes perhaps he is stretching things a bit, but I think most of us are probably surprised by the sexual nature of the torture.

Obviously it's his own opinion, but I think there may be some degree of truth to his assertion regarding the oringins of the nature of said torture.

When such a broad subject is discussed, there is also that propensity to overgeneralize (sometimes wrongly so).

I do however find the religious right remarkably similar to the Islamic Fundamentalists who are laregly perceived to be the enemy of the United States.


I'm sure they'd find much in common in their goals of subjugating women and science, controlling the sexuality of others, ingrafting religion into government, and interpreting religious text literally.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I certainly agree with your assertion, though I'm not sure about the article itself. Salutin brought out an interesting angle to the tortures with sexual oppression in fundamentalism, but I think most folks would agree that he's stretching things a bit to reach such a far-fetched conclusion. I know it's merely an opinion of his, but I would like stronger premises to support such notions. Still, it's an interesting (and scary) angle.

Heh, I'm going to agree with Opus ... I'm no fan of religion but attempting to link the prison abuse scandal with religion is simply an unfounded stretch of the imagination. While it may be true that in some cases of severe repression, brought on by strict adherence to religion, it may lead to sadistic and perverted behaviour on the part of the youth, it's hardly a valid premise for the condemnation of religion or to assume that it is the norm. One could make similar illogical conclusions with aetheism if a non-religious couple were to say raise their children with no moral values such that the children grew up to be sadistic, perverted bastards. Is that a proper cricism of non-religion? If anything, the teachings of christianity should have avoided this whole situation since emphasis is placed on the humane treatment of others. Lastly, the author is a retard for assuming that the entire military is composed of poor, rural southerners. He's grasping at straws that aren't there.

___________________
Retro ...

This article was obviously written by someone who doesn't really understand American culture. While people overseas like to toss around the term "fundamentalist" with regards to American religion, I think that word sometimes is intended to mean any level of religion whatsoever. To paraphrase MisterOpus1, nice idea, but this guy needs to do a better job of backing up his assertions.

This piece by Charles Krauthammer is pretty interesting, and looks at sex from another angle:

quote:

This war is also about sex Charles Krauthammer Washington Post May 7, 2004 WASHINGTON -- On Sept. 11, America awoke to the great jihad, wondering: What is this about? We have come to agree on the obvious answers: religion, ideology, political power and territory. But there is one fundamental issue at stake that dares not speak its name. This war is also about -- deeply about -- sex. For the jihadists, at stake in the war against the infidels is the control of women. Western freedom means the end of women's mastery by men, and the end of dictatorial clerical control over all aspects of sexuality -- in dress, behavior, education, the arts. Taliban rule in Afghanistan was the model of what the jihadists want to impose upon the world. The case the jihadists make against freedom is that wherever it goes, especially America and Europe, it brings sexual license and corruption, decadence and depravity. The appeal of this fear can be seen in the Arab world's closest encounter with modernity: Israel. Israeli women are by far the most liberated of any in that part of the world. For decades, the Arab press has responded with lurid stories of Israeli sexual corruption. The most famous example occurred in the late 1990s when Egyptian newspapers claimed that chewing gum Israel was selling in Egypt was laced with sexual hormones that aroused insatiable lust in young Arab women. Palestinian officials later followed with charges that Israeli chewing gum was a Zionist plot for turning Palestinian women into prostitutes, and ``completely destroying the genetic system of young boys'' to boot. Which is why the torture pictures coming out of Abu Ghraib prison could not have hit a more neuralgic point. We think of torture as the kind that Saddam practiced: pain, mutilation, maiming and ultimately death. We think of it as having a political purpose: intimidation, political control, confession and subjugation. What happened at Abu Ghraib was entirely different. It was gratuitous sexual abuse, perversion for its own sake. That is what made it, ironically and disastrously, a pictorial representation of precisely the lunatic fantasies that the jihadists believe -- and that cynical secular regimes such as Egypt and the Palestinian Authority peddle to pacify their populations and deflect their anger and frustrations. Through this lens, Abu Ghraib is an ``I told you so'' played out in an Arab capital, recorded on film. Jihadists, like all totalitarians, oppose many kinds of freedom. What makes them unique, however, is their particular hatred of freedom for women. They prize their traditional prerogatives that allow them to keep their women barefoot in the kitchen as illiterate economic and sexual slaves. For the men, that is a pretty good deal -- one threatened by the West with its twin doctrines of equality and sexual liberation. It is no accident that jihadists around the world are overwhelmingly male. It is very rare to find a woman suicide bomber. And when you do, like the young woman who blew herself up in Gaza killing four others last January, it turns out that she herself was a victim of sexual subjugation -- a wife accused of adultery, marked for death, who decided to die a martyr rather than a pariah. But die she must. Which is what made one aspect of the Abu Ghraib horrors even more incendiary -- the pictures of American women soldiers mocking, humiliating and dominating naked and abused Arab men. One could not have designed a more symbolic representation of the Islamist warning about where Western freedom ultimately leads than Thursday's Washington Post photo of a uniformed American woman holding a naked Arab man on a leash. Let's be clear. The things we have learned so far about Abu Ghraib are not, by far, the worst atrocities committed in war. Indeed, they pale in comparison with what Arab insurgents have done to captured Westerners, and what Saddam Hussein did to his own people. The American offenders should surely be judged by our standards, not by others'. By our standards, these were egregious violations of human rights and human dignity. They must be punished seriously. They do not, however, reflect the ethos of the American military, which has performed with remarkable grace and courage in Iraq, or of American society. The photographs suggest otherwise. Which is why the abuse at Abu Ghraib is so inflammatory and, for us and our cause, so damaging. It re-enacted the most deeply psychologically charged -- and most deeply buried -- aspect of the entire war on terror, exactly as bin Laden would have scripted it.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok To paraphrase MisterOpus1, nice idea, but this guy needs to do a better job of backing up his assertions.

Okay, there's been way too much agreeance between the conservatives and I on this board lately. It's just too much for me to take.

I'm leaving now for a beer. I'll be much more partisan when I return Monday!

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...