Salman Rushdie is awarded knighthood!

[SeattleUte]

Giving literary awards for largely political reasons is common practice now. The most egregious offender is the Nobel committee. No one of Anglo-Saxon heritage will win the Nobel prize in our lifetimes unless he is openly and fiercely anti-American (this describes an Irish playwright who won it a year or two back). It used to be that American Jews won it (Singer and Bellow), even a white American male famous for his manliness (Hemingway) once won it. Much has changed in the past couple of decades. This year's winner was a Westernized Turk who at personal risk criticized his government for genocide of Armenians. He was charged and tried for the crime of insulting Turkishness. See the second paragraph of the linked article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15232786/

International recognition for literary merit is, distressingly, mostly politics. I agree with comments of others here that Rushdie owes a great deal of his literary fame to the fatwa. It's the best thing that ever happened to him. It made him a culteral hero. I'm surprised he hasn't won the Nobel, since though his writing is lacking he's a better writer than some who have won it recently.

[Archaea]

Why doesn't the Nobel Committee create an award for "most courageous author likely to be under threat of death as a result of his or her writing"?

Then they could get back to judging the rest of literature on the basis of its quality.

Rushdie was so hard to read I dropped it very early on.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by mindfulcoug

i would tell you the mystery behind the fatwa if you just tell me WHY this book and its writer has been receiving so many rewards in spite of fact that it seems offensive to more that one and half billion of people.

This question is somewhat provocative put this way. The answer of course is that Western societies put a very low value on protecting people from offense to their feelings compared to protecting people from being injured or killed for writing insulting things. It could be said our pramount value is protecting individual rights to write and say what you please.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This question is somewhat provocative put this way. The answer of course is that Western societies put a very low value on protecting people from offense to their feelings compared to protecting people from being injured or killed for writing insulting things. It could be said our pramount value is protecting individual rights to write and say what you please.

I think Mindful's entire point is that in the Islamic world, physical death isn't nearly as big of a deal as spiritual death.

The very same thing could be said with regard to Mormonism. We believe spiritual death is much more serious than physical death. The difference is that we believe that causing physical death is the ultimate form of spiritual death, even if it is an attempt to prevent the spiritual death of others. Then again, Nephi's actions in killing Laban match the Islamic extremist philosophy almost perfectly. (Kill the wicked to prevent spiritual death of the innocent.)

[MikeWaters]

what about spiritual nakedness versus physical?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I think Mindful's entire point is that in the Islamic world, physical death isn't nearly as big of a deal as spiritual death.

The very same thing could be said with regard to Mormonism. We believe spiritual death is much more serious than physical death. The difference is that we believe that causing physical death is the ultimate form of spiritual death, even if it is an attempt to prevent the spiritual death of others. Then again, Nephi's actions in killing Laban match the Islamic extremist philosophy almost perfectly. (Kill the wicked to prevent spiritual death of the innocent.)

Western societies (some here would say, outside Mormonism, I know) don't believe in the spirit/soul any more. It's all about what's material.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Western societies (some here would say, outside Mormonism, I know) don't believe in the spirit/soul any more. It's all about what's material.

I haven't figured out the metaphysicality of the Islamic world. Islamic writings are so flowery (it really bugs me that they can't ever be direct) that you say a lot without saying anything. Greco empiricism had to affect their metaphysics, but they appear today much like Mormonism to have ignored the classical debates.

[Mindfulcoug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This question is somewhat provocative put this way. The answer of course is that Western societies put a very low value on protecting people from offense to their feelings compared to protecting people from being injured or killed for writing insulting things. It could be said our pramount value is protecting individual rights to write and say what you please.

i got your point ,but wouldnot it be wise to prevent this from the very first step...no offensive no severe reaction!
write your insights and ideas, providing convincing proofs and be open to the critics instead?

[Mindfulcoug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I think Mindful's entire point is that in the Islamic world, physical death isn't nearly as big of a deal as spiritual death.

The very same thing could be said with regard to Mormonism. We believe spiritual death is much more serious than physical death. The difference is that we believe that causing physical death is the ultimate form of spiritual death, even if it is an attempt to prevent the spiritual death of others. Then again, Nephi's actions in killing Laban match the Islamic extremist philosophy almost perfectly. (Kill the wicked to prevent spiritual death of the innocent.)

islam does respect people's lives ,thats why there is death penalty for someone who has committed first degree murder,so now ...lets see if we could give the same value to the spirit as well.. i mean sentencing death penalty for someone who is intentionally desteroying people's belief .. how rational it might sound to you ?

[Mindfulcoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So if the female relatives say there is something wrong when seeing her naked, the groom can, with permission, inspect her while naked?

Interesting.

I would say most Americans go beyond inspection of fruit, and actually partake before marriage.

Mormons, we try to neither inspect nor partake. But generally with swimsuits and such, we generally have a pretty good idea anyway.

i am happy your mormon approach has worked for you.