Before you (once again,fail to) answer this question,please bear in mind that Robinson's character originally wrestled his land from the Indians (who fought him - unsuccessfully- in an effort to retain the land ultimately seized by this paleface).

Were the Inidans justified in their decision to fight to retain their land,or should they have adopted a policy of total pacifism?

When the cattle baron (Robinson's character), who,if you recall took the Indians land,attempts to take John  Parrish's  land also,was John Parrish(Glenn Ford's character) justified in his decision to fight to retain his land,or should he have adopted a policy of total pacifism?

What would kappert have done?     

Recommendation to kappert:

Rent the movie," The Violent Men"...

Dramatic western starring Edward G Robinson,Barbara Stanwyck and Glenn Ford,1955.Story about a soldier turned pacifist who is forced into a confrontation against a bullying cattle baron.

then tell me,if you were John Parrish (Ford's character),how would you have handled the situation?

You are welcome.

Why do you need to read those websites BEFORE answering MY question?

Patriotism,Nationhood,and the American Indian.

http://www.ilanamercer.com/AmericanIndiansInterview.htm

Here's a thought:

I am not an Indian,and neither are you.Perhaps you'd care to address your list of questions to somebody who is.

Contact: [email protected]

Please be sure to let me know the answers you receive.Meanwhile, YOU try answering MY question, then take a look at this.

http://www.vdare.org/yeagley/indian_view.htm

Those are fair and legitimate questions.Indeed,had a descendant of Crazy Horse, Tatanka Iyotaka or Geronimo put those questions to me,in defense of their ancestors bellicose response to the actions of the palefaces,I could respect them for it.Alas,this does NOT apply in your case for obvious reasons.(Do not misunderstand me,I'd be delighted to have that debate with you at some future date,but it is a different debate from the one currently in progress).

The Current Debate:

Basically,I wish to know if I am debating:

1  A person whose sympathies are exclusively with the Indian and against the palefaces. (NB We have already established the fact that I am).

2  A person who argues that the Indians had both the right and the moral obligation to meet violence (committed against them) with violence.(NB Your view on THIS is the component which is currently missing from your responses to my questioning of your position to date). 

Kappert's dilemma:

To you 'right' and 'wrong' do not exist; 'good' and 'evil' do not exist; patriotism is ALWAYS bad; 'dialogue' is ALWAYS the solution to problems and war is NEVER a legitimate response to (even) unprovoked aggression.

[btw: Although I suspect that it wasn't intended as such,KA's comment would appear to endorse my argument.Threaten a cat with violence and he will first try to avoid confrontation.If that doesn't work he's liable to fight back "tooth and claw",thus proving that in the final analysis,even cats aren't pussies].

Well?

kappert: My cat's sleeping right now, I won't disturb it.

Sound advice. Those creatures can get prickly when they're deprived of shut-eye and can be liable to dole out some fang and claw marks if prematurely jolted from their slumber.

"if you were a fish I believe you'd choose to live in a barrel"

I think the 'hide in your shell' symptom lies with you.

"My cat's sleeping right now.I won't disturb it".

What does it say about the sanity of a 47 year old teacher who preaches pacifism to the world,supports the America Indian cause,but cannot answer a simple question regarding the modus operandi used by said American Indians to save themselves from what he would consider possible annihilation*** at the hands of the palefaces?

*** http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/aperfectcircle/annihilation.html

Kappert,if you were a fish I believe you'd choose to live in a barrel.Now,answer the damned  question !!!

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PORT/MAX1909~Om-Posters.jpg

Answer the question.

a.k.a. more spurious argumentation

@ kappert

You are WRONG on TWO counts.

1  My dog vs cat example remains sound.Remember,we were NOT discussing how your cat gets on with your neighbours dogs,we were discussing a specific theoretical,namely,how MY dog would respond to YOUR cat.So,I'll ask you again (and knowing my dog's opinion of cats in general),how would your cat's pretty purring prevent my dog from ripping out your cat's throat? Answer,it wouldn't.

Recommendation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fur_and_Loathing

2  No,we haven't had that discussion.Just like the dog vs cat issue,you attempted to evade that debate as well,hoping that people in the real world wouldn't notice.Well,they have,and I'm still waiting, here in the real world,for your answer.

Were the American Indians justified in what they considered to be their patriotic duty to go to war with the palefaces,in defence of their 'nations'?

Options:

Yes/No/ Leave me alone,I just want to put my hands over my ears and chant OMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So,Kappert,which is it? 

"Patriotism" is love of one's nation and/or country.  'Good' forms of patriotism manifest that 'love' through willingness to sacrifice for one's country and acts that TRULY aim to further its general welfare and survival.  Bad forms of patriotism would be acts that presume or purport to promote the welfare of one's country and its people, but that in fact are morally reprehensible and will further its demise.  However, since Kappert does not believe in 'good and bad', but rather adheres to moral relativism, he is unlikely going to be able to separate good forms of patriotism from bad ones.  For the ability to recognise 'good' forms is premised on the ability to make clear moral judgments.  Needlessly to say, this has nothing to do with unanimity of viewpoints, but everything with (moral) honesty with oneself.

Examples of 'good' forms of patriotism are easy to come by, such as:  paying one's taxes fully (assuming they are imposed by the parliament of a genuinely 'democratic' political system) in order to fund the common governance, willingness to fulfil a variety of 'civic' duties (e.g. jury service in the service of the judiciary, generally promoting adherence to the law by others when the state's functionaries are 'overwhelmed' in for example natural 'disasters', readiness to serve in the armed and/or security forces to defend the country against external enemies, etc.... 

Examples of 'bad' forms of patriotism are not so easy to discern because patriotism (love of country, or of one's own political community) is generally a 'good' thing in itself. Without it, no political community can survive over time and function well for its citizens  By contrast, actions that are undertaken in the name of one's nation, but that in fact undermine its democratic 'values', may be seen as 'bad' forms: e.g. condoning wrongful actions by public bodies (e.g. parliament passing laws that violate the constitutional right of individual free political speech) under false pretenses (e.g. to combat 'racism' or some other such arbitrary slogan abused for partisan purposes), claiming to treat all citizens equally before the law while in fact favoring-in-law some over others, failure to make relevant distinctions between citizens and noncitizens in the name of some ideological goal that undermines the survival of one's own country, etc....  

p.s. It can be extremely bad for your health.

http://new.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4240579.stm

@ kappert

Look,if your cat fell in love with my dog,your cat's love would be rejected because my dog HATES cats,ALL cats;big cats,small cats,Persian cats,Manx cats,live cats,stuffed cats,and no amount of pretty purring (i.e. attempt  at dialogue) on the part of your cat would save it from humiliating rejection,not to mention my dog's bark and bite.This is an example of what is known as 'Unrequited Love'.Other examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrequited_love

Similarly,if one (person,group of persons) ideology seeks peace,but the other (person,group of persons) ideology displays sufficient animosity towards the other (person,group of persons) ideology, then no amount of dialogue (i.e. pretty purring) is going to change that reality.This is an example of what one might call,'Unrequited Peace'.

You asked for an example of 'good' patriotism.Well,I suppose,according to your line of thinking,one example of 'good' patriotism would be:

Red Indian patriotism = GOOD     Paleface =BAD.

Other examples might include:

Zionist patriotism = BAD patriotism    Palestinian patriotism = GOOD patriotism.

Aztlan patriotism = GOOD patriotism etc.,

I think you catch my drift.                                        

@ Kappert

1) So you think that the Cold War was an "assumption", not a reality?  Well, I guess that says it all......

2) You even seem to think that there was "no dialogue"?  In fact, there was constant "dialogue" and negotiation.  On both sides there was even a permanent bureaucracy designed to conduct that dialogue.  Needless to say, the dialogue was very difficult, given the goals of the soviet side (which was to bury 'democracy').  And Stalin's armies were not stopped by "dialogue" either.   

3) You also seem to think that there was no moral difference between both systems, i.e. the capitalist and the communist one.  It is true that no one is 'perfect', but that does not mean that there is no moral difference.  Even at a legalistic level (as opposed to a moral one), I hope that you realise that there is a difference, say, between the Italian (elected) government and the Italian mafia.  Or, that when a contemporary German judge sends a German criminal to jail, that the judge is not 'perfect' nor 'pure' himself.  But, you seem inclined to think that they are just 'different' and should "dialogue". 

4)  Do you really need examples of good and bad forms of "patriotism"?  I would be happy to oblige you, if I knew I was dealing with a sensible person?  But, someone who thinks that the Cold War was an "assumption", and that there are no moral distinctions.....Let's get real!    

Kappert wrote: "the we vs Evil empire remarks miss reality".  What could such an assertion possibly mean?

1) Could it mean that Kappert denies the (past) reality of the Cold War?   If so, he is the one "missing reality", because of his refusal to make consistent historical observations.

2) More likely he means to say that he denies the characterisation of the Soviet Union as "evil"?  That would reflect his destructive moral relativism, i.e. his well-known refusal (rather inability) to make moral distinctions.  In short he seems only able to operate exclusively in an a-moral 'reality'.  Which is of course, a kind of perceived 'reality', but one that inevitably will lead to disaster.  After all, contrary to what he asserts foolishly elsewhere - that it was patriotism that led to world wars - it is precisely the inability (by many people) to make necessary moral distinctions (e.g. in casu between 'good' forms and 'bad' forms of patriotism) that inevitably led to great disasters.  The same will happen in the future.

As always, what ails Kappert (and similar products of contemporary naive-left education systems), is the unwillingness to make honest (but often unpleasant) empirical observations, and the preference for clinging to 'acquired' dogmas.  Thus, he is incapable to make observations about the 'nature' of the Soviet Union (e.g. power concentration and monopoly, nomenclatura, gulags, etc...) and its publicly-declared goals etc...., and thus he refuses to make any moral characterisation of the Soviet Union.  In true "reality", that is the equivalent of a babe walking in the woods.....

"You may call it wishful thinking,naive,or out of this world,but I stick to my path".

Of course you do,kappert,of course you do.Now,where have I heard this sort of balderdash before? Ah, I remember now,it was the CND ers (and Peter Hitchens describes it best when he writes in today's M-o-S):

"...the swivel-eyed movement of pacifist dupes sprinkled with communist fellow-travellers,who preached panic and fear when we needed calm resolve.

They worked hard to make the Evil Empire the only nuclear power in Europe.They were proved totally wrong by our bloodless victory in the Cold War,but have never had the grace to say sorry...".

"Remembering Muslim workmates,I might say that they were rather sloppy with Islam".

So,your only hope is that the majority of Muslims in the world will become "rather sloppy" with Islam.Let's see,just how realistic is that? Well,one indicator would be to imagine that we are not talking about Muslims,but Taoists,in which case we would be expecting them to transform themselves from pacifists into latter day Genghis Khans.Kappert,tell me and be honest with me,just how likely is that?

btw; I too have a number of wonderful Muslim friends.That fact is irrelevant.

Welcome to Utopia,kappert-style: The pop singer,the fox and the taoist.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article3295316.ece

http://www.visit4info.com/preview-flash.cfm?vm=O&type=3&adid=55579

"I  do not think that hasty dismissing of possible Qur'an critique contributes to the path of a more liberal Islamic view".

Who are the people doing the "hasty dismissing" here,marcfrans,myself,other non Muslims or (in the majority) the Muslims themselves?

The fact remains that,in the words of marcfrans,your world is "a world of wishful thinking as opposed to one of empirical observation".

If you doubt this,then take the following ' Empirical' test:

You try telling a group of Muslims,selected by yourself at random,that you believe they should accept that the Qur'an is a book written by man,and that just  like "any other" spiritual book,they need to accept that it contains errors,tales and fantasies.Do that,then get back to me with the empirical results.

@ marcfrans: Let's attempt to conduct a little experiment shall we?

@ kappert: This,from The Daily Telegraph, Saturday,February 2,2008

    Title: 'Crucifixion? It wasn't that bad,says professor' by Jonathan Petre,

                              Religion Correspondent.

Quote: The Crucifixion of Christ "wasn't as bad as it's been painted",an outspoken Marxist academic will claim on the BBC this month.

Terry Eagleton,Professor of Cultural Theory at the University of Manchester,will say in Radio 4's Lent Talks that Jesus "got off pretty lightly" because it only took him three hours to die...

He adds that Jesus's scourging was a "blessing in disguise" because it hastened his death.He also attacks modern Christianity for siding with the rich and abandoning the poor...

Comments please,kappert. 

@ Atlanticist

Your foxy questioning has exposed the reality of Kappert's world: it is a world of wishful thinking as opposed to one of empirical observation.

I think that the important question is not whether the Quran contains "errors", but rather whether muslims, and especially muslim leaders, can accept the notion of freedom of individual conscience.  That would be essentially the same as separation of mosque and state, or acceptance of different interpretations about the meaning of the Quran, both of the text as a whole and of specific passages in the text.   The Quran does not have to contain "errors" if people can interpret its meaning in very different ways. 

I also think that there is no essential difference between: (a) some Europeans today who are in jail for expressing thoughts that transgress so-called anti-racism and negationism legislation, and (b) some muslims who are in jail for expressing thoughts that are declared "unislamic" by various bodies in the muslim world.  In both cases it is a reflection of intolerance of freedom of speech and expression. However, for the moment there often are still significant differences in the type of punishment meeted out.  An Afghan 'court' recently convicted a man to death for downloading an "unislamic" page from the internet (obviously the goal is to silence Afghan journalists).  And, a while back, another Afghan court sentenced another one to death for declaring himself to be a 'christian'.   For the moment, the punishments are less severe in Europe, but the same 'intolerance' (for unorthodox ideas) rules.  

Not for the first time have you tried this evasion tactic and not for the last time do I intend getting you back on track.Let's recap:

Atlanticist: "ALL Muslims believe the Qur'an to be error-free:.

Kappert:"I do not think that scholars regard the book as error-free".

Atlanticist: "Non-Islamic sources do NOT count".

Kappert: "Presently...the Qur'an is discussed vividly (University of Samarkand)"

Atlanticist: "Are you now claiming that these non Arab Muslims are toying with the possibility that the Qur'an DOES contain errors?"

Kappert: "Discussions are being held very 'cautiously' ".

Atlanticist: "Who is this enlightened oil sheikh...is he the same benefactor funding that "Study into possibility of errors in the Holy Qur'an" currently taking place at the University of Samarkand you were telling me about?"

Kappert: "Indeed,who is the guy? There are very few ones,maybe the Aga Khan (foundation) is best known...Besides,sponsoring critical Islam is far too dangerous for them".

Kappert,it is completely dishonest of you to suggest that the Aga Khan (foundation) funds studies into possible errors in the Qur'an.So,I'll ask you again,where are these Muslim scholars who believe that the Qur'an is not error-free? 

"Arab Christians have their churches (exception Saudi-Arabia), bigger communities live in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, Lebanon. Saudi-Arabia, as protector of Mecca, prohibits the cult of other religions (just as within the Vatican)."

There's a difference between Rome and 'vatican city': there are mosques in Rome, as in every european city, even a big one built for 50 million dollars. King Fahd from SA visited it in november last year. Ratzinger will see no church in SA, he will not be allowed to wear a cross around his neck, he would even not be allowed to mention Jesus name there. And ofcourse he wouldn't be allowed to enter Mekka (only the city) while everyone is free to visit the vatican (the holy place).

Eastern christianity is conquered by jihad and destroyed under dhimmitude, a dehumanizing and exploitive institution which has given rise to expropriation, slavery, and the deportation of majority-populations whose cultural and historic heritage has been totally demolished.

And there are no christians anymore in Morocco and Tunisia, their annihilation was completed during the 11 century in 2-3 generations.

Please notice that you have chosen a book dated 1958 (Sam Welles) and a citation within that book (Soper).

"As for what has become of Taoism,with its hordes of nearly illiterate,rapacious priests,one can hardly improve on the summary of Edmund Davidson Soper."Taoism today...is a mass of puerile superstitions.It is the worst side of Chinese religion...Theoretically,the business of the ignorant priests is to help the people live in accord with Tao i.e. the Way,but practically it is magic run mad.Soothsaying in every imaginable form...is carried on by a priesthood which has become skillful in working on the superstitious fears of the people".

http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_624.html

* Are you offended by that statement?

* How many other Taoists around the world would be offended by it?

* How many Taoists could possibly agree with it?

* How many Taoists would seek revenge?

* How would you suggest fellow Taoists respond to statements such as 

  this?

If I understand it correctly,that last post of yours was a very touching one but it completely failed to address the real issue.

* Why should Arab Christians have to live in the 'virtual' world?

* Why should Arab Christians be denied the same religious freedoms enjoyed

  by Muslims in the West?

* Indeed,why should Arabs not be permitted to openly preach and practice

  Taoism,just like you do here in the West?

These are just a few of the basic questions you need to think about and those same questions  are the kind of questions the Mufti of Paris needs to address.But neither of you will.Am I wrong? I appreciate that you can't answer on behalf of the Mufti but you can answer for yourself.So,how about it,kappert? Are you brave enough to try?

If you are an Arabic Christian, you virtually may try here:
http://www.arabicbible.com/directories/churches/sa.htm

Indeed, who may be the guy? There are very few ones, maybe the Aga Khan (Foundation) is best known. The others are more interested in yachts, Bentleys and artificial islands. Besides, sponsoring critical Islam studies is far too dangerous for them, they take it as easy as it comes.

...and it must have to be somehow because of the war in Iraq.

Typical French reasoning...

The mufti’s nerve is mind numbing.   

The French should allow as many mosques to be built as the Christians are allowed to build churches in Mecca.  They should allow the French Muslims to have as many Qurans as bibles are allowed for the Christians in Mecca.  Bringing a bible into Saudi Arabia is worth jail and a few lashes. It is odd how Muslims don't understand the irony of this situation.

Kappert,perhaps you shouldn't miss out on the gravy train (pork barrels?)here.Get in there,son.That oil sheikh might even be persuaded to finance the construction of a Gongguan at Gitmo'.You know,just in case...

So the Muslims have lost their Saudi oil funding and want subsidy from the French tax payers?

http://www.christiansquoting.org.uk
10201 quotes 654 topics 2452 authors indexed 903 links
http://www.ipc-ealing.co.uk/ Our church
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/Christiansquoting Daily quotes
-------------------------------------------------

Who is this enlightened oil sheikh who will supposedly fund the building of Churches and Synagogues in the heart of Araby? Personally, I've never heard of him.Is he the same benefactor funding that "Study into possibility of errors in the Holy Qur'an" currently taking place at the University of Samarkand you were telling me about?

Maybe a rich sheik gives him money to build the mosques he wants. Pragmatic money talks would be more appropriate than changing the law.

I agree.  The Mufti should call for a summit in Mecca with the Chief Rabbis of Mecca and Medina,  the Bishops of Mecca and Medina, and all the other leaders of all Christian sects in Mecca and Medina.  They should hold the meeting at the Cathedral of Mecca Center for World Understanding and Love and Tolerance.  Puhleeze.  How barbaric and racist those Christians are for not understanding the needs of the Mufti of Paris.  The Christians have dominated Mecca and discriminated against Muslims there for so long, it's only fair to give the poor Mufti of Paris a break.

I believe kappert would agree with me when I propose that:The mufti of Paris should be encouraged to seek a dialogue with the chief rabbi of Riyadh and the Archbishop of Medina to learn lessons on how this problem has already been successfully addressed in the Muslim world. Europe is SO behind the curve on this issue it's untrue.