Top Menu

Israeli MP proposes banning Islamic prayer call

Minaret-israel_3088709b

On top of the daily violence perpetrated by settlers and the state of Israel against Palestinians there are also efforts to wipe Islam out.

via. Telegraph

Israeli Right-wingers have revived highly contentious plans that could effectively silence the Muslim call to prayer, known as the adhan.

In a move that risks stoking already simmering tensions in Jerusalem between Jews and Arabs, a member of Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition is tabling legislation that could put strict limits on Islamic prayer calls from mosques in the city and across Israel.

Robert Ilatov, a parliamentarian with the ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party, is sponsoring the bill with the support of Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli foreign minister who is also the party’s leader.

While the legislation is being justified on the grounds that prayer calls often produce “intolerable noise” that disturbs many citizens’ sleep, it is bound to prompt accusations of religious intolerance and prejudice against Israel’s Muslim minority.

A similar proposal – also put forward by Yisrael Beiteinu – was shelved in 2011 despite having the explicit support of Mr Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, after several cabinet members criticised it as likely to cause division.

The proposal comes against the backdrop of a clampdown by security forces in Arab neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem which have witnessed almost nightly scenes of unrest in recent months following the murder of a 16-year-old Palestinian by Jewish vigilantes seeking revenge for the killing of three Israelis in the West Bank.

Read the entire article

, , , , , , , ,

  • Reynardine

    You’re really talking dirty

  • Tanveer ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Khan

    Oh, I’ll begin weeping anyway.
    *weeps*

  • Tanveer ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Khan

    Are you also British?

  • Ruhani

    *begins tearing up*

  • Tanveer ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Khan

    :O I’m feeling emotional…. excuse me.

  • Ruhani

    You’re not alone, Bhai.

  • Matt

    The following sentence got chopped up, I guess because I tried to put two words that were too close together into different hyperlinks:

    The main point of the Neglected Argument is that abductive logic springs from an “inward light” or “il lume naturale” which has proven to produce correct hypotheses much more often than random guessing could allow,…

    (Maybe I should’ve said that the correct so-called-guesses of abduction really spring from an “inward light” or “il lume naturale.” I’m not sure what to say about the incorrect guesses: are they wrong because of pure bad luck of the draw? I don’t think so, but rather that they’re like a missed swing by a baseball player. The swing missed, but it wasn’t completely random in its timing and path.)

    “inward light” was supposed to be linked to an excerpt of Peirce’s writings I posted on USENET. Search “Charles Sanders Peirce, Excerpts from Ms. 692” in alt.philosophy.

    “il lume naturale” was supposed to be linked to this:
    http://www.unav.es/users/LumeNaturale.html

    “A Peircean Panentheist Scientific Mysticism” is here, he link is to a PDF:
    http://www.transpersonalstudies.org/ImagesRepository/ijts/Downloads/A%20Peircean%20Panentheist%20Scientific%20Mysticism.pdf

  • Matt

    If you had said that all theists are dimwitted in so far as their theistic thinking is concerned, I wouldn’t have responded because I really didn’t want to get into that at this time. The farthest my earlier response conceded was that even if a person is wrongheaded on some specific application of some particular subject it doesn’t mean he’s a total dimwit. I mentioned Venn and Peirce because they believed in God while they taught the fallibility of knowledge.

    Similarly, it appears that you assumed that when I said I follow the lines of Peirce that I was talking about his lines in believing God. In my statement to you I just meant that I follow his logic and philosophy in general, and so do other people, both theists and atheists, who I consider highly intelligent.

    OK, I didn’t want to go here (at this time), but…

    Although I do try to look at the world through the lens of other philosophies, for the last five or so years I’ve mostly followed Peirce, and yes, for about the last two years I’ve been following him in thinking that the hypothesis ‘God is real’ is a meaningful hypothesis, (albeit right at the border of acceptability.) A full defense could only be given to someone who is versed in Peirce’s pragmatism, synechism, and objective-idealism. And even then, I’ve seen the debates (in a list-serve email group dedicated to all things Peircean) and I’ve never seen anyone switch sides. Synechism is the continuity of everything which entails his idealism and the repudiation of absolutes and hard limits. You say he crossed the (hard) line of acceptability. Peirce insists in several places in his writings that there is no such thing as a precisely delineated limit, (a conclusion he claims is derived from the exactness of his logic.

    The main point of the Neglected Argument is that abductive logic springs from an ”inward light” or “il lume naturale” which has proven to produce correct hypotheses much more often than random guessing could allow, so your objection that the hypothesis can’t be tested and therefore isn’t a hypothesis still leaves room for meaning. Your objection that the hypothesis isn’t summarizing any data is not quite right: the hypothesis summarizes everything, which of course causes the problem that it leaves nothing to contrast with the data. This may seem the same as ‘no data’, but summarizing everything allows for the “inward light.”

    I’m always on the lookout for the strongest opposing argument to what I believe. I assume that you are too. If I were to try to gather the strongest arguments in favor of belief in God I’d look to Søren Brier first—so far I’ve only read his thoughts on Peirce’s concept of God in a list-serve email group. But you can take a look at these links. From the second link, maybe the paper “A Peircean Panentheist Scientific Mysticism” would be a the best introduction an argument, i.e., maybe the best for you. Who knows? I’ve been slammed busy at work the last few days and have only read the first half of this article. So far so good, as an intro to the argument.

  • Matt

    I’ve been slammed busy at work. I’ll write back before the weekend. It won’t, however, be a well developed counter-argument, (that would take a long time), but mostly just an index to the areas I think the strongest counter might come from. Hopefully I’ll have time to write something substantive about it rather than just pointing to elsewhere.

  • zoroaster

    First, sorry about the delay in responding; it’s apparently caused by the “censors” at Loonwatch taking so long to reach decisions about whether or not to permit my posts to appear.

    As to the points you raised, they’re made well. And I admit that, especially when my emotions are stimulated (e.g., by uncivil posters), my writing becomes even sloppier than usual! Such was the case for what you’ve quoted: I just wanted to disengage from those posters. But now that I’m apparently communicating with someone civilized, I’ll try to be more careful.

    What I meant / mean by “…in contrast to essentially all theists, I’m well aware of the serious limitation of all reasoning…” is that there are few people (let alone theists!) who realize that logic can’t generate new information (and, therefore, that all the logical “proofs” of any god’s existence are “so much labor lost”). Yet, I expect (but don’t know from experience) that there are some theists who do know this limitation of logic, but nonetheless adopt “the god idea” even though it doesn’t have a shred of evidence to support it.

    Why they do so is a separate topic on which I’ve written much elsewhere (type “zenofzero”, with quotes, in a good search engine and then go to Chapters X2 entitled “Excavating Reasons” and X3 entitled “Examining Reasons”). And incidentally, another “Reason” that I would now add (based on recent experiences) is stimulation of a person’s reptilian brain-stem (overriding their higher mental capabilities) via fasting. I’ve been amazed to see that the consequences are so close to those of schizophrenia.

    With respect to your specific question, I’m not sufficiently knowledgable about Venn and Peirce to evaluate their religious leanings. I see that, although indoctrinated in Christianity as a child, Venn seems to have abandoned it as an adult, but it’s more difficult for me to discern Peirce’s thoughts about God: what he called “the neglected Argument” (for God), his “hypothesis” of “Ens necessarrium”, would probably now be more appropriately described (at least by those who are beginning to understand how the universe was created via entirely natural processes) as more useless, arm-chair speculation!

    As for my comment “I have long since found that all theists are dimwits, not worth engaging in discussions” — and although (again) what I was really trying to do was just terminate communications with a particular poster — I’d gladly accept your generous interpretation in the final sentence of your post. I’ll add, that my “fair sampling” includes somewhere between a hundred and a thousand theists, and yet, in that sample, never once (and I don’t expect this time!) have I been able to “shine some light on their dimness”.

    Apparently, such people don’t appreciate that the only known way to gain knowledge about the world external to our minds is via the scientific method, don’t understand what constitutes evidence, and apparently are incapable of utilizing Bayes’ method to use the evidence to evaluate the probability that some hypothesis is true (e.g., that a particular god exists). As a result, they continue in their “faith” (not realizing that there’s no such thing as ‘faith’!), basically because it makes them feel good (succumbing to Nietzsche’s proof-by-pleasure logic error).

    As a case in point, consider the case that I outline in Chapter Ih (entitled “Hypotheses and Probabilities”): a theist with a Ph.D. in theoretical physicist wrote a book in which he “thinks” he’s using Bayes’ method to demonstrate the probability that God exists is about two thirds — when (being a theoretician rather than an experimentalist?) all he manages to demonstrate conclusively is that he doesn’t have a clue what qualifies as “evidence”. He thus reveals himself to be another “dimwit theist”. But his mother is probably very pleased with him — and maybe that’s all he really wanted 🙁

    In response to another of your specific questions, I’m sorry to hear that you “follow in the lines of Peirce”. In my view (and in the view of every scientists worth her salt!) and in contrast to Peirce’s use of the word, any hypothesis must succinctly summarize a substantial quantity of reliable data and be testable (by other than dead people). In contrast, Peirce’s “Ens necessarium” is mere speculation, summarizing zero data and providing no testable hypothesis.

    Imagine how Hume, Carnap, Russell and Popper would react to Peirce’s blunder to call such a speculation a hypothesis. I would guess (after they acknowledge’s his brilliance in many areas):

    “Commit it… to the flames, for it… contains nothing but sophistry and illusion”

    “Your assertion is no assertion at all; it does not speak about anything; it is nothing but a series of empty words; it is simply without sense”

    “[Speculations about gods] lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them”

    “The problem of definitions and of the “meaning of terms” is the most important source of Aristotle’s regrettably still prevailing intellectual influence, of all that verbal and empty scholasticism that haunts not only the Middle Ages, but our own contemporary philosophy.”

    Pierce adds: “the hypothesis will lead to our thinking of features of each Universe as purposed; and this will stand or fall with the hypothesis. Yet a purpose essentially involves growth, and so cannot be attributed to God. Still it will, according to the hypothesis, be less false to speak so than to represent God as purposeless.” Thereby, Peirce accepts illogic, since an omniscient and omnipotent being can’t have a purpose, purposes being weaknesses of us lesser, unfulfilled beings.

    Finally, re. Hilary Putman, it’s difficult for a scientist to know what his position is / was ! To one of the statements in one of the reviews of his work, specifically, “His commitment to the reality of moral and epistemic values has caused him to shift from one ontological landscape to the next”, my response to Hilary would be to encourage him to shift to studying E.O. Wilson’s work until he thoroughly understands why Wilson advocates: “Scientists and humanists should consider together the possibility that the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and ‘biologicized’.”

  • Matt

    Just beware of the danger of defining everything by it’s most explicable practical value. In debates in general there’s a tendency to render the situation with over-precision. What happens is that only the explicable values are defined and the less explicable values aren’t acknowledged. E.g., ‘the (whole) purpose of the adhan is to remind people,’ where /whole/ becomes implicitly understood. So the compromise ends up cutting out the deeper values and saving the surface ones. This tactic of overly preciding (rendering precise) the situation is partial strawman building.

    Anyway, I agree that some compromise is the right thing to do; just beware of cutting the beauty and ‘human touch’ out of everything. If you take out the human touch in one place, see if you add some of it somewhere else.

    I have to say that IMO loudspeakers heavily degrade the natural beauty of any sound. So the unamplified human voice is, as far as I can see, the right way to go.

  • Matt

    When you wrote, “…in contrast to essentially all theists, I’m well aware of the serious limitation of all reasoning…”, what do you mean by “essentially”?

    Do you consider John Venn and C. S. Peirce, (two of my favorite logicians), as not theists, (i.e., when they were alive)?

    Earlier, you wrote: “I have long since found that all theists are dimwits, not worth engaging in discussions.”

    Do you include theists of today whose general thinking follow the lines of Peirce?

  • Matt

    “Mankind are mostly addicted to platitudes, they don’t go in for finesse.”
    –Dharmakirti, tr. by Stcherbatsky, Buddhist Logic, V. 1, pg. 35.

    “Platitudes are generally a form of thought-terminating cliché.”
    –Wikipedia entry on /platitude/.

  • zoroaster

    Yes, a very good thought.

    But the following is a thought (which I found in a book by M.M. Mangasarian) that I think is even more important for today’s world:

    “Religion is the science of children; science is the religion of adults.”

  • Lakum dinukum wa liyaddin.
    Amin

Powered by Loon Watchers