Pervez Hoodbhoy-Paul Kurtz correspondence In response to PM:

``And whose fault would that be, now?? Or is one not to hate the sin in cases where the sinner refuses to disassociate himself from the sin?``

One can feel what they may for the `sin`, that was not the point. The point was that people who think they can cleanly distinguish between sin and sinner, regardless of the `sinners` attitudes towards the `sin`, are deluding themselves.

Also, what is this love for the sinner that is being professed, and how is it typically manifested? I`m afraid any love for the sinner is a romantic love for abstract human qualities, e.g. humanity, whereas hatred for the sin is based on concrete acts (or, as Ibn Warraq will no doubt insist, beliefs) of humans . If we do give credence to the saying, the latter will dictate how we conduct ourselves when in presence of the beloved `sinners`.

Pervez Hoodbhoy-Paul Kurtz correspondence
Ugh, please people...we may not agree with Dr. Hoodboy on many points in this article or his secular humanistic outlook in general, but HE IS consistent.

His perceptions on Ibn Warraq are correct, never mind his casual comments.

In response to AlephNull, who wrote:

[One can follow the dictum of ‘hate sin and not the sinner.’]

That`s an utterly pompous dictum, if not down right patronizing. Anyhow, if the ‘sinners’ refuse to dissociate themselves from the `sin`, hate for the sin rather easily can justify hatred for the sinner. Sinner sins, sinner deemed impossible to rehabilitate...the rest is obvious. This is reason enough not to trust Ibn Warraq, or anyone who invokes anything like this silly dictum.

[I consider it highly plausible that Ibn Warraq is motivated not by hatred for Muslims but rather by sincere concern for the well-being of his erstwhile co-religionists and a heartfelt desire to save them from Islam and from themselves.]

First, a minor point: having abandoned Islam and religion altogether, Ibn Warraq is nobody`s co-religionist. Second, from his post 9-11 statement, which he wrote promptly after said incident, he declared:

``One hopes that the U.S. government will not now act in such a way that more innocent lives are lost, albeit on the other side of the globe. One hopes that even now there is a legal way out in international courts of law. The situation is far more delicate and complex than a simple battle between good and evil, the solution is not to beat hell out of all Arabs and Muslims...``

Well, wasn`t that nice. I have a hard time believing he meant any of it. This, since he has yet (to my knowledge) publicly criticize or even evaluate the Iraq and Afghan wars. Islam may not be under attack, but Muslims certainly are...where is his pious concern? Could it be that Ibn Warraq is simply co-opting the language of humanists for an otherwise not-so benign agenda? His silence on Afghanistan/Iraq may not imply approval, however it does point to a duplicity that the likes of Dr. Hoodboy have not displayed. I consider it highly plausible that he is not as well intentioned as people would like to think, and that Dr. Hoodboy sees right through this guy...

The In-Security Council: Dump it or Grow it?
In response to arjun_m, who wrote in :#34 to PM:

``Dude..Things don`t turn out just because you want them to be a certain way...Even if we assume we can move towards a system in which might isn`t right, how do you think we`ll get there...``democratizing`` the UN is no solution..it creates a false illusion of equality where none exists... ``

What you say offers absoloutely no insight into WHY the UN is so dysfunctional. Simply stating ``because it is that way`` is not an answer. It is no secret that the UN is politically a mess, however it is so largely because the ``mighty`` have co-opted it/subverted it for their own ``righteous`` reasons.

If you are of the view that it must neccessarily be this way because of some immutable flaw of the human mind, then so be it...that`s not a view I personally subscribe to (head in sand and all). So you`ll exuse those of us that think that there is yet hope for some sort of improvement, no matter how imperfect...we`re not asking for an act on par with transmuting water into wine.

The In-Security Council: Dump it or Grow it?
In response to PM:

``And lets not forget WHO, INICEF and `mineclearers` and synthetic legs (what`s the word?)``

Prosthesis...(?)

The WHO and UNICEF alone make the UN worthwhile. Thanks to their global immunization effort, much of the developing world, including the the Indian sub-continent, isn`t a puss filled smallpox pit.

But I suppose in this ``might is right`` world, that doesn`t count for much...

Rescinding the ’Concordat’
In response to stuka:

``If certain citizens want to dance at clubs it is their choice and has no bearing on those who do not wish to do so. A``public club`` does not mean that the public is forced to go. It means the public has an equal and valid choice to not go. The club is just an analogy for larger choices. ``

This issue is not strictly about individual rights, but also about control of the public sphere and who regulates it. If Islamists are in control, then the results would distress the secularists to no end, and vice versa.

Taking the club example, if I understand HE correctly, he couldn`t care less if there were ``underground`` clubs. Out of sight, out of mind - do what you want, just not in my backyard. If the secularists are in control, then they would insist on having these clubs built out in the open, however the very presence of the clubs in the public sphere would distress conservative Muslims a great deal.

I think my whole neighborhood would be up in arms if someone wanted to build a casino down the street... Not exactly the same, but you get the picture...

The Death of Edward Said -- A tribute
In response to SN, who wrote:

``I would really like other chowk posters to respond to this. Haven`t they seen a sudden spurt of anti-Islam books in the US bookshops - just like the pro-Islam books?``

Sure, been to the book store the other day (Chapters), and the ``current events`` section was filled with them. The ``Pro-Islam`` books were in the religion section...

Rescinding the ’Concordat’
In response to ferozk, who wrote:

``...other than the glue of religion, there is no common identifying theme which Pakistan shares with the Muslim nations.``

Careful now, the same could very well be said about the ethnic groups that make up Pakistan. However, I agree with your assertion that Pakistan should be more concerned with it`s own region rather than a region several nations away. However, I think it already is...

Rescinding the ’Concordat’ In response to #49, mumbaikar:

Stopped reading after I read the following passage from the article you linked to, where he talks of his arrival at Karachi airport in ``the spring of 2002``, and he says:

``No women. This is striking, this impression of a world entirely devoid of women.``

He`s lying. Period.

Iranian Nuclear Program nettles the US
Re arjun_m:

``AFAIK, the US media was very critical of Israel when it bombed iraq.``

Quite right...it was indeed. Keep in mind that Saddam was a ``good`` guy back then. Anyhow, with Iran, the situation is quite different. Media seems to be hawkish...

Iranian Nuclear Program nettles the US
Must agree with Urstruly, post #1, on this one.

Also, the author wrote:

``Needless to say, anti-American feelings are already deeply rooted in Iranian society and could rise to a boiling point.``

I think this statement is not accurate. Anti-regime sentiment seems to dominate in Iran today, across all sections of society. It`s foolish, though, to think that this would translate into pro-US sentiment to the extent that the average Iranian would welcome a US invasion...they may not care for the corrupt oligarchy ruling the country, however they are ferociously nationalistic. Any US action against Iran proper, including attacks against the popular nuclear program, would no doubt give the regime a new lease on life.

Iranians, regardless of their political leanings, want WMDs. I don`t blame them.

Vajpayee’s Srinagar offer of Talks to Pakistan ``But one thing is quite clear. The process will be constitutional. Any insurgency will be ruthlessly put down, as it was in 1970. The army will occupy Quebec if the movement turn violent.``

That`s a BIG if, considering both sides are intent on settling this issue politically. Civil war is always possible, however I remain unconvinced that it`s even remotely likely as things are now.

Also, no matter what the process, at the end of the day I can quite confidently say that the wishes of the people of Quebec will be respected. This is to the credit of the rest of Canada. Close-calls (i.e. 51% OUI situations) will most likely mean a continuation of the process, and not a declaration of out right victory. This is to the credit of the Quebecois.

``India too is trying to incorporate separatists into the political mainstream.``

This, after a prolonged period of violence. Unlike with Quebec, both (or, rather, all three) sides of the Kashmir issue have spilt blood.

The FLQ was a fringe, one-shot movement. So the October crisis is hardly the kind of blood-letting that would allow us to make equivalence between Quebec and Kashmir.

It`s also difficult now. Dealing with India would mean legitimizing it`s ``occupation``/occupation of Kashmir. Dealing with the separatists on any meaningful level (i.e. beyond amnesty for past deeds) would
acknowledge the right of Kashmir to secede. It`s a mess...and quite frankly no one is making a serious attempt at addressing the problem.

Anyhow, the original question was if there was any nation that handled such an issue without it`s suppression through violent means. The answer is clearly yes. All THREE sides should learn from this.

I put the bulk of this burden on those who actually hold power, i.e. India (and also Pakistan). Needless to say, I truly think that all three sides need to get together, and let the Kashmiris themselves end this issue once and for all. This is the Pakistani position (admittedly, a position greatly weakened by their support for armed insurgents/infiltrators), so it shouldn’t be a surprise that I’m pro-Pak on this issue ;-).

Vajpayee’s Srinagar offer of Talks to Pakistan In response to stuka:

``Here is some info for you to chew on. Canada allowed a plesbicite because it was confident it will win. Even though it did win, the narrow victory scared the Canadians and they went ahead and changed the law. Now, for Quebec to secede, all provinces will have to vote and agree.``

That doesn`t really negate my example.

Anyhow, truth be known I don`t know exactly what law they changed, but it`s most likely because they didn`t want this to become a perennial issue. The NON`s one the day, however if push comes to shove, the provinces will in the end abide by the wishes of the Quebecois. The Canadian army will not occupy Quebec. Nor will the Canadian populace demand a crack down on separatist sentiment in that province. May I remind you that the Bloc have been a major presence in our parliament.

The difference between the handling of the Kashmir and Quebec issues is the difference between night and day. In Canada, we recognize the separatist issue, and have incorporated the separatists into our political process. If that means that somewhere down the road, Quebec will secede, then so be it. There will be no war, there will be no occupation, and there will be no insurgency so long as we keep the separatists politically engaged in a meaningful manner.

Of course, it takes two to work together. Key to any political setellment to the Kashmir issue is a) India`s willingness to entertain the idea of an independent Kashmir, and b) Pakistan`s non-interference by halting support for militant elements/infiltrators.

Vajpayee’s Srinagar offer of Talks to Pakistan
In response to stuka, who wrote in #84:

``Can you give me ONE example of a country that did not resort to supporessing an internal insurgency? Just ONE??? ``

Canada.

Do Foes of Gay Marriages Simply Fear Joy?
In response to PM, who wrote:

``Simple! Congruence. You fall in love, (or at any rate, choose a partner), decide to live together, take care of each other for life, raise a family (many gays want that too, though I think it`s a case of eating your cake...) and try to live happily ever after.``

Yes, no doubt that has a lot to do with it, however it does skirt around the main issue. For one, common law arrangements are no different. Why use the term ``marriage``? Is this about legal flexibility, or is our government trying to make a point? Is this about recognizing same-sex unions for the sake of spousal rights and benefits, or establishing their social acceptability? The latter is much more intrusive, and goes well beyond extending benefits and rights to same-sex “spouses”. I am willing to live and let live…however I will not be coerced into supporting something that I don’t accept at a fundamental level.

Second, the congruence of gay marriage and heterosexual marriages doesn’t address why the state needs to make special cases out of sexual unions between pairs of people who “decide to live together, take care of each other for life,” etc. There are valid questions that are simply being ignored because we are not fundamentally rethinking what a family or marriage is, and the role government has in recognizing these sorts of arrangements. Rather, we have a simple unthinking extension to the definition of a traditional marriage. This, by design, seems to be an affront to those with strong beliefs on what a marriage is, or should be.

Also, could there be other situations where people decide to take care of each other and co-habit out of desire, or possibly even necessity? I think so…

``You are, after all, not in an `exclusive` reciprocal relationship to your mother (or at least in most cases, you`re not)``

No, it`s a one-way relationship now as my mother is elderly and very much dependent on me. Although my example is not relevant to ``marriage`` specifically, it is to the notion of ``family``. The two are intrinsically linked, especially for issues like benefits. However, I personally feel, and with an aging population perhaps many more feel the same, that my issue is perhaps more pertinent than the symbolic extension to the definition of marriage. That being said, I wouldn’t pursue the matter further simply because I understand the legalistic and political nightmare that would be unleashed.

Do Foes of Gay Marriages Simply Fear Joy?
In response to saminashah, who wrote:

``Oh I think its pretty obvious why your great uncle cant be considered a spouse or lover...if it isnt, please let us know.``

Well, I wasn`t playing the incest angle. However, given the rationale behind prohibiting incestuous heterosexual relationships, (typically hinging around deformities/abnormalities with the children that result from such a union), please do provide a reasonable explanation as to why an uncle/brother can`t be a lover in a same-sex relationship.

``Secondly, there are several additional aspects of this; recognition in the eyes of all govt. and social service institutions. Shouldn’t the spouses of a gay employee receive the same benefits a het couple gets? How about decision making if a spouse is too ill to make one for themselves? What about wills? The list goes on.``

Well, those who are not proponents of gay ``marriage`` will clearly respond in the negative to your questions.

This aside, the question remains why homosexuals are getting special considerations on this matter when, say, alternative non-traditional, non-Anglo family arrangements aren`t given the time of day. For example, current tax laws are biased towards married couples. What about people who choose to stay unmarried (very common in Quebec)? Why is it that a couple who each earn exactly half of what I do in the end pay less tax than I? Why is it that my benefits package at work will pay for health/eye care for spouses and children, however not my other dependents (my mother)? What if I have siblings who are dependent on me? This issue opens up a can of worms that`s conveniently being tossed aside. Why?

Why does the state bother at all with ``marriage``? Why not simply extend the concept of common-law arrangements to include same-sex couples, and dump marriage altogether? The Liberal government had that option, however insisted on blessing same-sex marriages. Curious...

Do Foes of Gay Marriages Simply Fear Joy? The author wrote:

``If you believe your religion doesn`t permit gay marriage, then simply don`t marry a person of your own sex. End of story. Why would you wish to impose this standard on people who believe that religion, in their interpretation, does not exclude same-sex marriages?``

...which begs the question as to what the state is doing recognizing marriage in the first place? If it is such a personal concept then quite frankly a legalistic notion of some sort of ``union`` between a couple (trio, whatever), absent of any references to the apparently ambiguous ``marriage``, would do.

The matter is just a bit more than a question of semantics. I would love to have the definition of ``family``, for example, be extended to include my mother as a dependent, consistent with the setup of a traditional desi family. Fat chance, and personally I wouldn`t fight for it - realistically our government can`t afford such things.

However, given all the possible combinations of relationships we can use to extend ``marriage`` or ``family``, what is it about homosexual unions that entitles them to special consideration?