Maybe because the very few hindus who do these things dont do it in the name of their religion? So it is treated like your average hackings. Unlike in Islam where atrocities are committed in the name of their god and in fulfillment of their religious laws & ideals.
Brutalities committed under the name or protection of religion are never overlooked in western media. Be they committed by muslims or christians. Remember how cases of pornography, pedophilia & lewdness among a couple of priests and preachers keep making headline news? The media hardly discriminates. Its main agenda is to make money.
Well i wonder why if islam is such a barbaric religion how come the 1.5 billion muslims in the world all fighting? are the 99.9% that arent fighting bad muslims? why is most of the fighting going on where there is oppresion?(iraq, afghanistian etc....) one outta 5 people in America are also muslim how come you dont see suicide attacks and car bombs here? never before has there been a religion that has had the few minority represent the majority. I wonder if you would have used the Christian Nazi's as an example for all of Christianity 70 yrs ago. you guys constantly use the M.E. as an example of Muslim behavior yet only 18% of the worlds muslims live in the M.E.....more live in Indonesia or India. You constantly say the the problem in the M.E. is that muslims there blame their problems on the West yet you blame your problems on ALL muslims despite the fact that you probably (remember 1 outta 5) live and work with some and dont even know it. Why do the Muslims in the M.E. hate the West? Because of Freedom? Their are plenty of free nations in the world that dont have terror attacks commited against them(Canada is right next door ever seen their Embassy get attacked?) anyone with any sense knows it is because of American hypocrasy...If you look deep into any problem in the M.E. you can almost without a doubt find the West has something to do with it.Puppet regimes....Boogymen......Support of Dictators....thats the U.S. problem....as long as America supports this type of Foreign policy then they will have to learn to live with the fear of terrorism :m: U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23, 1948: “Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity [U.S. military-economic supremacy]... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming... We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.” — George Kennan Director of Policy Planning U.S. State Department 1948
So you are saying that there are only @ 23 million people living in the US (last number I saw said there were just under 5 million muslims) or that there are 60 million muslims in the US?
99.9 % of muslims aren’t bad. But thanks to their religion they are into other forms of barbaric oppressions. Like the suppression & discrimination against women. The discrimination of religious minorities, the worst in the world. Barbaric forms of judicial punishments…like the chopping off of hands & heads…stonings...etc. But we do see cases of honour killings. Well at least here in Canada.
I think I mixxed up the world and the U.S. 1 outta 5 stats i will check and get back to you....my badd Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You do realize that countries like India(100 million muslims) and Indonesia(almost totally muslim) have had women P.M. and/or Presidents dont you? Again you are using the .1% to catogrize the 99.9%....hasnt Christianty and Judasim done the same thing in there past? I assume you mainly speak of places like Saudi and Pakistian....but i Believe plenty of Western countries have death penelties also...As a matter of fact when Bush was Governor of Texas he executed more prisoners than any Governor in moderen history
Are you trying to tell us that only .1% of muslims are using the islamic method of discrimination against women? We dont cut off hands of thieves. Our death penalties are quick, often painless, and bloodless. Now you understand why many people have such a low opinion of Islam?
Well it depends on what you mean by discrimination...If you mean women covering themselves then i dont see that as discrimination but if you are talking about harsh treatment etc....then yes .1% seems accurate to me...but I forget how many women or nonwhite presidents has the U.S. had?? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well 1st of all that isnt a widespread practice in Islam......rather than looking at the minority(which you guys seem to love to do) look at the majority....somewhere like Indonesia which has more Muslims than anywhere else on the planet......are these "islamic" practices widespread? Yes because Uncle Sam tells you too....why cant you see that??why hate 1.5 billion people because of the actions of a few?? are all muslims terrorists?Do you not think that muslims are outraged by what people do in their name??Plenty of muslims speak out against terrorism but that doesnt make front page news only the Rebels do. :m: "Dialogue can prevail over violence, understanding over indifference, knowledge over ignorance and prejudice." Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary-General, June 2000
I myself dont hate muslims. I was just pointing out the reasons why many people around the world has a very low opinion of Islam. Its mainly because of what the international communities of muslims do. Not because of jewish conspiracies. Afterall the jews dont own the media in Japan, the Philippines, Korea & China. And they are more direct than their western counterparts.
But I dont believe that many people around the world hate Muslims....even after 9-11 it's still the worlds fastest growing religion. Muslims make up 1/5th of the worlds population after all dont they? I dont really know if their is a Jewish conspiracy or not but if there is it's making people think that everyone hates Muslims or Islam
Fastest growing in the sense of biological reproduction. Plus the fact that its so easy to become muslim but extremely difficult to tell people that you no longer wish to be associated with Islam. Ive been to a Japanese, Indian, Filipino & British forums. And the attitudes toward islam mainly ranges from "who cares" to "whats wrong with this religion?" to "its an evil religion!". Personally Ive seen many instances when some people talk when there are no muslims around and then they express their frustrations.
I dont agree thats totally why although it may be partly true http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3016/fastest.htm Indeed it is true that it is easy to become a Muslim but the lifestyle isnt easy to maintain are you saying that people are being muslims against their will? I hear the same thing about Christianity on these forums...do you ever hear anyone say its a good religion or did you just not mention that? [/QUOTE] Why would they do that? Smile in your face and talk behind your back? Surely those people werent afraid that those muslims that they were talking about would go and harm them were they? I live in the U.S, now but I have also lived in the M.E. and Europe(millitary) and too have seen the wide range of opinions on Islam(im not Arab so 9 times outta 10 the people dont even know I'm muslim) but from what I see their opinons are based on what they see on T.V. or hear from others....not personal experiences. Kinda reminds me of when people were racists against minorities in America before they got to see that everyone was equal. A perfect example is that you have plenty of moderate Muslims on these boards now (me, Bruce Wayne come immediatly to mind) yet I still hear people talking about Proud Muslim...why is that?? Its because controversy sells. If T.V has a chance to show either Muslims helping poor people in a community(which is a pillar of Islam) or muslims burining American flags which are they gonna show? Their intention is to extinguish Allah’s Light with their mouths: But Allah will complete (the revelation of) His light, Even though the Unbelievers may detest (it.) surah 61:8 Al Saff (The Battle Array) (Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, 1989.)
No. What Im trying to say is the fact that in islam the price for abandoning islam is either DEATH or disownment by muslim families and friends. These are especially true in muslim dominated countries. And so many muslims are muslims only by name but inside they hate islam and no longer consider themselves muslims. Look closely. Many people here hate religion in general. I only know of 1 person who specializes in hating christianity....the user known as 'Medicine Woman'. I see some people try to defend christianity, implying that it is a good religion, but those must be christians themselves. You are a human being. You should know the answer. Most people just dont want trouble. Most people dont want to offend somebody face to face. Like me. I always smile at muslims. I open doors for them. Hold elevators for them. But I dare not talk to them directly about religion or the mid east conflict or islamist terrorism, or anything related to their allah. of course. people mostly get news from the t.v. because the guy left a lasting impression? making people feel like they are talking with the taliban? but that is true of any media and of any circumstance. be they muslim, hindu or christian. unfortunately you cant see news of christians burning flags because there are hardly any event like that. its the bad news that sells. unfortunately of all religious groups it is the muslims that outproduces the others in terms of bad news. No, their intention is to make money. And if exposing Allah's light (coming from suicide bomb blast) would make more money then they'll sell it.
The Jewish media conspiracy isn't real. It's right up there with the Jewish Hollywood conspiracy and the Zionist-U.N. tiger-cage conspiracy. The reason "Jewish conspiracies" come up is an historical curiosity in some ways limited to the Jews; it has to do on the one hand with the storytelling traditions within Judaism itself--telling proper stories is a noble pursuit and the oft-seeming mainstay of the rabbinical. To the other, though, is a long tradition in which European powers denied Jews the right to own property. Seeking some means of attaining wealth, Jews settled into commerce, essentially the art of ne'er owning but always profiting. Societies couldn't deny Jews money itself, else the liberal voices of the day (e.g. church consciences) would have objected at least to the visibility of the scheme. So Jews found ways to make money grow without using what were the normal processes, and proved so successful that many of the "Jewish business methods" became standardized throughout Western society. This had nothing to do with Jews themselves and everything to do with the efficacy of the methods. Business--commerce and money--is on the one hand the great equalizer of skin color and ethnicity, as it scarcely profits if at all from caring whether someone is Jewish or not. The Jewish Hollywood conspiracy is an accident of circumstance; there is a disproportionate concentration of Jewish names in Hollywood and in New York City; from writers to producers to the accountants and lawyers, there is a plethora of Jewish names that statistically overrepresent the demographic reality. What this says, more than anything about a Jewish conspiracy is a certain ethic and consideration of the world's demands. So it would seem that a greater portion of America's Jews, for instance, have college educations than their Baptist neighbors. There's only fourteen million or so Jews in the world, and while we have our share of stereotypical miserable New York City Jews, they are as a portion of America's Jews less than in neighboring ethnosocial classifications. In the media it is a matter of ownership and, again, education. How many Jews are in the U.S.? A third? Half of them? either way that's between four and seven million Jews in the U.S., and through Hollywood and the news media, you only need a handful equalling a few-thousand of an ethnosocial grouping oft-ridiculed for its overeducation; Jews by stereotype are accountants, lawyers, doctors and dentists, Hollywood producers, and entertainers. It seems just as possible to me that, like Hollywood, the only real Jewish conspiracy about it is one that says, "Stay in school, work hard, get on with it". But as to the coverage: there may be some demonstrable effect if it can be shown either that a majority of news editors, segment producers, or program producers are Jewish; there may also be some demonstrable effect if we track back to the central sources--e.g. AP, Reuters, Knight-Ridder, Washington Post, New York Times, &c.--and establish a clear majority of the news-content decisions are made by people who happen to be Jewish. At this point, you're dealing with an inherent bias that comes with familiarity of lexicon and also political positions reaching back to the foundations of a person's sociomoral outlook. And that bias is one we grant all people, the natural bias of how information is processed in their minds. This would be difficult both to demonstrate and then to quantify: the tree might fall, but how loudly? Additionally, that same media pushes all manner of non-Jewish material--food, sex, tattoos, haircuts, &c.--and none of this is accounted for, even when it comes from the pen or word processor of a Jewish writer. The Jewish media conspiracy seems to center exclusively on two points: pro-Israel at any cost, and Jews are better than others by proxy of doing less wrong. Neither point is convincing. The latter can be dismissed almost automatically, as it's part of the inherent bias of being human and part of any identity politic. In the case of the pro-Israeli notion, however, we have to look farther than merely the Jews. The direction of American foreign policy, the tone of the news media in the U.S. vis-a-vis Israel is bolstered by old Christian money--WASPs. Wasp culture reaches well-beyond the limited statistical bounds of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant; the culture of wealth that grew in America always found Wasps waiting to receive the newfound money; "blueblood" themes run throughout working-class comedy, from Roseanne to lottery commercials to the cartoon world°. It is an image of snotty, post-Calvinistic wealth that is gravely and morally offended by white shoes after Labor Day and vocal accents not accustomed of paranoid, traditional, European-American wealth. See, like the Jews, Wasps are very good at what they do, and culturally are known for setting demanding goals for their offspring. Unlike the Jews, however, Wasps have never accustomed themselves significantly outside a cultural comfort zone, and when you hear non-white voices laying into "white politics", you're bound to find a Wasps' nest along the way in history. However, like the Jews, the humor based in stereotype is absurdly mediocre°. But Wasps are a hidden issue in the United States. There are a couple of things to consider. Bill Maher was not wrong when he called attention to Christians who wanted Israel for Jews in order to bring about the return of Jesus whereupon some folks disagree about what happens to the Jews. Maher may have been overstating the sense of threat or alarm, especially considering the fact that this idea is not in any way, shape, or form new. But it is surprising to many Americans, at least, who dimly recall such mutterings from their childhoods, to consider that this is not the voice of "trailer park" religion, nor superstitious migrant workers, but an idea which finds much support in old-school Wasp money and ideology. It is a Calvinistic drive in which success and redemption are not unrelated, the epitome of a Weberian thesis°. It is the Calvinistic drive that shapes the content of Al Franken's tragically-hilarious commentary on President Bush and religion°. Many simple ideas run through diverse blueblooded veins, and among these is the persistent annoyance of sin and redemption. The idea remains that the Jews must hold Israel in order for Christ to return. And though the twenty-first century slides toward a privitization of religious belief, an enforcement against the hypocrites and a raising of an atheistic dispassion, the roots of contemporary American policy toward Israel, as a political and ideological consideration, is long-practiced in its merciful considerations of the Jews. While much of history victimized the Jews for various reasons, Protestant America has come to embrace Judaism superficially, if only as a skein wrapped up in a dying myth. When Israel is no longer convenient to Wasp faith, it will be left out in the cold like Iraq. In the meantime, there's more money to be made where the Jews are involved than the Muslims, except for that sticky oil thing, and there's the benefit of a not-yet lost myth subtly steering the consciences of power, The seeming blessings given Israel and its policies in the United States, both in political and news-media circles, are symptomatic of a softness within the American objectivity. At very obscure nexes, the politics of faith and wealth come together, and for various reasons one of the effects is a disproportionate representation of Jews in the United States. Yet how does all this relate to the portrayal of Muslims in the United States? It was hardly calculated by a cabal of Jews huddled under an unshaded bulb in the back room of a New York media studio. When we combine the terms of familiarity in a long association between Judaism and American Protestantism with myriad factors relating to the gathering, processing, and presentation of the news media, the issues surrounding Islam in the news media demand an almost-inevitable outcome. First and foremost, news media in this country is a business. If we must pin fault for this, it would not be with any Jews owning media enterprises, but rather, and subtly, with (you guessed it) the Wasp tradition which places worldy accumulation among the pinnacle manifestations of Grace. Regardless of whom we blame, news media enterprises must, as all capital ventures must, show profit from time to time°. This involves the standard considerations of running a business. When you add up the expenses of underwriting a journalist in Iraq, it is no longer mystifying that a posse of embittered Vietnam vets carrying out a decades-old grudge against John Kerry--or, for that matter, forged documents offered in support of talk against President Bush°--carries more pull than the current, actual, real war. In the end, inviting Larry Thurlow to spit fire and venom at John Kerry every night or taking vague editorial potshots at CBS while trying to quietly protect the journalist's "right" to absolutely bullsh@t people (or, in the end, to simply be wrong on occasion) is a much easier headline than what's actually happening in Iraq. Additionally, the detail is sharper; naturally, as you've got a bunch of people comfortable in their offices or at home taking their time as opposed to two or three really expensive projects working overseas in terrifying, nerve-shattering conditions. How easy is it to file a FOIA request when there's nobody shooting, when you can reasonably expect no cars in your immediate vicinity to explode? How easy is it to bleed three column inches out of a form letter? How easy is it to argue with a moron who's willing to stake the reputation of the entire past, present, and future United States armed services on his grudge against a presidential candidate?° And none of this is to knock the men and women covering the war in Iraq, but rather it's meant to point out that it's much easier and much less expensive to fill scads of time and column-space with cotton-candy and adverts. The real stories of what is going on, whether it be pro-Jewish or anti-Muslim, can be discovered fairly easily, but Americans live and work in a time when they're absolutely swamped by information. The news needs to be organized and easily understood for them, because nothing else is ever so clear as CNN or FOX°. Start, for instance, with the headlines. Watch CNN Headline News for two hours°, and you've pretty much got it, barring any late-breaking amber alerts or natural disasters. The headlines are repeated over and over again because that's all they are, passing glances. In an abstract organization scheme, this actually serves a function in alerting the average American to the goings-on in society. But the news media isn't about what people need to hear. If there's not a building blowing up in New York, the news is about what people want to hear and see. As with elections, reality is unpopular among news viewers. News readers have a bit more appreciation for reality, but it's a constant battle, a literal war of words. But part of the problem is that each new information technology brings an increase in the amount of information a person feels obliged to process. A general sentiment among some folks who have been around the offices I've worked at went along the lines that when computers showed up in the office, they were able to do three times the work--the company gave them five times the obligations. The internet age has made the process instantaneous and overwhelming. An event occurs and you rush to Google News, and within minutes there will be over a thousand available links, in many cases coming back to the same several sources; in the US those are AP, Reuters, New York Times, Washington Post, and LA Times. The cable-news outlets start the wire on their own, sometimes, as well, via the web. So you'll have five versions--all interdependent on one another--repeated over and over again. The pundits are no better; so-called "experts" (and many of them are) often receive packets of wire stories or relevant commentary and are expected to frame their discussions in relation to those sources. The viewers don't necessarily know what those are, except perhaps the necessary motivating headline. And even that's uncertain. So the news, already compressed and economized to generalism, is filtered once again for "analysis". It's cheap and easy to do it that way. Coming back to Islam, the simple reality is a matter of issues too complicated for the average American to bother with. Americans in the workforce are working harder than ever, and much similar to his Texas education plan°, Bush's experience with the U.S. economy could be worse on paper--nobody pays attention to the tall estimates of the number of Americans who have chosen to leave the workforce permanently. Most people don't feel they have the time to go out and hound down news stories; we at Sciforums often appear unusual insofar as we seem to delight in the tangle sometimes, but among us are plenty who simply cannot or will not commit the time required to shore up their argumentative rhetoric with that kind of detail. What I'm getting at is largely thematic: despite the actual legitimate problems of Islamic society, Americans haven't the time to understand those issues. They're not easily contained on a sheet of talking points. They require consideration of history--something Americans loathe. The most part of Generation X seemed so vapid in part because a large portion of the American Gen-X was treated to a steady diet of functional contradiction. Our parents would lecture us about poor people in India or wherever, and we would hear about education and opportunity, yet something about our parents' generation seemed to believe that the whole world thought according to similar processes and terms as they did. The hitch is still evident. When we thought about poor people, it seemed odd that they should think exactly as we did. And in the geopolitical context, it becomes strikingly apparent: Some wonder why "they" don't understand the "fruits of democracy". Well, these are among the folks who have gotten the ass-end of the deal, whose presence in the relations of the democratic era has been one to suffer in support of the democratic experiment. "Democracy" looks differently, I'm told--repeatedly--from that end. There will be a billion dollars spent on the presidential election alone come Election Day. That doesn't count the amount of money spent on the actual workings of the election: ballots, booths, stations, the counting, the assembly of the College such as it is. Now start adding up the congressional, state, and municipal elections across the country; the price tag is tall, and that's merely the very beginning of what is required to support our American "democracy". When we look at the infrastructure of our democracy, the obligations it demands of the people, and the alternately frightening and glorious state of our general knowledge of matters political and historical in relation to the sociological, it does not strike me as odd that it should be difficult to spread this vision among poor people accustomed to poverty and looking forward to even greater poverty. To the American people, the sound-bite goes something like, "They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other". It would be more appropriate to speculate that "they" mislike the obligations of our freedom, and mistrust its results. But such speculation might lead to a questions like, "Why don't they like the obligations of our freedom?" or "What obligations?" And it's moments like those where one treads on thin ice with the American people: the answer is too complicated. It's too long. Don't have the time. Watch the political game to see that process at its finest; anyone who bites the original bait is gullible and anyone who holds out to the end, even properly, is obsessive. In politics the object seems to be to distort just enough to make people have to work to figure out that you're actually attempting to deceive them, and then stand on the impropriety of anyone calling you a liar. The way Americans grasp hold of the faults of others, specifically and generally, is somewhat vicious and exploitative. It is almost as if we wish to rub one another's noses in the natural imperfection of being human while pretending that we ourselves are in fact perfect. There's a superficial tug-o'-war about it. Part of the problem is also that Americans in general just aren't as smart about certain things as we think we are. Some of the sleights of rhetoric and politic are so blitheringly obvious that orangutans know when to give a bronx cheer, yet the audience needs to be taken step-by-step, point-by-point through the list of what's so obviously wrong about this or that idea. And here's the kicker: never mind, it takes too much time, effort, or otherwise. In perhaps the only known political discussion of mine in which I actually changed someone's opinion, all I did was point to three reasonably well-known headlines and then ask her to put them together as if they were part of the same story, which, of course, they were. And then she thought about it--A, B, C--and it was like a bell went off in the back of her skull. She jumped, startled at the realization. The conversation took twenty minutes or so. It's a good thing we were drinking, or else the explanation would have taken too long. I've been pitching an article around here in recent topics; it's 22 years old, though I only read it recently, and more of the story than most Americans have time for. Not that the article, Yvonne Haddad's "The Islamic Alternative", is the definitive telling of any tale, but rather that it's chilling to stop and think that most Americans don't have time to think about the news this specifically. Very little of the American public discourse reaches so deeply into history as a single, relatively minor newspaper article from 1982. The real question is, "What chance do Muslims have?" What chance did they ever have in the minds of Americans? Muslims have always been bad press as far as Americans are concerned; pick up some pulp fiction from the first half of the twentieth century--Lovecraft considers every nonwhite suspect, casts them in devious and immoral characters; Robert Howard opens one or another story with our white heroes standing off Arab barbarians. Even back to the 19th century: Gunga Din is incredibly patronizing, and the cinematic version even moreso. So to start with, the essential idea is simply that the American media is profiting by an audience with an affinity for the superficial. But what of the international question? I don't know if that represents a shift from the press to the people, or embodies a reflection of the press in the people, but I'm not sure where to begin because I don't see clearly enough the connection 'twixt the starting point, considerations of a "Jewish media conspiracy", and the end point. In the end, it depends on the individuals. Americans, while remarkably educated for the most part, are also particularly specialized. Some of our greatest minds are socially dysfunctional, and as our business community shows, sensitive to the suggestions of bad ideas. My experience with folks from Singapore is that perceptions of reality are strikingly diverse. My college roommate, a Chinese-Catholic, would be all behind the United States at this point. The Sikh who lived up the hall? He would be very worried about the behavior of the U.S. government, which would remind him somewhat of his experience in Singapore. Here's something to chew on: Perhaps the greatest development of Western culture, unique in scale, ambition, and potential, is Western liberalism. "Might equals right" exists outside the Western first world. Western Socialist theory demands perhaps the most eloquently absurd goal, the elimination of poverty. Russia? They gave us a failed and very expensive revolution. More to the point, what can I possibly say? I can't discredit your friends simply because of where they come from, but Russia and India both have difficulties involving Muslims, Japan is even more screwed than the US if Things Fall Apart in the Middle East. China? Here at Sciforums we've largely stamped out local discussion of the absurd notion of blaming atheism for the crimes of Communism. Now, this is a good thing to stamp out. However, what reason does the news from China have to adopt a different policy toward one given religious identification (e.g. Islam) than it holds toward others (e.g. Christianity, Buddhism, and just what makes Falun Gong dangerous? Really? I actually don't know the answer to that question; in all this time, I've never heard anyone say.) I'm left with superficial jokes about Thailand, though. Perhaps we could start in Bangkok, and find in that squalid haystack the needle by which we stitch the scarlet E upon the breast of every Muslim. Almost anybody can find a reason to hate a Muslim, and, frankly, if it takes so much as to pick on the religion, we're reaching. Muslims are human beings, and that makes them every bit as loathsome as anyone else. During the Cold War, the standoff with the United States by the Soviet Union, the proxy wars that raised Marxists, Stalinists, and Maoists in opposition to historically-consistent behavior by the West were taken to validate the fundamental wrongness of the whole of Communism. In the Age of Terror, the echoes of American political and military maneuvering in the Islamic world thunder in our ears. This is one of those things that, in twenty years, when my daughter is presumably to be finishing college, students will look back through the historical record and fall over at how blindly and simplistically their parents acted. In fifty years they might damn us to Hell. Think, for instance, of the "subtlety" of the American sitcom. We are the United States of America. In the US of A in the twenty-first century, M*A*S*H is regarded as "too preachy", Seinfeld qualifies as refined comedy, the Larry Sanders Show con only go on cable, and I once had a midterm examination in which I had to go to the goddamn media lab and watch episodes of Roseanne ... and what about our cable-news networks? For 24-7, even those that allege to be, why is there only two or three hours worth of recycled headlines playing over and over all day? We, the People, are leading the way. And right now we're leading the way with something the Chinese, the Russians, hell, even the terrorists have: "Might is right." We ought to be leading the way with something that, while not uniquely American, stands as a testament to the heights and refinement of Western culture: enlightened liberalism. If Americans start from the same basis--might is right--as so many others, why should we be surprised at echoes around the world? It is that uniquely-Western liberalism that is horrified by the orgy of lowered expectations disguised as a War on Terror. It is that uniquely-Western liberalism that is appalled at the task of explaining the intricacies to people who prefer the pretty lights to the pretty minds. It is that very liberalism that, should we take President Bush's early analysis° to heart, we will discover as the object of the terrorists' hatred. It is that very liberalism that the war dogs disdain, as well. How curious. In the end, it's a matter of superficiality; anyone has a reason to examine the surface, but as with the ebb and flow, mere appearance is deceiving. ____________________ Notes: ° "blueblood" . . . from Roseanne to lottery commercials to the cartoon world - In the case of Roseanne's self-titled television sitcom, anti-blueblood themes formed the foundation of the show; in Oregon, there used to be lottery commercials in which a well-spoken instructor tried to teach a new, rural millionaire (e.g. lottery winner) how to enunciate properly: to-mah-to ... to-mah-to ... "T'mater"; in the cartoon world we might consider either The Critic or The Family Guy, for instance, both of which pitted diverse protagonists against "passive-aggressive" bluebloods. ° humor based in stereotype is absurdly mediocre - Wasp jokes are as predictable as Jew jokes, but more arcane. For instance: Why do Jews have large noses? Because air is free. Or What is a Jewish dilemma? Free ham. They're predictable jokes, and don't take much of a stretch. The Wasp punchlines are no better, merely obscure: What do Wasps call a relative with a social conscience? A black sheep. Or What do Wasps say after sex? "Thank you. It will never happen again." (If you need any clarification on that last one, a reasonably-European version of the same joke can be found in Monty Python's Meaning of Life, during the discussion of Catholics, Protestants, and contraception.) ° Weberian thesis - see Anthony Giddens' 1976 introduction to Scribner's publication of Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, pp. 1 - 12 (cf pp 2 - 5) for a brief overview on the asserted connections 'twixt Calvinism and capitalism. ° Franken's tragically-hilarious commentary on President Bush and religion - see Franken, Lies, pp. 213 - 215; the episode is longer than any proper citation can encompass here, but contains commentary on the parable of the talents: "Conservatives tend to interpret the parable literally, as an exhortation to get rich". ° show profit from time to time - Running with the Weberian theme, we might consider a definition proposed in which an "action is adapted to a systematic utilization of goods or personal services as means of acquisition in such a way that, at the close of a business period, the balance of the enterprise in money assets (or, in the case of a continuous enterprise, the periodically estimated money value of assets) exceeds the capital, i.e. the estimated value of the material means of production used for acquisition in exchange". See the author's introduction (pp. 13 - 31) to The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (cf pp. 17 - 18). ° forged documents offered in support of talk against President Bush - This example is offered in recognition of a conservative need for a "politically-correct" balance; while the details of the two issues are, indeed, different, we must respectfully gloss over those details in order to present a superficial tit-for-tat which, while it erodes the critical capabilities of the American public, is only proper since it would be disrespectful to ask such conservatives to get on the trolley and think about the differences in degrees. ° How easy is it to argue with a moron who's willing to stake the reputation of the entire past, present, and future United States armed services on his grudge against a presidential candidate? - Ah, now we see the devil's in the details; sorry, I have no politically-correct counterbalance for that one. Sometimes things really do go beyond mere politics; sometimes something that occurs in the political arena really is that simple. ° nothing else is ever so clear as CNN or FOX - That's not a poll, it's not a question or a choice. It's not chocolate v. vanilla. It's simple rhetoric. Rhythm and idea. See what happens when you buckle to the conservative PC? I mean, it's easy enough to spot someone saying, "Goddamn niggers!" but the conservative PC demands subtlety, and demands that subtlety of everyone else instead. ° Watch CNN Headline News for two hours - For the last couple weeks, the news has been a steady cycle: Hurricane ... bad. War ... dying ... bad. Polls ... incoherent. Vietnam War ... old hash. You know, I'm starting to wish for Clinton just so there could be some sex in the headlines. Paris Hilton, despite rumors to the contrary, just doesn't have the staying power. ° his Texas education plan - Where the president might point to certain statistical successes in Texas education, his tenure as governor also saw the dropout rate skyrocket. The dropouts actually buoyed the appearance of success by virtue of not being considered in the averages. ° President Bush's early analysis - Refer to the President's remarks of September 20, 2001: "Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." Works Cited: • Bush, George W. "Freedom at War with Fear". September 20, 2001. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html • Franken, Al. Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. New York: Dutton, 2003. • Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Introd. by Anthony Giddens. New York: Dutton, 1956 (1976) See Also: • Haddad, Yvonne H. "The Islamic Alternative". The Link, v.15, i.4; Sept.-Oct., 1982. See http://www.ameu.org/summary1.asp?iid=120
Not true. Hindus hack, burn alive, ..... lots of Muslims (in addition to lots of Hindus) every year in the name/in defence of THEIR religion.
Firstly, I think this post is relatively on track. I think we are coming to the conclusion there aren't any - anymore than any other agenda. This basically comes down to what does it mean: Islam. To me the term Islam is tossed around so much that it doesn’t seem to have much meaning. So I will use it in the same way as the word Christian or Buddhist. Obviously there is a big difference in culture between Japanese Buddhist, Chinese Buddhists, Aussie Buddhists – just due to their cultures (I’m talking average practitioner). Yes there is a thread of connection via belief but the cultures are quite different. Which is why I think the problems in the ME are unique to the ME. Not unique to Islam. Islam is basically the same as Christianity. A thousand years ago it was common for Christians to do the things they complain that Muslims do now. So we can easily see it is 100% culture. So yes, Morocco is very different than Saudi Arabia and both are culturally different than Indonesia. Good Point. I could imagine if you look hard enough you would also find similar and (maybe even more blatant) statements against Germans, Japanese, Koreans in 1948. Regardless, you seem to be suggesting that the US is responsible for why the ME is the way it is. I ask you – when HASN’T the ME been as it is? Well, what was going on in 1900? Golden Age or pretty much the same? what was going on in 1800? Golden Age or pretty much the same? what was going on in 1700? Golden Age or pretty much the same? what was going on in 1600? Golden Age or pretty much the same? Etcetera . . . OFF TOPIC: When did Arabians stop selling East African slaves to the Europeans and then the Amercia's? Why did they stop? Has Iran’s rulers lead Iranians into a Golden Age? Is it Americas fault the revolution hasn't led to a Golden Age? What would happen to Iran's economy if America refused to buy 60% of it's oil? Yes, agreed. And this is where the difference in cultures is played out. I personally believe that Saudi Arabia would be as it is today even if it was Buddhist. Only you’d see Buddhists making sure their women were covered instead of Muslims. I’m sure it’d be the same. For one, yes some do but just as in the Catholic Priests - the dirt is always juicier and makes the front page. Two, can you tell me how many and who were the main Muslim Religious leaders to purely speak out and condemn to hell those children-killers last month? I mean just say – look these guys were evil and should burn in hell. And not go into the justification because of Russian Occupation – or make comparisons with the Israelis; because that’s just sick. No one should purposely target school children for any reason. Other than 1 Egyptian I didn’t hear of any others major Islamic Religious Leaders condemning them. Interestingly, all of my close Persian friends have converted to pure Atheism since leaving Iran. They will never mention anything about Islam around their Islamic Iranian friends. And they told me to never say anything about Atheism in front of their Iranian friends – "say nothing". I think it seems paranoid, but I hardly ever see their other friends anyway, and I can imagine what it must have been like living in Iran so I just keep my mouth shut. tiassa, thanks for that. Very interesting. Yes, I can see why each nation would represent “others” in a certain light. I am surprised that “Islam” per say is trashed. But I am coming to the conclusion that Islam as a word is used much to liberally. The meaning is diluted. An Islamic Moroccan is quit different than an Islamic Afghani or Indonesian. As a religion I think Islam has all the same faults of Christianity and Judaism and they certianly arent AS trashed. So it must be the things done in the name of Islam that make the news in combination with the the parcularities of some Islamic peoples in the ME (like "honor" killings etc....)
Speaking of Media. I was watching a couple of interesting shows the last couple days. One was a review of the move: “OutFoxed” about how shit the FoX News is (is that an oxymoron?) Sounds interesting. The second was an interview last night with a reporter from Time. He basically said that the US army is losing and many reporters are joking about catching the last helicopter out. It’s interesting that this doesn’t make it into American news? America news must be hitting an all time low? Anyway, he said that because of the election the fighting there is slowing and then after the election there will be a decision made, to either raze the cities to the ground or leave. I was thinking that with 15-20 thousand civilians dead now, what is it going to be like in March next year? Leave or stay – either way is really scary. Lastly, in case the Media is controlled by the Jewish I want you all to know at least one truth: Bush is an imbecile Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
