tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post5788131185086828124..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Taner Edis should write a bookRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-31633348285776685052010-03-19T22:20:29.607+11:002010-03-19T22:20:29.607+11:00>> As he acknowledges, the latter would rese...>> As he acknowledges, the latter would resemble the Ottoman millet system, updated to allow for secular people to have their own "community" with the kind of sexual and other freedoms (plenty of boozy parties, apparently) that we enjoy or aspire to<br /><br />So called Ottoman tolerance should be analyzed in its historical context. Ottoman monarchy granted local autonomy to (mostly christian) ethnic communities in order to minimize governance headaches. It was the most pragmatic way to dominate continents and collect tax. In the early days christians had to donate one of their sons (if they had more than one) to become a 'Yeniçeri' (high end mercenary). They had to be circumcised and converted to islam to start with. So lets not talk about 'tolerance' here without historical context Mr. Edis.<br /><br />The main reason why homosexuality had been tolerated was due to islam's obsession with suppressing female sexuality. It had nothing to do with 'tolerance'. Homosexuality was common among Yeniçeri soldiers because they had no option of fulfilling their sexual desires with women.Evrim Olgusuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16251956332727109929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-46409816237382529872010-03-14T00:11:40.632+11:002010-03-14T00:11:40.632+11:00@GreyWizard: agreed.@GreyWizard: agreed.DEENhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01038312556912179499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-36899332356471969112010-03-13T07:44:08.492+11:002010-03-13T07:44:08.492+11:00Well, I'm certainly relieved, Taner, that you ...Well, I'm certainly relieved, Taner, that you intend to give this matter some more thought - a lot more thought, I should think, before you commit yourself so boldly to voice what seem to be conclusions, and yet are so terribly confused.<br /><br />Deen, just a quick remark. I don't know of anyone in the secular web/atheist camp who is not prepared to rake Christianity over the coals. I don't see much reluctance to do this in the public media either. But I do see a great reluctance from a lot of quarters to criticise Islam. And there's a simple reason for that. Muslims will kill you if you do, and so a lot of people have learned to be very polite to Islam just at a time when Islam has become particularly dangerous. I think a lot more frankness in criticism would do. There's a lot to criticise.Greywizardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04125006513512601904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-83673334336472492302010-03-13T06:28:18.373+11:002010-03-13T06:28:18.373+11:00http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2010/03/son-of-...http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2010/03/son-of-even-more-on-multicultural.htmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10778996187937943820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-3237271637954623002010-03-13T02:56:36.845+11:002010-03-13T02:56:36.845+11:00@GreyWizard:
"indeed, it is difficult to impo...@GreyWizard:<br /><i>"indeed, it is difficult to impossible to define groups in such a way as to identify them as legal agents in any sense other than having legal responsibilities not to act in such ways as to cause harm to individuals."</i><br /><br />On the other hand, our current society does give special status to certain collectives. For instance, companies are recognized as legal entities (who apparently now even have a right to free speech in the US). In essence, however, a company is nothing more than a collective of individuals working together to make money for themselves. It's rather weird when you think about it.<br /><br /><i>"Does that seem far fetched and Islamophobic?"</i><br /><br />Don't know. I do think that many people tend to focus on the Muslims too much, though. They tend to forget about all the very conservative Christian communities that are still around that are pretty darn restrictive. They can get away with a lot more than Muslims can. And they still have far greater influence, culturally and politically, than the conservative Muslims, and considerably more members too. I don't see that changing anytime soon.DEENhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01038312556912179499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-55871865107937795212010-03-13T02:49:46.358+11:002010-03-13T02:49:46.358+11:00Taner Edis is certainly prolific enough to write a...Taner Edis is certainly prolific enough to write a book about this, but the more I read of his posts, the less I understand him. As far as I'm concerned, he never addresses the real point, which is why <i>individuals</i> in those communities should not have the right to decide for themselves.<br /><br />Yes, individuals in any society are always constrained by the rules of that society. But the question should always be whether a particular rule - a particular law, generally - is appropriate. How can a law be appropriate for some individuals but not for others? There might be a very good reason for it - we have laws like that - but without a clear, rational explanation, shouldn't we assume that it's unfair?<br /><br />So why should individuals in one of these cultural subsets of a modern democracy have fewer rights than I do? Children have fewer rights than adults, but there seem to be valid reasons for that. But what reason can Edis give for restricting the rights of adult individuals in Muslim communities, for example?<br /><br />Perhaps I'm missing the point. But that is <b>my</b> point, that Edis has not explained himself clearly enough to convince someone like <i>me</i>.Bill Garthrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08552459555883204060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-14739170514545548872010-03-12T23:06:29.426+11:002010-03-12T23:06:29.426+11:00Given only the evidence of Taner's recent post...Given only the evidence of Taner's recent posts, I'd say he's having serious second thoughts about his initial commitment to some sort of liberalism in which religious entities are not privileged. In fact, I rather wonder whether he really is not, in fact, reverting to type, in a sense, and would favour (as Lisa Bauer has suggested) an Ottoman Millet system. That is a system, by the way, which was not only communalist, but actually favoured the largest "community", whose basic priorities were unquestioned by the larger system.<br /><br />This position is so unacceptable and unattractive from the point of view of anyone who favours free institutions, where indeed, groups are not the primary 'agents' whose freedom is being protected - indeed, it is difficult to impossible to define groups in such a way as to identify them as legal agents in any sense other than having legal responsibilities not to act in such ways as to cause harm to individuals. But to think of groups as the entities to whose perpetuation and freedoms the laws are principally addressed is to give up entirely the whole idea of any idea of freedom that is relevant to the way Western democracies have developed. Now, this may be a matter of taste, in one sense, as Ophelia points out, but to suggest that individuals don't have an important stake in this, and should not oppose the increasingly communitarian structure of modern societies, as these are increasinly inflitrated by groups that, for their own internal long term goals, wish to preserve and enhance the scope of community authority (on the one side) and individual submission (on the other). Nor would it be too much to suggest, I suspect, that this will be seen in retrospect, as it is already seen by some in prospect, as the beginning move in a fairly well-thought out project, to make Islam the ruling community in erstwhile (as they will be then) liberal polities.<br /><br />Does that seem far fetched and Islamophobic? Well, perhaps, but I have enough of a sense of Islam's long term goals not to be very concerned that this is actually a project that is being worked out, stage by stage, in Western democracies. Anyone who sees Islam as a potentially peaceful liberal community within a community of communities simply has not read enough history, in my view, and does not recognise the primary totalising nature of Islam, something that is written into its founding documents, and is expressed in thousands of mosques and other places of meeting throughout the world. This dystopia that Taner Edis is commending is something that will lead to precisely this hegemony of Islam -there simply is no other religion that can play this role. Christianity, as Tariq Ramadan does not tire of saying, has lost control of its culture. Islam is quite plainly in train to regain that lost control, and, for better or worse, Taner Edis is a voice in that long range project.Greywizardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04125006513512601904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-7790045696390918502010-03-12T20:41:52.711+11:002010-03-12T20:41:52.711+11:00"Secularists keeping quiet is, in fact, in th...<i>"Secularists keeping quiet is, in fact, in the interest of peace and public order in many present circumstances."</i><br /><br />But aren't secularists and non-secularists both saying things that are "divisive" to the other? What I don't understand is why the secularists are considered to be the ones that upset society, and why they are the ones that should back down. <br /><br />I also don't understand on what basis he considers it wrong for religious voices to be muted, but thinks that muting secular voices is a proper response to it. <br /><br />It almost seems that he is working from the implicit assumption that somehow, religious voices and ideas are more important than secular ones.DEENhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01038312556912179499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-62130710814894729322010-03-12T17:59:59.727+11:002010-03-12T17:59:59.727+11:00Actually, having followed this debate (though not ...Actually, having followed this debate (though not contributed because you, Ophelia, Lisa Bauer and some other people covered most of what I needed to say), I don't care whether Taner writes a book<br /><br />He's recommending a dystopia that he knows is a dystopia, that would cause real suffering to real people, with no compensating benefits except to communitarian bullies who want to be freed from the current limits of their power over others. <br /><br />People seem to speak of Taner with respect, which must derive from his earlier contributions to other debates. <br /><br />On the strength of his contribution to this one, which is all I know about him, the man's one of those people who:<br />(a) think atheists should just shut up;<br />(b) think that we should indulge policies that in practice and inevitably empower men who want to rule women and to persecute homosexuals, apostates and other perceived "deviants", <br />(c) think that the world is better if my life as an atheist is initially less free, but ultimately more dangerous; and<br />(d) think that calling "secular liberalism" "unfashionable" is quite as good as coming up with, like, an actual argument; and <br />(e) seem to be a bit incoherent altogether. <br /><br />He simply doesn't seem worthy of respect. He was in the "50 Voices" book, so he must have friends who are trying to be nice about this. But to me, who doesn't know him, the man is writing like a buffoon and acting politically like a friend of, let's say, fascists and an enemy of their mostly likely victims. Which include me. <br /><br />I'm not taking him seriously, on current form. Frankly, I'm surprised how polite people are being.Jerusalem Frazer MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11799694326655206182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-50252709173136514062010-03-12T13:12:10.188+11:002010-03-12T13:12:10.188+11:00The pulled-in-both-directions aspect is why I keep...The pulled-in-both-directions aspect is why I keep being incredulous - I can't see why he thinks his idea is both repellent and swell. Or to put it another way, I can't see why <i>Taner</i> can't see that he has <i>reasons</i> for his repulsion, reasons that are, potentially if not actually, universalizable. He seems to think it's 'just' temperament (in 50 Voices) or 'just' taste...and I don't get that. I can see making the point that it's more so than most secular liberals realize (than most anythings realize - that commitments are always partly temperament, taste, habit, etc) - but not that it's that and no more.Ophelia Bensonhttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.comnoreply@blogger.com