Hi Elizaphanian,
--- Elizaphanian <Elizaphanian@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Hi all (especially Wim),
>
> This might be a controversial post....
Nothing is contraversial if you see all sides :)
>
> I knew little about Pim Fortuyn prior to his recent
> assassination, and the
> 'far-right' is not an area that I spend much time
> researching. However, in
> the recent coverage of his policies in England, one
> of his attitudes seemed
> reasonable, and I was wondering if it was defensible
> in MoQ terms. Or
> rather, it seemed to chime with something I had
> recently written here
> myself, so I thought I would flag it up and focus on
> it, to see if it was
> defensible or not.
>
> According to one biography I have read of Fortuyn,
> "He wanted to halt
> immigration from Muslim countries because he feared
> that Muslims would erode
> the country's tolerance of homosexuals."
>
> I wrote recently (in the MoQ and the Middle East
> thread):
>
> "If you see that there is a higher value than the
> nation, the doctrine of
> human rights, then you will accept that there are
> times when it is necessary
> to go against your own nation in pursuit of that
> higher value. It also means
> that you need to work to reconstruct your own nation
> so that it is geared
> around support of those rights, that it is
> criticised when it breaches those
> rights, but also that it is defended from other
> nations that may be less
> likely to respect those rights themselves."
>
Like I said in a previous post (IIRC) rights are
tokens of priviledge dished out willy-nilly by the
powerful. It is the absense of freedom, blocks in the
path to the pursuit of Quality in other words, which
is the real issue IMO.
> So, if you accept that tolerance for homosexuality
> is part of a more general
> respect for human rights (as seems to be the settled
> will of Dutch society)
> then acting against a potential threat to that
> (immigration of people
> opposed to that settled will) seems reasonable, and
> "high quality" in MoQ
> terms - it is the defence of an intellectual level
> value against a social
> level value.
>
Quality of Religious Doctrine < Quality of allowing
people to be themselves.
> [Of course, it doesn't have to be a ban on
> immigration per se that achieves
> that result. A system such as operates in the United
> States, where all
> immigrants must swear allegiance to the US
> constitution, would seem to
> accomplish the same thing. And I am ignoring for the
> moment the question of
> whether Islam is or is not intrinsically intolerant
> of homosexuality.]
>
I think Islam is against same sex stuff. Corrent me if
I'm wrong.
> I would be very interested to read other people's
> views on this.
>
> Sam
>
The need to immigrate, the subconcious belief that the
Earth belongs to us all is probably the driving force
behind the killing. Allowing Muslims to abide in
homo-friendly cultures will eventually dilute the
negative Islamic same sex doctrine.
André
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:15 BST