Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Prince Charles says Islamic thought is good for the environment

Christopher Hitchens seems to think Prince Charles is a fraud, and an ignorant one to boot. I happen to agree with him.

http://www.slate.com/id/2256915/

That text seemed very prejudiced against spiritual belifes. It passed to me the feeling that the guy is one of those people who cannot stand anything spiritual, and thus he cannot take seriously anyone who says the "environment" is divine or something like that, and that we're losing a lot of spirituality, I mean, the people who think sitcoms are OK and that we are a great society and all the technological advancements are great, and that people who try to connect to things like gnosis, spirituality, non "adult" toughts, are silly. He even tried to put the prince down saying he was chinless. I may be wrong, and in the future I may even agree with the text.  Anyway I understood the meaning of the article, after all the criticism of mysticism, he said the prince maybe wants islamic fundamentalists to take over or that his statements may help this. With that I agree, because I do not like the islamic fundamentalists. But I feel, at least at 19 years old of my life, that the speech Prince Charles made is very true and of extreme importance to the whole world.

As ever, the most well-written and well-thought-out comments on that article came from the people who supported the "ANUSian" side of things (in this case, the Prince's advocation of pro-environment action).  I couldn't bear to read the article in its entirety, as it was almost instantly recognisable for the tripe that it must be.

I am anti-Islam, but that is not to say that I reject all ideas of Islam, primarily because many ideas of Islam come from far more ancient beliefs/knowledge.  However, the aspects which I do reject are generally those which make Islam what it is.

That text seemed very prejudiced against spiritual belifes. It passed to me the feeling that the guy is one of those people who cannot stand anything spiritual, and thus he cannot take seriously anyone who says the "environment" is divine or something like that, and that we're losing a lot of spirituality, I mean, the people who think sitcoms are OK and that we are a great society and all the technological advancements are great, and that people who try to connect to things like gnosis, spirituality, non "adult" toughts, are silly. He even tried to put the prince down saying he was chinless. I may be wrong, and in the future I may even agree with the text.  Anyway I understood the meaning of the article, after all the criticism of mysticism, he said the prince maybe wants islamic fundamentalists to take over or that his statements may help this. With that I agree, because I do not like the islamic fundamentalists. But I feel, at least at 19 years old of my life, that the speech Prince Charles made is very true and of extreme importance to the whole world.

Hitchens is an inveterate atheist, and he's staunchly opposed to any intermingling of church and state.  He's also a total wise ass, so expect a fair amount of arrogance to accompany anything he publishes.  That being said, the crux of his point is accurate: anything passing through Prince Charles' lips is agenda-driven, and as such should be recognized as propaganda and not fact.  I'm not convinced Prince Charles is actively seeking to hand the keys to the British empire over to the Fundamentalist Caliphate, but I am convinced he's bending over backwards to placate Muslims.  I don't think any reasonable adult would question the value of protecting and preserving the environment, but I think what Prince Charles is saying is nothing more than platitudes with a Muslim-friendly spin.  The side many on this board are on needs credible, thoughtful voices, not trite popinjays who'll spew any empty words their speechwriters feed them in order to make a target group happy. 

"However"?  You just agreed with him. tangentially.

I agreed only partially, and unfortunately quoted a too short part of the sentence: as it was later implied that mass belief determined the truth. Even if the belief of the many were correct, the truth would not depend on it. So why should those who seek the truth bend it towards false belief? At least, that is not my cup of tea.

Quote
However, the aspects which I do reject are generally those which make Islam what it is.

Which ones, and why?

"However"?  You just agreed with him. tangentially.

I agreed only partially, and unfortunately quoted a too short part of the sentence: as it was later implied that mass belief determined the truth.

No it wasn't.  It was later stated that "man" is inclusive.  "Truth" didn't come into it in the first place.

Quote
any move towards a more sustainable relationship between man and nature will require most people to participate.

Surely you have no issue with this statement?  As far as I can analyze it myself, it's true.  We, as a species, cannot achieve something unless we, as a species, achieve it.  That seems fairly logical.

As far as Islam goes, I just don't like Arabic or turbans.

Why did he didn't spoke of druidish, pagan traditions instead of Islam? It's deeply rooted in England and  European heritage and it,s way more linked to nature than Islam. It sick but not supprising that a lot of people don't know anything about their own past but who  adopt foreign philosophies, but a member of the royalty should know better. For me, he is close to be a traitor to his country for his words. We are selling little by little our countries to the Islamists. Its another proof of that fact.

Because Islam has a nearly 1500 year tradition, a history of rigorous scholarship, a legacy that includes fairly systematic philosophical, theological and social doctrines, and more than a billion adherents while neo-paganism has no connection to any actual history or tradition, a philosophy made up of the most convenient (yet incoherently assembled) odds 'n sods from the New Age shams of the 1960s mixed with half-understood bits and pieces disinterred from incompletely remembered undergrad comparative religions courses, and, of course, a surplus of neurotic fat chicks in crushed velvet?

Why did he didn't spoke of druidish, pagan traditions instead of Islam? It's deeply rooted in England and  European heritage and it,s way more linked to nature than Islam. It sick but not supprising that a lot of people don't know anything about their own past but who  adopt foreign philosophies, but a member of the royalty should know better. For me, he is close to be a traitor to his country for his words. We are selling little by little our countries to the Islamists. Its another proof of that fact.

It is true that what he said in that speech is hard to understand without sharing some of the assumptions he brings into it:

a) he acknowldges the transcendent unity of religions (and philosophy, in the proper sense of the word);
b) therefore, he is not afraid of Islam and the truths it accentuates;
c) also, he is probably not so ignorant of his country's past and knows that its religious tradition includes Christianity as a qualified successor to earlier religions. (Also see previous post by Dylar)

Quote
any move towards a more sustainable relationship between man and nature will require most people to participate.

Surely you have no issue with this statement?  As far as I can analyze it myself, it's true.  We, as a species, cannot achieve something unless we, as a species, achieve it.  That seems fairly logical.

Not with this statement alone, but with a conclusion that is clearly not logical, the way I see it: that "most people" must know this a priori, or, in other words, that one needs their agreement. On the contrary, the principle, or truth, is more important here; from it an impulse could emanate and result in a better relationship between man and nature. A caste of philosopher-kings could emanate such an impulse, as Plato explained in his Politeia.

Not with this statement alone, but with a conclusion that is clearly not logical, the way I see it: that "most people" must know this a priori, or, in other words, that one needs their agreement. On the contrary, the principle, or truth, is more important here; from it an impulse could emanate and result in a better relationship between man and nature. A caste of philosopher-kings could emanate such an impulse, as Plato explained in his Politeia.

Yes, yes, those Philosopher Kings who shepherd the people.

You have made an assumption as regards implication, choosing, thereafter, to simply ignore the statement in favour of the incorrectly assumed (and incorrect) implication.  Why must  people know something to be able to participate in it?  Why must they even know that they're participating?  Every day, people support destructive activity of the worst kind - they are participating in the promulgation of what we, in a morally dualistic moment, might call "evil" - and they have absolutely no idea that they're doing it.

On the other hand, how could they not have at least some basic understanding of their participation or lack thereof?  If a man were to show them the fruits of their action/inaction, explain both cause and effect, then the average human could easily understand.

Surely any "impulse" which might emanate from a principle or truth would, essentially, be a form of understanding?  Nobody is going to start acting differently just because one person, or one group, has discovered the truth about something.  Truth isn't so magical a thing as to be able to operate without a mind to contain it.

Nobody is saying, and nobody has said, that the majority need suddenly see Nature and the natural world from the perspective (and with the intelligence) of an ANUSian.  What has been said is that any move towards a more sustainable relationship between man and nature will require most people to participate.

I'm not sure how any form of groupthink is good for the environment.....

I'm not sure how any form of groupthink is good for the environment.....

Group: "We need the environment to survive. Let's protect it."

There you go.

I'm not sure how any form of groupthink is good for the environment.....

Group: "We need the environment to survive. Let's protect it."

There you go.

Groupthink goes a bit deeper than basic human needs, such as oxygen and nourishment.

Anti-individualism can soon become dangerous, as we see nowadays with the love for the almighty dollar and monotheistic, anti-life cults.

love for the almighty dollar and monotheistic, anti-life cults.

Which are propagated by so-called "Individualism"...

Prince Charles has an agenda because it is likely that he is a secretive convert to Islam.

There is nothing more I can say because what I could have said has already been echoed.

Perhaps some evidence?

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina51103.htm

http://www.sunnah.org/nl/v0104/prince.htm

http://www.meforum.org/356/prince-charles-of-arabia