Article

2005-09-20 Arabia

Islam-West divisions are superficial: Cherie Blair

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2005-09-20 00:00|| || Front Page|| [9 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 and here's the lady herself

Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-09-20 01:05|| 2005-09-20 01:05|| Front Page Top

#2 Hit the link if you want to read her jabber.

I'll take your word for it Tony, and not pollute what's left upstairs.
nice shop. LOL!

Posted by Red Dog 2005-09-20 01:23|| 2005-09-20 01:23|| Front Page Top

#3 Muslims are just like Presbyterians.
Except they wear veils.
Superficial differences really.

This woman is a top notch lawyer?

Posted by john 2005-09-20 06:53|| 2005-09-20 06:53|| Front Page Top

#4 This woman is a top notch lawyer?

For her client, I'm sure.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-09-20 08:07|| 2005-09-20 08:07|| Front Page Top

#5 Cherie: "...What is extraordinary, of course, is not what divides societies and religions, but the fundamental values they have in common. They converge in their acceptance of the fundamentals on which all legal systems are based."

Fundamental value in Islam: Death to infidels.
Fundamental value in England: Welfare to terrorists.

Yup, that's a convergence all right.

Posted by mhw 2005-09-20 09:19|| 2005-09-20 09:19|| Front Page Top

#6 I do not agree with you folks. Read this part of the text:

Rejecting the belief that a universal concept of human rights is not possible owing to the fact that diverse cultures and political systems of the world need to be taken into consideration, Mrs Cherie Booth said that this view is mostly presented by states, and by liberal scholars who are anxious not to impose the Western view of things on others. âIt is rarely advanced by the oppressed, who are only too anxious to benefit from perceived universal standards. The non-universal, relativist view of human rights is in fact a very state-centered view and loses sight of the fact that human rights are human rights and not dependent on the fact that states, or groupings of states, may behave differently from each other so far as their politics, economic policy, and culture are concerned,â she noted.

This doesn't sound like an absurd statement to me. In the United States we would call those âinalienable rights.â According to the dictionary inalienable means âThat cannot be transferred to another or othersâ or âincapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferredâ In other words: universal human rights. I have no doubt that they exist, that they are derived from the belief that we were created in Godâs image, and that a Muslim shepherd living in rural Turkmenistan has as much right to them as I do. Now I am also 100% certain that as a rural Nevadan do not have the same view of what all those rights might be as Mrs. Blair, an urbane upperclass Londoner. For example, I am certain that the âbasic human rightâ to free taxpayer subsidized healthcare does not exist while the right to keep and bear arms does. I do not ever want to live in her England, either. If I did she and I would undoubtably be political enemies. With that said, her statement seems neither absurd nor irrelevant to the GWOT. I am certain that we agree on more basic human rights (freedom of speech, voting, racial equality, freedom of religion, etc) than we disagree on. I am 110% certain that these are things that the vast majority of human beings anywhere in the world want. Hence her statement seems accurate to me regardless of whether or not some fundamentalist cleric, would-be monarch, or two bit dictator agrees or not. It stands on its own merits.

Do we really want to turn Iraq into a multiparty democracy with constitutionally protected individual human rights? Do you really want to turn the Middle East into a region of peaceful democracies instead of a collection of dictatorships, absolute monarchies, and theocracies? I do. I know that a rather large number of people in places like Iraq, Egypt, and Lebanon do as well. Well, folks, Islam is the dominant religion in those places much as Christianity is the dominant religion of North America. If we are going to help these people get their unquestionable, dare I say inalienable, rights we Westerners had better help them foster a form of Islam that values these ideals rather than despises them. Because, let me tell you, these people are not going to throw out the bath water if they think their going to loose the baby. I wouldnât

It matters not at all what the Koran actually says, either. That is a red herring argument. This is one point that I implicitly and emphatically agree with Liberal Hawk on: religion is all about interpretation. Giving up on the idea of civilizing the Muslims? Well, donât. We have no choice in the matter. Itâs a game we donât get to stop playing for the rest of our lives.

Posted by Secret Master 2005-09-20 18:19|| 2005-09-20 18:19|| Front Page Top

00:04 JosephMendiola
23:55 11A5S
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:19 Zhang Fei
23:11 Frank G
23:10 Frank G
22:59 djohn66
22:59 Frank G
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:54 DMFD
22:52 Lil Kimmy
22:44 Floluting Spang8699
22:39 phil_b
22:37 Frank G
22:27 Floluting Spang8699
22:26 JosephMendiola
22:26 Floluting Spang8699
22:25 Barbara Skolaut
22:25 Floluting Spang8699
22:22 11A5S
22:08 Jeamble Thomock3895
22:07 thibaud (aka lex)
22:05 JosephMendiola
22:04 Alaska Paul