Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Letter to a Christian Nation


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Letter to a Christian Nation Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Letter to a Christian Nation - 11/24/2006 5:56:17 PM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline 		Dcnovice said:
quote:

Doesn't that depend on the ideology? The people in the antislavery movement were ideologues, and they strove to right a grievous wrong.

But in the process to right that wrong, many of them committed wrongs themselves. Consider John Brown and Bleeding Kansas.

And:
quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

-- Thomas Jefferson, "Declaration of Independence"

Is that ideology? After all, it's circular, and the three that statements could be a real challenge to prove empirically.
I bring this up not to pick on Marc (whose posts I've really appreciated and often agreed with) but to remind us all of a point often overlooked in these discussions: We all have ideologies, or nonempirical beliefs, of some sort or another. The key things, imho, are the content and effects of those beliefs.

We all have ideologies only if we refuse to accept at least the possibility that our beliefs may be wrong – that we are unwilling to examine them. That, IMHO, is the fundamental difference between a belief and an ideology. Exactly what constitutes "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," not to mention equality, are vigorously debated today.

Anthrosub said:
quote:

Glad to hear you read the book. I understand your point about ideologues but do you really think his message is an ideology? The main point he's making is... etc.

I think he borders on it but I’ll grant that this opinion is based upon limited evidence. I agree that it is time for the human race to give up it’s religious myths but attempting to compel it will only result in backlash. People’s egos, their sense of self-identity, are wrapped up in their beliefs. Challenging, or worse, trying to suppress, those beliefs, only causes them to dig in further. Quite frankly, I’m not sure if there is a way to get people to let go of these myths other than wait them out. Sooner or later, people are going to wise up to the fact that Christ just isn’t coming back. But this doesn’t mean that they still won’t go through the motions of religion simply because they have become accustomed to them – as many now do. Millions of Americans (including myself) just celebrated Thanksgiving, not because they are religiously devout, but because they always celebrated Thanksgiving. If you try to throw out this baby with the bath water, you will make opponents out of people who might otherwise be allies. This is why I am opposed to stupid things like calling Christmas trees, holiday trees – you’re screwing with people’s sense of tradition instead of focusing on the more important issues. Besides, it isn’t just religious ideologies that are dangerous. Secular ideologies like fascism and communism have also killed millions and caused untold suffering.

As for all the rest, well I’m still getting over this flu and am not in the mood to get into it. In fact, I think I’m going to dose myself with another shot of Nyquil and go zonk out for a while. I will say this, however: do not confuse justifications for self interest with ideologies. Nations act in their (perceived) self interest, this may or may not be ideologically driven. The United States (like every nation) has acted in it’s self interest. Platitudes about freedom and liberty are justifications, not necessarily ideologies.

Besides, sometimes good does come from nations acting in their self interests, does anyone out there think the world would be better off than it is today if the Nazis had won World War Two?

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Letter to a Christian Nation - 11/24/2006 6:18:13 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Dcnovice said:
quote:

Doesn't that depend on the ideology? The people in the antislavery movement were ideologues, and they strove to right a grievous wrong.

But in the process to right that wrong, many of them committed wrongs themselves. Consider John Brown and Bleeding Kansas.


Good point, Marc.


quote:


And:
quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

-- Thomas Jefferson, "Declaration of Independence"

Is that ideology? After all, it's circular, and the three that statements could be a real challenge to prove empirically.
I bring this up not to pick on Marc (whose posts I've really appreciated and often agreed with) but to remind us all of a point often overlooked in these discussions: We all have ideologies, or nonempirical beliefs, of some sort or another. The key things, imho, are the content and effects of those beliefs.

We all have ideologies only if we refuse to accept at least the possibility that our beliefs may be wrong – that we are unwilling to examine them. That, IMHO, is the fundamental difference between a belief and an ideology. Exactly what constitutes "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," not to mention equality, are vigorously debated today.


I agree that we debate the specifics, but I think we still rely on largely unprovable axioms, such as the idea that liberty is good or that human dignity should be respected. I'm not saying these ideas are bad; just that, in their way, they're as much articles of faith as religious beliefs.


quote:


As for all the rest, well I’m still getting over this flu


You're remarkably lucid for someone with the flu! Warmest wishes for a speedy recovery.


(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Letter to a Christian Nation - 11/25/2006 5:08:13 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

I can't agree.

The US Government chooses its allies out of economic convenience. The US and the UK have been major proponents of Turkey (Islamic) being accepted into the EU for reasons amounting to strategic and economic convenience. Also, the US Government has supported certain Islamic countries in the 1990s and this renders the claim of an Ideological conflict with Islam completely without substance. The US Government is not engaged in a war of attrition with Islamic countries or even remotely bothered about a perceived religious divide. They are camped in a place which provides them with an oil supply and construction possibilities.

Every country is accepted into the EU for strategic and economic reasons, it is after all first and foremost an economic block. However, just because Turks are muslim doesn't make them ideologically muslim, Turkey is a secular state.
 
The US is in an ideological war, not with Islamic states but ideological Islam, a form of Islam the US's Islamic alies are scared of.
 
I was responding to your "Islam is the enemy" point. It is clearly not the case for the US Government nor does it apply to even the fundamentalist section of Islam. An example, in recent years, Saudi has been considered an ally and they are hardly known for their religious and culural tolerance. Yet, Syria, a country known for religious tolerance, has been labelled an "enemy" (whatever that means in the eyes of the US Government). Quite clearly, Islamic fundamentalism is of little concern to the US Government.


The ideological and religious issue is used as a tool to herd the masses into line. A former White House insider has just had a book published which lays bear the relationship between the US Government and the fundamental Christian elements in the US. In public, they shake hands and it's all cosy. In private, members of the Government laugh at them as they do not give a flying one about the so-called Christian/Islam divide - they care about oil and put simply religion and ideology are merely being used as a tool to herd the masses.

Read the American constitution. It is a declaration of an ideological position.

An explanation would be useful here on 1) Why you believe it was a declaration of an ideological position? 2) If so, why is this relevant to the current US Government's brand of foreign policy?
 
I have absolutely no intention of reading the US constitution so I'll have to rely on others to enlighten me.

For the US and USSR to have clashed on ideological grounds it follows they both must have been consistent advocates of a particular ideology. Were they? No. The USSR Government was not a communist regime - they were simply another totalitarian dictatorship where the establishment lorded it over the masses. Was the US a consistent adherent to capitalist idelogy? No. They flirted with welfare provision and at times they have been protectionist over trade and industry.

If the USA - USSR conflict was not an ideological conflict there has never been an ideological conflict in the history of this world. It was the individualism versus collectivism.
 
In the eyes of sections of society it was an ideological struggle but this was merely the tool to herd people behind a banner (in tried and tested fashion). We both know that the USSR was not a communist regime. The USSR Government knew it and so did the US Government both it was a very convenient label for both. For the US Government it was convenient in order to demonise their competitor, for the USSR Government it was convenient to help convince their people they were a Government of the people (which is notion blatantly and completely detached from reality).


It is quite possible that certain sections of the US may think they are involved in some sort of middle ages religious and ideological struggle but the people who dictate policy in the US and the UK for that matter certainly have an entirely different agenda.

The US elite talk in the language of ideology and respond to the world in ideological terms. Of course they have to live in a world where most countries aren't ideological and don't share thei ideology but that doesn't make them not ideological.
 
They certainly do talk with religious self-righteousness i.e. "we must fight evil, we must tame evil, we must laminate evil, we must wear evil around our necks at the backstage party in paradise" etc.
 
However, do they actually believe this nonsense and act according to it? In my opinion, they do not for the reasons listed in my above posts.
 
The UK has never been an ideological state and as always been willing to change, ditch principles and renew itself to retain influence.
 
An interesting point but I'm not convinced. In the mid to late 19th century the British Government and elites played the card that the British were God's chosen people to enlighten people who they referred to as living in the "heart of darkness" (in order to justify their colonialism). Did they actually believe they were in a position to enlighten anyone when they couldn't even provide a mechanism to enlighten their own people? I doubt it very much. They were intelligent enough to appreciate their actions were primarily driven by exploitation. Here, there are parallels with the US.




_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Letter to a Christian Nation - 11/25/2006 6:16:23 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


The UK has never been an ideological state and as always been willing to change, ditch principles and renew itself to retain influence.
 
An interesting point but I'm not convinced. In the mid to late 19th century the British Government and elites played the card that the British were God's chosen people to enlighten people who they referred to as living in the "heart of darkness" (in order to justify their colonialism). Did they actually believe they were in a position to enlighten anyone when they couldn't even provide a mechanism to enlighten their own people? I doubt it very much. They were intelligent enough to appreciate their actions were primarily driven by exploitation. Here, there are parallels with the US.



I don't see any God policy at the heart of British imperial policy other than the general disposition of religious hypocrisy in late Victorian society. Though one of the reasons for duty for empire was not to justify colonialisation as such but to justify the nationalisation of the Empire from the corrupt merchant adventurers that had created the empire. If there was a God policy one wouldn't expect the promotion of Catholism in the empire but a concentration on the Anglican religion and this was not the case. The Churches followed the merchant adventurers. Up to the 1850s the role of government in the empire was to keep the sea lanes open and to protect British commerce. It was only after the effective nationalisation of India in 1851(?) did the British government had more of a reasoned (regardless of moral or not) policy towards the empire. 

Wilfred Theisiger pointed out in many of his writings how British Governors had so much freedom of policy over local inhabitants of the empire and how well meaning policies could have detrimental effects on local people and how an enlightened policy of one governor could undermine the well meaning policy of a neighbouring governor who had a different philosophical approach to his job. What I am trying to point out is, there was not a central policy but a lot of devolving of power to governors and it is the governors who would allow any missionary activity on their patch.

Off the topic a minute. Tesiger was an interesting character and worth a read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_Thesiger

I'll try and reply to the rest later. I've got a busy day to day.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Letter to a Christian Nation - 11/25/2006 6:33:38 PM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline 		dcnovice said:

quote:

I agree that we debate the specifics, but I think we still rely on largely unprovable axioms, such as the idea that liberty is good or that human dignity should be respected. I'm not saying these ideas are bad; just that, in their way, they're as much articles of faith as religious beliefs.

Ultimately everything is unprovable which is why we have to draw the lines somewhere. Agreement on where to draw the lines are the main contention in all political/philosophical debates. Most of us are agreed that killing people is bad but where do we draw that line? If we say that we are never to kill anyone at anytime then we would have to do away with abortion and the death penalty. We would also have to jail people who killed others in self defense.

I said earlier that I define an ideology as a system of belief that closes itself off from outside criticism, but that is not the only defining characteristic. I didn’t want to get into a long tirade (something I am prone to do) so I kept my definition short. I would add that another characteristic of ideologies is hypocrisy. There are people who call themselves anti-war and proclaim that they are for universal peace and happiness, and who then go to "anti-war rallies" and hurl molotov cocktails at policemen.

quote:

You're remarkably lucid for someone with the flu! Warmest wishes for a speedy recovery.

Thanks! Like everyone else I definitely get the "brain-foggies" when I have the flu but I do some of my best writing when I am out of my mind – or so it seems. Anyway, I am pretty much over it now.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Letter to a Christian Nation - 11/25/2006 10:26:47 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Ultimately everything is unprovable.


That's the point I wonder if Harris gets (based on my bookstore skimming of his books, plus visits to his site and various interviews with him). I get the sense, which may be wrong, that he thinks erasing religion, were that possible, would land us on a Cartesian plane of pure reason and reasonableness.


quote:

I said earlier that I define an ideology as a system of belief that closes itself off from outside criticism, but that is not the only defining characteristic.... I would add that another characteristic of ideologies is hypocrisy. There are people who call themselves anti-war and proclaim that they are for universal peace and happiness, and who then go to "anti-war rallies" and hurl molotov cocktails at policemen.


If I'm hearing you right, you tend to see "ideology" as belief plus extremism, a combination that I agree can be incredibly dangerous. I was defining ideology more broadly to include any deeply held beliefs. By and large, I think we agree on the dangers posed by unhinged ideologues! We're just using our terms slightly differently.


quote:

a long tirade


Well, that would be a Collarme first!


quote:

Anyway, I am pretty much over it now.


Glad to hear it! Take of yourself, guy.

< Message edited by dcnovice -- 11/25/2006 10:30:13 PM >

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Letter to a Christian Nation - 11/26/2006 3:32:39 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

I would add that another characteristic of ideologies is hypocrisy. There are people who call themselves anti-war and proclaim that they are for universal peace and happiness, and who then go to "anti-war rallies" and hurl molotov cocktails at policemen.



Marc, I have to take issue with the above.

People I have met at anti-war rallies do not take their lead from an ideology. I certainly do not, my values lead me to a political point of view (as opposed to vice versa).

In my experience, people at anti-war rallies are from a cross section of the left and centre ground i.e. involving teachers, politicians, anti-capitalists, human rights campaigners etc. They share a common value system aimed at improving human rights and you certainly could not group them as adhering to a certain ideology. I have never seen any violence at an anti-war demonstration. Having said this, I am aware there is violence at anti-globalisation demonstrations but it tends to be a minority of extreme elements of the demonstrators (anarchists and the like). The reason it appears like there is wide-spread violence at these demonstrations is because that's the picture the media are aiming to present to you i.e "look at them, they're a pack of idiots". Genoa is a very good example of this as the violence was limited to a small number of lunatics who think the way to create change is to smash everything in their path. The British media (particularly Murdoch owned channels) presented this as widespread violence in an attempt to paint anyone opposing Government policy as idiots. What the media failed to show was the hundreds of thousands of people protesting peacefully against rampant consumerism and the exploitation of multi-national corporations.


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Letter to a Christian Nation - 11/26/2006 11:37:09 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		NorthernGent: look up ideology in a dictionary then re read your post above and see if you think it, the post , makes sense !!!

Whats the difference between an individual's ideological outlook, personal value system or political point of view ?
Only arskin.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Letter to a Christian Nation - 11/26/2006 12:23:46 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline 		Sorry Seeks but I'm not doing your dirty work for you. If you can't see a difference between ideology and a personal value system then feel free to do some research yourself.

No hard feelings, of course. Just helping you educate yourself in a friendly manner. Free of charge too, can't say fairer than that eh?



_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Letter to a Christian Nation - 11/26/2006 12:35:37 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Whats the difference between an individual's ideological outlook, personal value system or political point of view ?
Only arskin.


??????

Jargon?

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Letter to a Christian Nation - 11/26/2006 2:42:08 PM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		Well NorthernGent its always nice to get "summat for nowt"  and I thank you for it. All I can say is  this....
I am ideologically committed to a political viewpoint based on my personal value system.
Then again...
My personal value system influences my political viewpoint to produce a coherent ideology.
Of course it may well be...
My political viewpoint is ideologically structured and shaped by my personal value system.

How about you ?

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 11/26/2006 3:13:32 PM >

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Letter to a Christian Nation - 11/26/2006 2:46:37 PM   
Renorei


Posts: 75
Joined: 11/21/2006
Status: offline 		Hey guys, when you quote someone to respond to their post it's really not appropriate to put your own text within the context of their quote...even if it is in a different color.  It makes it annoying to read and it gets even worse when another person does the same thing and the result is a multi-colored wall of text.  Do it like this:

quote:

quote:

quote:

Well, this is what I think.

You are wrong.  The correct answer is X.

Get your facts straight.  Everyone knows it's Y. 


Yes, quote pyramids can get annoying, but it's better than putting your own words in someone else's post. 

< Message edited by Renorei -- 11/26/2006 2:47:14 PM >

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Letter to a Christian Nation - 11/26/2006 3:38:36 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		Meat, my govt may want to be "the world's policeman" but speaking for only myself I do not.
And I don't want to pay for all that type of stuff and foreign aid either.
In two years we'll be rid of Bush.
Hopefully the next occupant of the white house will realize that they are responsible for the U.S. only.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Letter to a Christian Nation - 11/26/2006 6:59:43 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Meat, my govt may want to be "the world's policeman" but speaking for only myself I do not.
And I don't want to pay for all that type of stuff and foreign aid either.
In two years we'll be rid of Bush.
Hopefully the next occupant of the white house will realize that they are responsible for the U.S. only.
[/quote ]

popeye:
If you really believe that how about sharing some of what you are smoking?
thompson

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Letter to a Christian Nation - 11/26/2006 8:37:07 PM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline 		NorthernGent said:
quote:


Marc, I have to take issue with the above.

People I have met at anti-war... etc.

I am not accusing all those who attend anti-war rallies of being like minded in all things – certainly most of them would disagree on many issues (although probably not as many as you might think – read a book called "A Conflict of Visions," by Thomas Sowell). However I do think that many of the anti-war protestors and the anti-globalization protesters are cut from the same Socialistic/anti-Western cloth and there is probably a great deal of overlap between the two.

My point remains that because ideologues believe themselves to be in sole possession of the truth and have sealed themselves off from considering alternate possibilities, they become free to engage in gross acts of hypocrisy – while in a state of denial that they are hypocrites. Their ideology absolves them.

Consider the so called "Human Rights campaigners." They frequently condemn capitalism and/or Western civilization as the source of Human rights abuses. I’ve seen them frequently condemn Israel for its abuses of Palestinian Rights but they rarely, if ever, give more than lip service to the Palestinian atrocities committed upon Israelis. Why is this so? It is because Human rights are not their real concern. Serving their socialistic, anti-Western, ideology is. Thus something that makes the West look bad (Israel lobbing missiles into the Gaza Strip) is decried while anything that might make the West look sympathetic (Palestinian suicide bombers blowing up a pizza parlor full of kids) is dismissed.

In your own statement you are engaging in similar behavior. Those who make you look bad are dismissed as a "minority of extreme elements," while those you feel are opposed to you (Murdoch) are alleged to be engaging in a conspiracy of propaganda.

As an aside, I’d like to note that I find it fascinating that both the Left and the Right believe the Media is against them.

For the record, I don’t absolve myself from engaging in such selective thinking myself at times – but I do try to guard against it.
"If we deny the other, we deny ourselves."
- G'kar
 
Marc2b

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Letter to a Christian Nation - 11/26/2006 11:37:31 PM   
anthrosub


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I think he borders on it but I’ll grant that this opinion is based upon limited evidence. I agree that it is time for the human race to give up it’s religious myths but attempting to compel it will only result in backlash. People’s egos, their sense of self-identity, are wrapped up in their beliefs. Challenging, or worse, trying to suppress, those beliefs, only causes them to dig in further. Quite frankly, I’m not sure if there is a way to get people to let go of these myths other than wait them out. Sooner or later, people are going to wise up to the fact that Christ just isn’t coming back. But this doesn’t mean that they still won’t go through the motions of religion simply because they have become accustomed to them – as many now do. Millions of Americans (including myself) just celebrated Thanksgiving, not because they are religiously devout, but because they always celebrated Thanksgiving. If you try to throw out this baby with the bath water, you will make opponents out of people who might otherwise be allies. This is why I am opposed to stupid things like calling Christmas trees, holiday trees – you’re screwing with people’s sense of tradition instead of focusing on the more important issues. Besides, it isn’t just religious ideologies that are dangerous. Secular ideologies like fascism and communism have also killed millions and caused untold suffering.


Your words echo my own.  For the most part...and I'm sorry to sound negative here...I seriously doubt humanity will ever shed its myths and those that have been around now for millenia will have their role in what's coming (see below).  What was started so long ago will finally be brought to a head.
 
The world's civilizations are no longer isolated.  Technology has brought us all together and now our differences in belief coupled with the economic strain of an ever increasing population, lack of land, natural resources, and people trying to maintain their cultural status quo, is going to be the basis for the wars we will witness from here on.  It's not going to be religion, national ideology, or politics, it's going to be about survival.
 
Bush has opened Pandora's box.  Iraq and Afghanistan are like fly paper that the United States cannot get off its fingers.  One thing that (at least outwardly) appears to be misunderstood is that the people of the Middle East do not first think of themselves as nations like the rest of the world.  They divide and define themselves by their religious affiliation.  Very tribal, tit for tat, and all that nonsense.
 
Things are going to get pretty interesting in the next 50 years (maybe less).  Oil will peak (at current consumption rates it will take 120 years but that doesn't account for population growth), the world's fish supply will be gone, the world's population will double again (if we're still here), China is trying to realize itself as a full blown industrial nation like the United States, Japan, and Western Europe have enjoyed since the end of WW2.  By 2020, we will be using the Earth's natural resources at twice the rate it can resupply itself (essentially we will need two Earths).  Right now the rate is roughly 125%.  These are all rough figures that we will definitely approach; so anyone who thinks they are just doomsday projections should think again.
 
In the midst of all this we will have at least one third of the world's population following a religion that teaches all non-believers should be subjugated or killed.  I'm still amazed at their reaction to the cartoons of Mohammad.  The rate of world ignorance is growing exponentially.  The last thing people should be worrying about is whether their beliefs are myths.  Time to drop all this crap and come up with a better way to live together but of course that's just wishful thinking.  They don't know any better.
 
anthrosub
 
P.S.  When you think about all the problems we are facing, doesn't Tom Cruise's wedding seem pathetic?

_____________________________

"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled." - Mark Twain

"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Letter to a Christian Nation - 11/27/2006 12:25:12 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

NorthernGent said:
quote:


Marc, I have to take issue with the above.

People I have met at anti-war... etc.


However I do think that many of the anti-war protestors and the anti-globalization protesters are cut from the same Socialistic/anti-Western cloth and there is probably a great deal of overlap between the two.

Consider the so called "Human Rights campaigners." They frequently condemn capitalism and/or Western civilization as the source of Human rights abuses. I’ve seen them frequently condemn Israel for its abuses of Palestinian Rights but they rarely, if ever, give more than lip service to the Palestinian atrocities committed upon Israelis. Why is this so? It is because Human rights are not their real concern. Serving their socialistic, anti-Western, ideology is. Thus something that makes the West look bad (Israel lobbing missiles into the Gaza Strip) is decried while anything that might make the West look sympathetic (Palestinian suicide bombers blowing up a pizza parlor full of kids) is dismissed.

In your own statement you are engaging in similar behavior. Those who make you look bad are dismissed as a "minority of extreme elements," while those you feel are opposed to you (Murdoch) are alleged to be engaging in a conspiracy of propaganda.

As an aside, I’d like to note that I find it fascinating that both the Left and the Right believe the Media is against them.

For the record, I don’t absolve myself from engaging in such selective thinking myself at times – but I do try to guard against it.
"If we deny the other, we deny ourselves."
- G'kar
 
Marc2b


Marc,

To be frank, you're pigeon-holing a wide spectrum of people and then making sweeping statements. How on earth do you know what anti-war protestors think about the Israel/Palestine situation? Have you sampled the population of anti-war protestors to come up with an informed view? Anti-war is anti-war regardless of race/religion etc. The argument goes that the Palestinians are being oppressed and there is good evidence to support this such as the bulldozing or theft of Palestinian homes. Thus, the support of anti-war campaigners is firmly support towards Palestinians. I certainly do not want to see Israelis killed and I'm yet to meet anyone on an anti-war rally whom expresses a desire to see people killed.

Also Marc, it is not wise to dismiss an opinion as hypocrisy without finding out what the opinion is based on. For example, every anti-war rally I have attended has been peaceful. That is a fact. I can't comment on the US but maybe someone else can. Another fact is that Murdoch was spared the competitions commission in the 1980s (to allow him to build his empire) when he was clearly in breach of codes of competition. Since then, his newspapers have been openly supportive of any pro-business Government promising low taxation and low public spending. Another fact. I could go on with regard to Murdoch.

Finally, your comment: I’d like to note that I find it fascinating that both the Left and the Right believe the Media is against them. It's not that black and white Marc. There are sections of the British media who lean to the right, sections who are centre ground and sections who lean to the left. Unfortunately, Murdoch is very influential in the British media and so Sky TV and something like 30% of our newspapers are skewed towards his right-wing politics (another fact, by the way).

P.S. I could offer an opinion on why you feel it necessary to criticise anti-war campaigners just as you have put forward your opinion on my hypocrisy. However, it would be pointless as I don't know you and you could quite possibly have some real life experience that has led you down the path you have taken (as opposed to taking your information from the media). In this respect, you have let your guard down.

< Message edited by NorthernGent -- 11/27/2006 12:27:20 AM >

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Letter to a Christian Nation - 11/27/2006 1:03:01 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		Anthrosub points to the high probability, in my opinion certainty, of conflict across the globe in the coming years.
In fact such conflict has been with us for the last 50 years as well , so nothing new there. What appears to be a new dimension is the determination of fundamentalist Muslims to strike, worldwide, in ANY way they can devise and at ANYTHING they can "get at", either state apparatus or innocent individuals.

Northern Gent tries and fails to rebut Marc2b's post because NG you appear  to be unable to argue from generalities other than those of the kind War is bad, Peace is good. What about me (sic) Human Rights...etc
Incidently NG, what is wrong with a free press expressing Right Wing opinions.
When are the wishy washy PC Liberals going gaze "in" towards their own navels and recognise the damage they have done over the last 30 years or so. The interference with the UK education system is a perfect example.

With regard to religious feelings, in my opinion they will not go away simply because genuine "clever dick" intellectuals can see through their basis and "dumbo pseuds" are able to latch on to those ideas.
A future rise of fundamentalist Christian activity is I belive as certain as can be. We shall see .


Edit to correct me fundementals (sic) 

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 11/27/2006 1:05:27 AM >

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Letter to a Christian Nation - 11/27/2006 11:30:00 AM   
anthrosub


Posts: 843
Joined: 6/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Anthrosub points to the high probability, in my opinion certainty, of conflict across the globe in the coming years.
In fact such conflict has been with us for the last 50 years as well , so nothing new there. What appears to be a new dimension is the determination of fundamentalist Muslims to strike, worldwide, in ANY way they can devise and at ANYTHING they can "get at", either state apparatus or innocent individuals.


Hey seeks, we're finally on the same page on something!  You're right...the conflicts have been ongoing, particularly in the Middle East.  And as you say, the conflict is now spreading globally with incredible disregard for human life.  It's like a pot starting to boil over.
 
If we look back at a bit of history, notice that when the British left India, there was a civil war between Muslims and Hindus and that conflict is still ongoing.  In southeast Asia, the Dutch and French left that area and conflict erupted there as well, which later became our Vietnam war and today can be seen in the struggle between Muslims and Christians in Indonesia.
 
The Middle East has always been fighting with itself but it's more complicated.  The Ottoman Turks lost control of the region after WW1; about the same time oil was being developed in several areas around the Persian Gulf.  The Arab peninsula was not a country but was being systematically united by Abdul Azziz bin Saud.  The Wahabi fanactics were enlisted as an ally of the Saudis at this time and slaughtered entire villages mostly in the western regions.  All the "nations" of the Middle East (Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, and the three little countries on the western shore of the Gulf) were created by the British (Winston Churchill was a surveyor who worked on laying out the various borders of each new country).
 
The fact that these people never had a sense of nationalism for thousands of years never seemed to matter.  They still don't identify with their country so much as their religious affiliation (Shia or Sunni).  This is why Iran is such a problem because it is essentially a theocracy and wants to regain it's lost glory as the center of the Muslim world (a new Caliphate).  The fear that's so predominate in the region right now is a probable conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, since the holy sites are mostly all under control of the Saudis.
 
Saddam Hussien was tolerated all these years because Irag under his control acted as a wedge between the two countries but now that's gone and things are starting to perculate in Iraq.  It's only a matter of time before it spreads unless everyone can get their ducks in a row and regain a new power balance.  This is why the Saudis are allies with the United States (aside from our being a customer).
 
But the above is still all regional.  The issues I layed out on a global scale in my previous post are going to put pressure on how all this plays out in the coming decades.  While the Middle East is still fighting over its religious identity and simultaneously trying to keep out the infidels and regain its former glory, the rest of the world is going to to experience economic pressures that will make the area even more critical than it is now.
 
China and Russia have good relations with Iran; the United States has good ties with Saudi Arabia.  If things get out of hand there it could draw us into a new world war (but for some reason that doesn't seem likely to me).  I don't think anyone wants to see the oil fields of the Middle East radiated.
 
But with all the coming problems the world has to face on top of what already exists, it seems inevitable that there will be some sort of conflict on a global scale.  I think what will eventually bring peace (or at least the inability to fight anymore on the scale we are capable of today) is when the oil finally runs out and we are all back to using wind power.
 
Another thing that's not widely known among the general public is the depletion of fertilizer and ground water irrigation.  In the United States, we are running these resources down to zero at an incredible rate using factory farming.  For example, 20% or more of our livestock are fed from grain grown by using the Oglala Aquifer in the Midwest.  It takes 10,000 years for the ground table to replenish yet we've drawn it down by 50% in just 70 years.  Once they are tapped out, food production will collapse and we will be facing yet another form of economic crisis.
 
Say what you will but to me it looks like humanity is heading straight for a brick wall.
 
anthrosub

_____________________________

"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled." - Mark Twain

"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Letter to a Christian Nation - 11/27/2006 2:27:24 PM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		Anthro: with regard to your geo political analysis I cant disagree with a word you have said. In fact some info, is new to me. Where technical difficulties intrude however, say lack of water, I think the ingenuity of technical/scientific minds  will bring forth solutions.

Whether the solutions will give rise to further political problems ?????

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 11/27/2006 2:29:01 PM >

(in reply to anthrosub)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Letter to a Christian Nation Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109