back to list

Ozan's political dscussion from tuning, continued here

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

10/29/2005 11:12:13 AM

On Saturday 29 October 2005 5:27 am, Ozan Yarman wrote:

> How many times do I have to tell you that I am not allowed by principle to
> discuss religion and politics with self-proclaimed disbelievers? The
> nerve... especially on the tuning list!

You started the conversation, or at least responded to it, now you tell me
that you can't.

If you don't want to respond, don't. And don't blame me then for your own
moment of 'weakness'.

I'm allowed to post what I think about what you say. It's not neccessary for
you to respond. You choose to of your won free will.

Considering all the Islamic 'by the grace of Allah' language you use on the
tuning list, you ought to be ashamed for trying to censor my opinions.

Cordially,
Aaron.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

10/29/2005 11:42:21 AM

Let's put things in perspective Aaron:

1. I didn't start the conversation, I responded to a comment by Kraig involving Ernest McClain's `Meditations on the Quran`, where I showed that his words were carelessly chosen and open to misinterpretation.

2. In return, you assaulted the tenets of my belief, trying to argue that the Quran could not protected by Allah Teala, Lord of the Worlds, thus attempting to molest my faith in Him.

3. I rebuked you, upon which you went into a rave about politics and social norms, contrary to my personal request for the umpteenth time.

4. Brother Mohajeri felt the need to clear his name as a muslim against that onslaught.

5. I felt the need to state my position as a muslim likewise.

6. Monz requested urgently that we move unto metatuning, upon which I complied.

7. David Beardsley has given the link which I took as a gesture of open invitation.

8. You retorted immediately after I joined, claiming I had a moment of weakness, which I did not.

9. Yes, you are allowed to disrespect my requests, to the detriment of my natural stance.

10. No, I did not attempt to silence you, I merely stated the fact that I will not argue politics and religion with any self-proclaimed disbeliever.

11. It is you who should be ashamed for that slander as well as the condescending impudence you have displayed in the tuning list and here

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: Aaron Krister Johnson
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com ; Ozan Yarman
Sent: 29 Ekim 2005 Cumartesi 21:12
Subject: [metatuning] Ozan's political dscussion from tuning, continued here

On Saturday 29 October 2005 5:27 am, Ozan Yarman wrote:

> How many times do I have to tell you that I am not allowed by principle to
> discuss religion and politics with self-proclaimed disbelievers? The
> nerve... especially on the tuning list!

You started the conversation, or at least responded to it, now you tell me
that you can't.

If you don't want to respond, don't. And don't blame me then for your own
moment of 'weakness'.

I'm allowed to post what I think about what you say. It's not neccessary for
you to respond. You choose to of your won free will.

Considering all the Islamic 'by the grace of Allah' language you use on the
tuning list, you ought to be ashamed for trying to censor my opinions.

Cordially,
Aaron.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

10/29/2005 12:34:13 PM

On Saturday 29 October 2005 1:42 pm, Ozan Yarman wrote:
> Let's put things in perspective Aaron:
>
> 1. I didn't start the conversation, I responded to a comment by Kraig
> involving Ernest McClain's `Meditations on the Quran`, where I showed that
> his words were carelessly chosen and open to misinterpretation.

It seems your self-righteousness has made you a historical revisionist.

you engaged me in conversation implicitely by responding thus:

>>
> You apparently have been misinformed by Fox News and brainwashed by
> supremacist USA propaganda (the greatest country in the world!).
>>

so now we know that your attitude is simply to be a total self-righteous
hypocrite, and drop little snide and rude remarks and insults, and when fire
returns your way, you run for cover and play the 'I'm an oppressed muslim'
card. Please, spare us the act.

> 2. In return, you assaulted the tenets of my belief, trying to argue that
> the Quran could not protected by Allah Teala, Lord of the Worlds, thus
> attempting to molest my faith in Him.

As a 'secularist' myself, how many times have you assaulted secularist views?
I've lost count. And how mny times must we hear about the 'grace of Allah'
etc. etc. But whatever, I defend your right to your beliefs, and share them
publicly. But watch your step when you try to deny my very same rights in the
next breath.

You should realize, my dear Ozan, that you are in a public forum of world
citizens, many of whom are not muslim, or even religious. if you can't handle
that, don't participate.

if you feel free to assault non-belief, secularism, etc. then you should feel
free for me to respond with what I think.

and if you feel free to write phrases like 'Praised be Allah the almighty',
without fear of people saying you should shut up already with that stuff,
(and no one would, because civility is an agreed upon, although somtimes
forgotten value here) then I should feel free to say what I believe, and
expect the same.

I'm offended by all you pro-Islamic rhetoric, but I grant you the freedom to
say it....for the reason I state and defend above. Too bad you wish to censor
me. Are you offended? Sorry, tough luck. This is not a mosque, it's a mailing
list.

> 3. I rebuked you, upon which you went into a rave about politics and social
> norms, contrary to my personal request for the umpteenth time.

I don't email you privately. That was your request. I honored that. In a
public space, I can say what I want against your politics or religion. We are
not in Afganistan, my dear brother.

> 4. Brother Mohajeri felt the need to clear his name as a muslim against
> that onslaught.

huh?

> 5. I felt the need to state my position as a muslim likewise.

and I felt the need to state my position as an atheist. So what? Here we are.

> 6. Monz requested urgently that we move unto metatuning, upon which I
> complied.

yes. here we are.

> 7. David Beardsley has given the link which I took as a gesture of open
> invitation.

yes.

> 8. You retorted immediately after I joined, claiming I had a moment of
> weakness, which I did not.

whatever you call it, you engaged me in a political discussion. The evidence
is clear.

> 9. Yes, you are allowed to disrespect my requests, to the detriment of my
> natural stance.

I didn't disrespect you request. I don't engage you in private political
conversations, or even public ones for that matter, unless you respond to my
comments, which are general to all on the mailing lists. If I wanted to
direct them at you, I would write privately, which you reuested I not, so...

I feel the need to point out your utter hypocrisy--that you can snipe at my
politics and religious non-belief publicly, but you get to 'bomb and run'.

Utter self-righteous hypocrite!

> 10. No, I did not attempt to silence you, I merely stated the fact that I
> will not argue politics and religion with any self-proclaimed disbeliever.

And you can do that. And I can do what I want, too.

> 11. It is you who should be ashamed for that slander as well as the
> condescending impudence you have displayed in the tuning list and here

you might as well say that to a mirror, Ozan.

-Aaron.

> Cordially,
> Ozan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Aaron Krister Johnson
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com ; Ozan Yarman
> Sent: 29 Ekim 2005 Cumartesi 21:12
> Subject: [metatuning] Ozan's political dscussion from tuning, continued
> here
>
> On Saturday 29 October 2005 5:27 am, Ozan Yarman wrote:
> > How many times do I have to tell you that I am not allowed by principle
> > to discuss religion and politics with self-proclaimed disbelievers? The
> > nerve... especially on the tuning list!
>
> You started the conversation, or at least responded to it, now you tell
> me that you can't.
>
> If you don't want to respond, don't. And don't blame me then for your own
> moment of 'weakness'.
>
> I'm allowed to post what I think about what you say. It's not neccessary
> for you to respond. You choose to of your won free will.
>
> Considering all the Islamic 'by the grace of Allah' language you use on
> the tuning list, you ought to be ashamed for trying to censor my opinions.
>
> Cordially,
> Aaron.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

🔗ambassadorbob <peteysan@...>

10/29/2005 1:26:39 PM

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...>
wrote:
>
> On Saturday 29 October 2005 5:27 am, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>
> > How many times do I have to tell you that I am not allowed by
principle to
> > discuss religion and politics with self-proclaimed disbelievers?

Dear Ozan,

In an attempt to cut back to a more potentially interesting part of the
discussion, may I ask,

"Disbelievers" in what? I'm very curious about points of dogma (for
lack of a better word, I suppose), having been raised Roman Catholic,
myself. Whatever apostasies I may or may not have survived ;-), you
might say I consider myself a "religious" person, and as such have a
high degree of respect for the similar practices of others. I have my
own moral imperative to question as rigorously as possible my own
beliefs, and thus by inference everyone else's.

If you're willing, I'd very much like to hear about it.

Pete