XBOX 360 2665

snip

You know, I started to write an indignant reply here (beginning something like "how cynical of you to think that any notion of equality leads inevitably to ...."), but I think you might have a point: If I hadn't grown up in a society that at least pays lip service to the idea of balancing liberty and equality, maybe I wouldn't even think about making these distinctions between different kinds of equality.

Thanks for providing an example. This is the kind of thing I thought you had in mind -- and what I was referring to when I said that the Dems generally don't seem to mind limiting people's economic freedom.

Such as? This is where some examples (of Consbreastutional items brokwn) might make your argument more convincing to me.

It seems to me that both Democrats and Republicans are perfectly willing to restrict certain kinds of liberty they don't find very important in the service of what they think is the greater good. The real differences are in what kinds of liberty they think are important, and what "greater good" they think is important enough. So Senator Kennedy doesn't have a problem with restricting people's economic liberty in order to have jobs for everyone, and President Bush doesn't have a problem with violating people's expectations that their phone calls are private in order to (he says) catch persons.

Read what you wrote above, one more time. "The interpretation is cast in stone" but the document is being rewritten?

But that's a nitpick. Getting back to the point, which is whether the Koran is being rewritten (changes to original (Arabic) text) or reinterpreted (changes to translations, or to what most people think the Arabic text means):

Certainly there have been many different translations over the years. I would have thought that any changes to the original-language texts would be based on, hm, archaeological discoveries rather than opinions about what the texts *should* say.

snip

Agreed.

What I meant to ask about was what specific myths are being propagated here. I'm thinking that it's some equivalent of the view among some Christians that "Jews are bad because they end Jesus" but have no idea of specifics.

Well, but how far back do we go, and is there ever a point at which what has happened in the intervening years is more important than what happened way back when? To try to get more specific, which will probably give you lots of opportunities to correct my imperfect knowledge of history:

Who were the first humans to live on the land now claimed by Israel? Whoever they were, by your reasoning they, or their descendants, are the rightful owners. Is this the group among whom Judaism arose? Do they have other descendants who aren't Jews? and so forth.

And then at some point, the Jews left (or were forced to leave) and someone else claimed ownership. I say that with the pbuttage of time their descendants acquire a claim to the land that has to be balanced with the claim of the "original" occupants.

If you really like the "land belongs to the first occupants" idea, then -- the U.S. should give Texas back to Mexico, other territory back to various Native American tribes, etc. Right? (Admittedly some people probably think this would be a fine idea, especially in the case of Texas.)

My thinking is that sometimes it's not simple to decide who are the "rightful owners" of a piece of land. This makes for situations in which messes (to borrow your word) are almost inevitable. Jerusalem comes to mind -- three major religions regard it as a sacred place, and giving one of them sole claim ....

And then, of course, there are claims of ownership that are patently unfounded. :-)?

Aha. Okay, I think I'm close enough to getting your meaning, though I also might have some trouble putting it into English ASCII.

I think extrapolating from the destruction of the World Trade Center to the collapse of Western civilization is a stretch -- but I spent enough of my formative hours reading science fiction to think that you might, just might, have a point here. (I'm not sure I can explain why I think SF comes into it, except to say that it does accustom one to thinking about scenarios that most people would find improbable.)

A related question is what steps to take if one *is* concerned, and whether taking the wrong steps might make things worse, but that also has probably been discussed here, so -- maybe not something to pursue again.

-- B. L. Mbuttingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.