Re: How factual are second-hand translations? (was Re: Bullshit (was : Aid for Afghanistan))

From: Charles Hixson (
Date: Fri Jan 04 2002 - 15:39:50 MST

Dossy wrote:

> So, what Arabic languages do you speak, John?
> Oh, are you basing your "facts" on a translation that's bankrolled
> by the United States? You've seen the movie "Wag the Dog", right?
> -- Dossy

I haven't, but don't really need to.
OTOH, the assertions are plausible. They are paraphrases of
standard fundamentalist Muslim theology. Yes, there are
non-fundamentalist Muslims. Many of them are decent people.
But they are to the fundamentalists as a modern Unitarian is to
a 18th century orthodox Calvinist.

Do not believe the assertions that the Muslim religion is
peaceful. It is even less so (historically) than the Christian
one. On a large scale those are two of the least peaceful
religions ever created, no matter what their official beliefs.
(One could claim, I suppose, that the Aztec religion was even
less peaceful, but it didn't have anywhere the far-reaching effect.)

It is interesting that these three religions all came out of the
desert. There may be a correlation. (Perhaps nature is harsh
and ruthless, therefore so should we be.) On the other hand,
the Jewish faith (except in Palestine, where they are in
competition with Muslims) is not particularly harsh, though
Christians, Jews, and Muslims all have the same basic root
faith. So it's clearly more complex. Perhaps something about
dominance vs. submission.

Charles Hixson
Copy software legally, the GNU way!
Use GNU software, and legally make and share copies of software.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:32 MST