Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mick Wright on June 28, 2010 at 5:35pm

'Look at us! WE can save you from the dark-skinned people hiding right behind you with bombs!! Come pray!!!'

Anything to grab some bloody attention.

And pardon the language but *Catholic roots my hairy left cheek*. If people want to go back to roots they'd have better luck with the Druids or the Norse gods - at least then they'll end up drunk or high. With Catholicism they'll just end up sober and guilty.

Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on June 29, 2010 at 9:24am

Nazis were into Norse god revival.

Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on June 29, 2010 at 9:38am

I can't blame them for reacting to Islamic fundamentalism in Europe, but this article makes it look like there is no middle ground between enabling Islamism and getting nostalgic about Hitler. I also am confused as to why being angry about Islamism is bringing about more anti-Semitism ("while we're at it, let's go after the Jews too!"), but I have met Israelis in the US who said they came to visit/do business in America b/c Europe was hostile to them. I thought thinly veiled anti-Semitism was more of a far left thing anymore. (Not being able to differentiate between citizens of a country and the country's politics that you disagree with.)

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on June 29, 2010 at 3:05pm

Technically, Arabs are semitic.

Permalink Reply by david hartley on June 29, 2010 at 5:33pm

Do not rises in fundementalism serve all the churches well. I've said in other posts that I believe all three monoliths to be involved in a triumvirate of self interest, the Muslims bomb us and we bomb them. It allows the fundies to divide us internally and internationally. The drive to monotheism.
This takes us back to rule by superstition and ignorance. They have quite a grip on science if you think of science being of practical use. The production of goods and wealth creation as an instance another instance would be their control of grants and bursaries.
Of course an even more insidious aspect will be their control of education once they get intelligent design into America's schools, Britain is already a theocracy so in a sense it's there already and Cameron (relative of the Queen who is head of the C of E), stated before the election that he would like to see more faith schools and has already either put into place or is about to enact free schools.
This is a country ,as common with most of Europe, that has been preaching the gospel of multi-culturism. How can allowing schools free of any central curriculum and standards not create ghettoism. They will be free to prosytelise their own dogma in a publically funded education system.
I make these few points to get to the point that they are, 'they' being the proponents of the Abrahamic faith whichever stripe, creating nations divided against themselves and divided internationally.
At a time when reason and science have made such inroads into ignorance do these agents provocateurs on all sides of the divide serve the purpose of monotheism. For on the Muslim side they are saying if you're not with us the Christians get you and on the Christian side they're saying if your not with us the Muslims get you ie; George Bush saying if you're not with us you're with the trrists (as he so eloquently puts it), a confluence of vested interests as somebody commented on another post on AN today.
So that will lead us eventually to being instructed rather than gaining an education based on inquiry, presented with the facts before any investigation fallacy replacing fact. Leading to increased dissonance internally with the obvious fallout into the international arena.
So I don't believe these tensions between the faiths to be accidental as they serve the purpose of indoctrination on their 'mission' to sacrifice reason, personal and social advancement in fact the whole of humanity's advancement in the claims of intellectual, moral and social superiority on the basis of some esoteric knowledge within which they lay claim to an understanding of the whole Universe. Yeah right.
The problem is that this insidious drive to fundamentalism and the politicians that support it is not based on reason. Therefore the violence of fundamentalism and the politicians who use it for the agenda of Monotheism I have briefly outlined must have the emotive to appeal to. Histrionics, death, the threat of death, implicit menace and if much of the menace is arising from your own side what better way to deal with something so horrific than to blame the other side. They also do it in a slightly more benign way in that the only problems religion has is the fact that not everybody believes. If they can convert us all then all religions problems are solved. Yeah right.
Anybody heard anything about peace talks for any of the conflicts major or minor that are occuring in the world today. I don't keep up to the news as much as I used to but ain't heard much recently. Could they be seen therefore as maintaining conflict as an assault on a growth of consciousness and understanding within the general populous.
There is an extra dimension with the Muslim populations.
I served in Northern Ireland during the troubles. One piece of legislation enacted at that time was a proscribing order, for the various para-military groupings were seen to be groupings acting outside the law of the land with their own courts and willing to commit violent acts from serious public disorder to physical violence, murder and mass murder in the form of what are now known as IED's. A seperate agenda acting outside of accepted laws and principals. Shift forward to today and have I not just described the Muslim faith and the ends they will go to to impose their belief system and if they succeed in scaring Western societies into Christian fundamentalism then who benefits?

Permalink Reply by Mick Wright on June 29, 2010 at 5:54pm

I dunno, mate - the British government is *not* run by priests, which iswhat a theocracy effectively means. There's a state religion, yeah, the Queen's C of E, but the monarchy's had no administrative power, or any role in government other than as a figurehead, for centuries now.

I don't think it's a religion-based government in the least. Hell, Nick Clegg - coalition leader, joint Prime Minister, smiling distraction to hide Conservative dickery, whatever you want to call him - is openly atheist. I'm not sure if there's a printable word for what the Tories have managed to start to do to the place...but theocracy isn't it.

Permalink Reply by david hartley on June 29, 2010 at 9:28pm

I concede the point, but faith is pushed in schools in a way it is not at the moment in America. Also if you think Monarchy has had no role in Government then i feel you miss the point of patronage and the role of a permanent Civil service, that wallows in patronage, in forming policy for our transient political figures. So perhaps to insist it is a theocracy in it's strictist sense was to over egg the pudding.
Whilst Clegg is an Atheist some of the Conservative 'dickery' involves releasing faith to start even more schools with public money. Perhaps I could suggest a de facto theocracy, especially as, as far as I am aware the European Parliament is considering giving religion a legal basis in the proposed Constitution of Europe. Which would in actual fact give them de jure status.