If you can tell a lot about a person by his friends, what can you tell about a movement? The American left has been keen on giving these lunatics their own country, and now just look at Hamas is doing to the Gaza Strip.
A VISION of an Islamic society that bans mixed dancing and sternly disapproves of homosexuality has been given by Mahmoud Zahar, the most senior leader of Hamas in Gaza.
No, Christianity "sternly disapproves" of homosexuality -- Islam wants to execute gays (cf. the Taliban).
Dr Zahar condemned homosexual marriage, saying: “Are these the laws for which the Palestinian street is waiting? For us to give rights to homosexuals and to lesbians, a minority of perverts and the mentally and morally sick?”He denied that Hamas wanted a puritancial regime, and said its political and social institutions included women.
I bet Dr. Zahar didn't use the word "puritanical" but that it was inserted by The Times. Though it is generally used in a disparaging way, the Palestinians could greatly benefit from some Puritan values such as hard work, humility, and peace. Puritans were the foundation of American greatness.
Exactly. The reason "puritan" is used in a disparaging way (especially by the media) is because Puritans believed in personal responsibility above all else. And, as we all know, the concept of responsibility is an anathema to the left.
beaker: According to many on MW's site, I'm a member of "the Left"... and I firmly believe in personal responsibility. I also don't just believe in it, I practice it. I'm not the only "Lefty" who believes in and practices personal responsibility either.
I don't think it's that one side believes in personal responsibility and the other side doesn't. It's not a matter of yes or no, it's a matter of how narrow or broadly one defines personal responsibility and in what philosophical framework.
At UH I had a business law professor who was going on and on about how some people don't take responsibility for what they do. He was talking about bankrupcy law. Except that his definition of personal responsibility is that if you loan money to someone that does not have the means to pay you back, you're responsible for your losses. I would have defined it quite differently (you borrow the money, you pay the principal, fees, and interest back).
It's interesting how much easier it is to communicate with someone when you try understand their moral framework (even if you ultimately reject it). It can also save you a world of conflict when you know ahead of time that someone else's moral framework gives them the wiggle room to screw you over.
RA said: "I don't think it's that one side believes in personal responsibility and the other side doesn't. It's not a matter of yes or no, it's a matter of how narrow or broadly one defines personal responsibility and in what philosophical framework."
I think that's probably right.
RA said: "Except that his definition of personal responsibility is that if you loan money to someone that does not have the means to pay you back, you're responsible for your losses. I would have defined it quite differently (you borrow the money, you pay the principal, fees, and interest back)."
My take on that example is that both parties are responsible. It's the responsibility of the lender to lend money wisely, and it's the responsibility of the borrower to pay that money back as well as agreed-upon interest and fees.