Hi, David:
It appears that we are closer on these issues than I (at first) thought. I don't mind principled disagreements (indeed, that is often the only way to really learn new things), which yours is, in my view. What I thought I saw was the usual "liberal" bashing of all things that don't make it into the liberal political view of How Things Ought To Be. You apply your standards to all, pretty much universally, which demonstrates integrity, in my book.
Timothy Lillie, PhD
Dept. of Curricular & Instructional Studies
The University of Akron
Akron OH 44325-4205
330-972-6746 (Voice)
330-972-5209 (Fax)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 8:17 PM
> To: Lillie,Timothy H
> Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: Continuation of religion/disability discussion
>
>
>
>
> Continuing on...
>
>
> Subject: RE: Continuation of religion/disability
> discussion
> Date sent: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 09:08:21 -0500
> From: "Lillie,Timothy H" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Copies to: <DISABILITY-
> [log in to unmask]>
>
> > David:
> >
> > I appreciate your answer. Email is, by nature, normally a cold
> medium (to use the old McLuhanesque term, if anyone remembers
> him) and also often seen as a casual one. One does not go to the
> trouble in email that one goes to in more formal writings. We tend
> to rely on code words and phrases or other terms that we believe
> are generally known to all.
> >
> > However, that this is so does not make it right. I have
> interspersed some comments, below, meant to point out where
> there might be some areas of your argument supported more by
> faith and dogma than by evidence.
>
> If you going to resort to the use of words such "faith and dogma"
> as a comparison (that is, as opposites) to the word "evidence",
> you're merely further complicating what is already a complex issue.
> I mean, what evidence isn;'t based on dogma and fairth?
>
>
> If I am correct in that assumption, then I again pose my earlier
> question (in a slightly different form), which you did not answer:
> "How is your argument and form of assertion of 'truth' any different
> from that of the 'hypocrisy' you tax Bush with?
>
> I can't even recall how we got to this point. Neverthless, Let me
> try to answer this question:
>
> Obviously, there is no absolute "truths" in the world and therefore
> the use of a word such as "hypocrisy" to describe another person's
> position is meant more to discredit it than to imply that your own
> argument is infallible. For example, I might say that the U.S. and
> the UN are most responsible for inflicting harship on the Iraqi
> people. And the Bush apologist, David Frum, might say that
> Saddam Hussien is most responsible. I might then proceed to
> provide statistical evidence linking the growth of diseases and
> poverty in the Iraqi population with the onset of the sanctions
> regime and the (almost) daily bombardment of Iraqi targets in the
> South and North by U.S. and British war planes. Frum might
> respond by providing evidence suggesting that Hussein's "gassing"
> of the populaiton and hoarding of resources is the proximate cause
> behind the dire predicament of most of the Iraqi population.
> Who's the right party here? Who are we to believe? And if the
> answer is no one, does this then mean that we should no longer
> point fingers to the apparent culpability of particular leader of
> certain crimes since it may be impossible to "prove" their
> wrongdoing?
>
>
>
> That is, if your arguments are based on the 'sacred' writings of the
> Internet, how is your position any different from that of religious
> people? If it is similar, then what right do you have to bash
> Christians, or religious people in general?"
>
> Again, I can't remember how we got to this point. Hopefully, my
> answer above addresses this question.
>
> Anyhow, i want to watch Seinfeld.
>
> The rest of my answer is interspersed below:
>
>
> >
> > Timothy Lillie, PhD
> > Dept. of Curricular & Instructional Studies
> > The University of Akron
> > Akron OH 44325-4205
> > 330-972-6746 (Voice)
> > 330-972-5209 (Fax)
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 3:48 PM
> > > To: Lillie,Timothy H
> > > Cc: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: RE: Continuation of religion/disability discussion
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tim,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes -- I don't always go to all the energy to back up my
> > > statements with evidence. I usuallly don't have the time.
> >
> > <<<<I wonder about this statement. Wasn't this generally
> George Bush's attitude before he was pressured into gathering
> evidence against Iraq?It is interesting that you share the same
> attitude toward evidence, yet have such divergent views.>>>
>
>
> Perhaps, an example is in order:
>
> If I was to state to a western audience that the American elite are
> mass murderers. And to substantiate this statement I point to the
> fact the U.S. of A has probably attacked (that is, bombed or
> invaded) more countries than all of the countries of the world
> combined, someone would likely take me to task to provide
> "evidence". If I wrote, on other other hand, that the North Korean
> "dictator" is the biggest menace to the world and that North Korea
> 's nuclear capabilities pose a huge threat to the world safety, most
> (average) North Americans would probably not flinch an eye. In
> both cases I'm not backing up my statements with sources. Yet, in
> the first example,I would be expected, especially if I wanted to
> publish an article about this issue in any mainstream publication
> (mag., newspaper, or non-academic journal) to provide hard
> evidence; in the second example, no such requirement would be
> necessary. This despite the fact that any serious political observer
> would likely view the first statement as relatively accurate -- aside
> from the spin that might be put on it -- and the second statement
> as propaganda (at least, in private).
>
> Most of the articles printed in publications that reach a wide
> audience, I would argue, for example, the Times, the Post, the
> Globe, etc, is filled with conjecture and spin. As publications they
> are the equivalent of what is often (and ironically) referred
> to in the
> mass media as the "official" positions of the (so-called) Communist
> regimes expressed in their state -run newspapers. The mass
> audience publications are organs to mold mass opinion in favour of
> the U.S.policy. Publications that aim at a more select audience --
> e.g., the economist -- generally provide a more "balanced" (that is,
> revealing) descriptions of U.S. foreign policy, and are not
> as heavily
> filled with the patriotic slogans and rhethoric.
>
> Yet, there are publicaitons that provide first hand evidence of U.S.
> government crimes (that is, right from the cow's mouth, or however
> the saying goes), most notably the national security archive (?). It
> publishes documentation, written by U.S. officicials on U.S
> operations at home and abroad, formerly registered as "top secret",
> yet which by law must be made available to the public under (what
> I believe is called) the U.S. Disclosure Act. The exceptioin is when
> the info. would "pose a threat" to the interests of the U.S. state
> (that is, the elites).
>
> I also think the two situations -- that is, mine and Bush's -- are
> entirely different: Bush is pushing for an invasion against an
> economically crippled, third world nation, which has in its
> posession very little by way of millitary capabilities to
> defend itself.
> This coward is backing up this threat with the most powerful army
> and nuclear capabilities in the world, not to mention, the support of
> relatively powerful U.S. allies. The repecussions of any invasion --
> aside from the issue of "legality" -- is that hundreds of thousands,
> and perhaps millions, of Iraqi civilians will be put in harms way.
>
> I, on the other hand, am having a casual political debate on the net.
>
> >
> >
> > And I'm
> > > not sure that it will necesarily have any bearing on the beliefs
> of
> > > those of us who prefer to live in Cloud Nine over the
> > > politices of the
> > > U.S. elite.
> >
> > Dear me: who are these terribly naive people who OBVIOUSLY
> don't have the learning and sophistication you have????
>
>
> I don't think I'm alone in believing that Americans are amongst the
> most apolitical and politicallly indifferent group of people on the
> face of the planet. I think voter tournout in American
> elections kind
> of speaks to this point.
>
>
> > Neither, unforutunately, do the mass murderers in
> > > Washington
> >
> > When Clinton refused to respond to the genocide in Rwanda,
> did you also characterize him as a "mass murderer?" When he
> bombed a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan to try to shake off
> press coverage of his sexual predation of an intern in the White
> House, did you call that "mass murder?"
>
> First of all, I consider Clinton as much of a criminal (if
> not more of
> one) than Bush. I state this hesitantly b/c Bush has not had as
> much time in office to unleash his henchmen on the world's
> oppressed. I'm sure in due time, Bush will have equalled or
> surpassed his predecessor in terms of his "crimes against
> humanity". At any rate, I don't see any qualitative difference
> between Clinton's policies abroad while in office and the policies of
> Bush now, or, for that matter, from any U.S. president throughout
> history.
>
> Secondly, evidence has long pointed to the U.S. and French role
> in the whole Rwandan affair. It was the U.S. government that was
> funding the military of the side which was the supposedly the main
> victim of the genocide (I always get the names mixed up). The
> incident that sparked the bloodshed, that is, the missile used to
> down the plane carrying the other sides diplomat, was U.S made. I
> also remember reading that this act was coordinated by the CIA. I
> believe the point about U.S. involvement was disclosed in the U.N.
> conducted "investigation" on the genocide lead by former Canadian
> Amb. to the UN, Stephen Lewis. Yet the fallacy of the "Clnton
> didn't do enough in Rwanda " argument has been exposed in
> countless leftist publications and magazines, through the use of
> offcial U.S. and western sources.
>
> This whole "reluctant" actor argument is rubbish and has been
> used on countless occasions (and continues to be used) by the
> U.S. government to justify its imperialism abroad.
>
>
>
> >
> > provide any real, convincing evidence when they
> > > spread their gospel about supposedly wanting to "rid the world
> of
> > > terrorism", or that Saddam is suddenly a threat to the world.
> They
> > > just rely on playing off the emotions of the population through
> their
> > > mouthpieces in the media.
> >
> <<<Now this I tend to agree with; the only part we might differ on is
> that I think this is used by so-called "progressives" when it suits
> them as well as so-called "conservatives." >>>
>
> No real disagreement there.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > (1) I don't think the first point is of real importance
> > > since we seem
> > > to agree that the American elite's resurgent interest with
> > > Iraq is of
> > > a cynical nature.
> >
> > Likely so; if you define "elite" as being class-based,
> rather than
> politics-based.
>
> I consider both.
>
> <<<After all, Bill Clinton came into office in 1992 concerned about
> education and promptly sent his daughter to a private school,
> because the DC schools were apparently not good enough for her.
> And I voted for him. >>>
>
>
> Politicians say what the publics wants to them say. It is almost
> to be expected that Clinton, as Democratic president, will parade
> as a "liberal" in public, and behave just as bourgeois as the richest
> of the rich in private. The so-called social democrat Blair behaves
> similarly.
>
>
>
>
> Twice.
> >
> > >
> > > (2) There is much evidence floating around the net which
> > > suggests that this whole "we didn't know they were coming"
> and
> > > "we weren't prepared" arguments as per the airplanes crashing
> in
> > > the twin towers and subsequently the Pentagon building is
> bogus
> > > (And they are not flimsy consipiracy theories!). There is a
> airforce
> > > base -- the name escapes me -- that is on 24 hour alert for
> these
> > > types of things. For some reason, it took a snooze on the day
> of
> > > Sept. 11. The white house and the Pentagon, with the help of
> the
> > > media, have provided conflicting and contradicatory statements
> > > about the issue that simply don't add up. I will provide you
> > > with the
> > > link to information about the issue when I find the time.
> >
> > Thanks. I suppose I could find links that would
> provide you with
> "information" about how the Holocaust did not happen,but I am
> afraid that Internet sites are not normally evidence, in my book.
>
>
> I look at the argument not the publication. If the argument is
> compelling, and well documented, it shouldn't matter who the
> author is or the publication it originates from. Wouldn't you agree?
>
>
> > > Bush and company (e.g., Cheney) have had business dealings
> with
> > > the Bin Laden family up until the Sept. 11 (as far as I know it's
> > > continued).
> >
> > The first part of this statement may be true; I don't
> know. The
> parenthetical addition is simply a snide assertion.>>>
>
>
> I said "as far as I know" b/c I couldn't remember whether the
> source, which I pulled this info. from, had made this point. I will
> provides the links in my next message to you. I'm too lazy at
> moment.
>
>
>
> >
> > One has to wonder why the President of the U.S. and
> > > his close associates would have business ties with the family
> of
> > > one of the most wanted men in the world (i.e., he was up on
> the list
> > > even before the attacks) especially if they were supposedly
> trying
> > > to hunt him down? ALso, it was reported in the Washington
> Post (I
> > > believe it picked it up the story from a news wire service),
> > > or one of
> > > the mainstream publications, that a CIA agent(s) met with Bin
> > > Laden just prior to the september 11 attacks in the UAE,
> where he
> > > was said to receiving medical treatment. I don't know how
> much
> > > truth there is to the story, yet one have to become a tad
> suspicious
> > > when it receives such scant attention in the media, especially
> > > since it's generally the case that the most pertinent information
> > > (namely, that which could really embarass, not to mention,
> > > discredit the U.S. government and the entire ruling class) is
> that
> > > which is not discussed in the open.
> >
> > Again: Evidence, please.
>
> See previous poiint.
>
>
>
> The Washington Post is not known for its courageous unbiased
> coverage any more than, say, "National Review" in the US. I have
> heard (correct me if I am wrong) that "The Spectator" in the UK is
> the "conservative" magazine which is also not unbiased.
>
>
> I wouldn't know since I'm not British.
>
> >
> > >
> > > There has been people who have attempted to piece together
> the
> > > puzzle surrouding this issue. When I have the time, I will
> provide
> > > you with the links.
> > >
> > > (3) I think the third point speaks for itself. The U.S. elite
> > > has always
> > > advanced a plausible excuse to justify their aggressive foreign
> > > policy (see: Latin America, Indo China, etc).
> >
> > See dictators, fundamentalists, and others all over the world.
>
>
> All I would say in response to this statement is: nothing -- not
> one war, not one coup d'etat, not one civil war, not the
> restructuring
> of one economy, not the expulsion, oppression, or genocide of a
> one population -- has taken place within the world since the era of
> colonialism, since the cold world, and now in the (essentially)
> unipolar world we live in to-day without the "help" (or direct
> participation) of the dominant states. During colonialism it was the
> western European countries, during the cold war it was the U.S.
> and U.S.S.R, and at present it is the U,S. of A.
>
> I would not so much dispute your point about the "dictators", or
> "fundamentalists" of the world (many of whom are U.S. and
> western backed) manipulating their populaitons in a similar (and
> perhaps, more fundamentally, a more blatant manner) than ,
> say,the western media (and in particular, the NA one). But, I would
> say that the crimes of the Husseins of the world pale in
> comparison to those of the of U.S. elite (and the western
> Europeans). I don't think this last point is debatable.
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Subject: RE: Continuation of religion/disability
> > > discussion
> > > Date sent: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:10:00 -0500
> > > From: "Lillie,Timothy H" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]>,
> > > <DISABILITY-
> > > [log in to unmask]>
> > >
> > > > David:
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your passion about this topic and I am aware
> that
> > > there are many who share it. However, you have simply
> asserted
> > > these beliefs as if they are somehow "real". You ask us, in
> fact, to
> > > take your point of view on faith, since you provide no evidence
> for
> > > your comments (especially the one that asserts that the 9/11
> event
> > > was behind the twin towers terrorist attacks or knew about
> them
> > > and chose to do nothing, which is a very serious charge).
> > > >
> > > > How does your thinking, below, differ in any essential way
> from
> > > that of religions and religious thinkers who assert various
> points of
> > > view as ordained by God and incumbent upon followers to
> believe?
> > > >
> > > > TL
> > > >
> > > > Timothy Lillie, PhD
> > > > Dept. of Curricular & Instructional Studies
> > > > The University of Akron
> > > > Akron OH 44325-4205
> > > > 330-972-6746 (Voice)
> > > > 330-972-5209 (Fax)
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: David Quarter
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 1:51 PM
> > > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > > Subject: Re: Continuation of religion/disability discussion
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A fews comments:
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) BUsh's "concern with Saddam" (read: Iraq) has little if
> > > > > anything to do with ensuring future electoral success
> (although
> > > I'm
> > > > > sure this is obviously a concern of his) and almost entirely
> to do
> > > > > with gaining control of oil fields, installing american
> > > > > "friendly" Iraqi
> > > > > vassals, installing the upteemth U.S. base in the world,
> > > geopolitics,
> > > > > etc.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (2) This problem is/was American created. The whole twin-
> > > towers
> > > > > affair was just a convenient (albeit every plausible) excuse
> for
> > > Bush
> > > > > and his "allies" to continue their war drive against
> thier foes
> > > (read:
> > > > > their wanting to rid the world of any opposition to American-
> > > style
> > > > > capitalism and western occupation, western hegemony,
> > > > > authoritarian rule, un-democratic tendencies, etc).
> Moroever,
> > > there
> > > > > is considerable evidence to suggest that the American
> > > government
> > > > > WAS behind this entire event; and if not behind it, knew
> about
> > > it,
> > > > > and did nothing to prevent it.
> > > > >
> > > > > (3) It's questionable whether this Bin Laden character is
> even
> > > alive.
> > > > > I have to wonder, for example, how the supposedly most
> > > wanted
> > > > > man in the world (read: of the U.S. elite) is able to
> repeatedly
> > > evade
> > > > > capture from the police men of the world (i.e., U.S.-led
> western
> > > > > "peacekeepers"[sic!!]), and even with a substantial bounty
> on
> > > his
> > > > > head?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (4) Bush and Blair call themselves "Christians" for one or
> > > perhaps
> > > > > all of the following reasons together: so as to cater to their
> > > > > constituents; to present themselves as moral individuals as
> > > > > opposed to ravaging, genocidal maniacs; to trick people
> into
> > > > > beleiving that their policies are actually driven by
> moralistic
> > > > > concerns as opposed material concern, self-interest, geo-
> > > politics,
> > > > > etc; cause they know that most westerners are gullible,
> are
> > > sheep
> > > > > who believe 80 to 90 percent of what they hear spoken of
> by
> > > > > government, and other insitutions of social control, etc;
> > > because
> > > > > government always says the opposite of what it believes,
> and
> > > > > always does the opposite of what it says. Take your pick.
> > > > >
> > > > > (5) I don't think criticizing Bush and Blair's supposed
> > > > > dedicatioin (?)
> > > > > to "their" faith stems out of any deep concern with
> Christianity,
> > > as
> > > > > opposed the hypocrisy of two men portraying themselves
> as
> > > moral
> > > > > human beings, yet simultaneously being responsible for
> > > inflicting
> > > > > so much hardship, suffering (not least, bloodshed) on the
> rest of
> > > > > the world.
> > > > >
> > > > > David
> > > > >
> > > > > Date sent: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 15:48:42 -0000
> > > > > Send reply to: Larry Arnold <larry@LARRY-
> > > > > ARNOLD.COM>
> > > > > From: Larry Arnold <larry@LARRY-
> > > > > ARNOLD.COM>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Continuation of
> religion/disability
> > > > > discussion
> > > > > To: DISABILITY-
> [log in to unmask]
> > > > >
> > > > > > I cannot help thinking that Bush with his Winston
> Churchill
> > > > > fixation is
> > > > > > intent upon doing a Maggie Thatcher to ensure his
> electoral
> > > > > success by going
> > > > > > down as the guy who finally did for Saddam, as Maggie
> did to
> > > > > Galtieri but
> > > > > > solving nothing in the process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was some guys masquerading as airline pilots, intent
> upon
> > > a
> > > > > Jihad that
> > > > > > started this current round of renewed hostilities. You can
> all
> > > > > sleep safe in
> > > > > > your beds though that my eyesight is such that I am
> never
> > > likely
> > > > > to get a
> > > > > > pilots licence as I am not even allowed to drive a bus.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To return to the point, Bush and Blair may call
> themselves
> > > > > Christians as
> > > > > > much as Osama bin Laden may call himself a Muslim.
> You
> > > > > cannot define either
> > > > > > faith merely by what some of its adherents do in it's
> name.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The attack upon Bush and Blair can be seen as has been
> > > > > pointed out, not so
> > > > > > much as an attack on there supposed hypocrisy but an
> > > attack
> > > > > upon the
> > > > > > religion (and by implication faith in general) which they
> > > > > ostennsibly
> > > > > > espouse and a general excuse for an outbreak of faith
> > > bashing
> > > > > form those
> > > > > > whose atheist and humanistic perspective is no less a
> > > profession
> > > > > of "faith"
> > > > > > than any other and equally unprovable as an eternal
> verity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Larry
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> > > > > > > [mailto:DISABILITY-
> [log in to unmask]]On
> > > Behalf
> > > > > Of Lillie,Timothy H
> > > > > > > Sent: 17 December 2002 14:10
> > > > > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Continuation of religion/disability
> discussion
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am not sure what this means.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Timothy Lillie, PhD
> > > > > > > Dept. of Curricular & Instructional Studies
> > > > > > > The University of Akron
> > > > > > > Akron OH 44325-4205
> > > > > > > 330-972-6746 (Voice)
> > > > > > > 330-972-5209 (Fax)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________End of
> > > message______________________
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Archives and tools for the Disability-Research
> Discussion List
> > > > > > are now located at:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________End of
> message______________________
> > > > >
> > > > > Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion
> List
> > > > > are now located at:
> > > > >
> > > > > www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> > > > >
> > > > > You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|
