|
Post by What Hat on Feb 21, 2015 0:09:44 GMT -5
Even back in the 1960s we were taught in school that the USA was a "melting pot" for immigrants, and Canada was a "cultural mosaic". The story was that at Ellis Island they crossed out your Polish or Italian name and gave you a new one. In Canada you kept your foreign name. We have snobs down here as well. Huh? Please explain. There was no sense in any of this of criticizing the American approach. It was just noted as a difference.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 21, 2015 0:32:06 GMT -5
If you want to know what Muslim youth in Toronto are taught, take a look at this... This guy is an influential Imam in Toronto: Yes many Muslims believe in the death penalty for apostates. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2010 found relatively widespread popular support for death penalty as a punishment for apostasy in Egypt (84% of respondents in favor of death penalty), Jordan (86% in favor), Indonesia (30%), Pakistan (76%), Nigeria (51%), and relatively minor support in Lebanon (6% in favor) and Turkey (5%).[113] As we've noted on this thread it is a religion that, in many parts of the world, is a century or two behind our more enlightened views. St. Augustine was likely the first to justify killing Christian heretics, and for centuries after that Christian heretics were routinely killed. Christians have stopped killing heretics for the most part. Fortunately, the belief is not universal within Islam, and it's a good one to track through polling. This primitive and unenlightened belief does not make Muslims inherently violent, any more than capital punishment makes ordinary Texans inherently violent. So, what would you do about 'Shaykh Said Rageah'.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 21, 2015 0:38:46 GMT -5
You have to admire this guy. He is willing to speak out, and he has often been the go-to person for the media looking for a quote. I think he has been becoming more outspoken through the years. It takes a lot of courage. Whenever I hear “Islam is a religion of peace”, I usually have the thought “Prove it! We're waiting.” He is one individual who IS proving it. I met him several years ago at a Rumi conference in Calgary. He was one of the organizers. I believe he writes poetry himself. I was chatting to him, along with a couple of other people. We were all getting along quite well. Then, in the course of the conversation, he mentioned that he was one of the more socially progressive Muslims in his community because he allowed his wife to drive. This briefly brought the conversation to a halt - just a little reminder - that for all our similarities, there are differences too. At the end of the conference, they were audibly praying for peace in the world. Country after country was mentioned by name. Though I was listening very carefully, I did not hear them mention Israel. I could have missed it, but I don't think so. That was probably too much to expect. As I've said before, it's complicated. Well, it's not that complicated. Arabs hate Jews, by and large. And the practices within their societies hold women in subjection. I think both of those are fair criticisms. By way of comparison, arguing that Muslims are inherently violent because of the their religious beliefs is not fair criticism.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 21, 2015 0:38:59 GMT -5
Where do you find this stuff? As almost all Canadians know, Ezra Levant is nuts. I wouldn't trust anything that guy writes. Did you just Google this stuff, or is this another part of your information network. Seriously, you worry me. www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ezra-levant-loses-80-000-defamation-lawsuit-1.2123314The Koran stuff you posted is really bad. 1) It wasn't written by a Muslim. It's a strawman. 2) It's not a balanced view of what is in the Koran; it takes select verses out of context. It's not even good theology. 3) It attempts to associate all Muslims with violent behaviour. 4) It discriminates against, and promotes bigotry against ordinary Muslims by arguing that Muslims are inherently violent, and that they are a threat to us. 5) It increases the alienation of western Muslims within western society. If you provided an analysis of ISIS' theology, using their statements, I would not have an issue with it. As it is, it's quite reprehensible. It upsets me not because I disagree but because of the very real and negative impact that literature has on ordinary Muslims in the West. So when I state that today's Muslims are like the Jews in the 1920s that analysis proves the case. This hate material does have implications, you realize. Basically, the literature you post is being used in an attempt to smear the new Muslims in our country, who are ordinary folks for the most part. You don't seem to understand that top Islamic scholars are preaching anti-western rhetoric to millions of people around the world as we speak. Including your close to home Sheikh Rageah who teaches that those who leave Islam should be murdered. World peace for these guys is for everyone on the planet to fall into line with their version of Islam. I agree with you that ISIL must be confronted on the battlefield. Where we differ is that I believe ISIL is largely a product of the anti-western rhetoric of Islamic scholars and Imams, and this too must be confronted. Sheikh Rageah has a master’s degree in Sharia and a BA in Islamic studies. He is the founder of the Masjid Huda mosque in Montreal, Canada, and the Masjid Aya in Maryland, US, among others.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 21, 2015 0:56:57 GMT -5
Where do you find this stuff? As almost all Canadians know, Ezra Levant is nuts. I wouldn't trust anything that guy writes. Did you just Google this stuff, or is this another part of your information network. Seriously, you worry me. www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ezra-levant-loses-80-000-defamation-lawsuit-1.2123314The Koran stuff you posted is really bad. 1) It wasn't written by a Muslim. It's a strawman. 2) It's not a balanced view of what is in the Koran; it takes select verses out of context. It's not even good theology. 3) It attempts to associate all Muslims with violent behaviour. 4) It discriminates against, and promotes bigotry against ordinary Muslims by arguing that Muslims are inherently violent, and that they are a threat to us. 5) It increases the alienation of western Muslims within western society. If you provided an analysis of ISIS' theology, using their statements, I would not have an issue with it. As it is, it's quite reprehensible. It upsets me not because I disagree but because of the very real and negative impact that literature has on ordinary Muslims in the West. So when I state that today's Muslims are like the Jews in the 1920s that analysis proves the case. This hate material does have implications, you realize. Basically, the literature you post is being used in an attempt to smear the new Muslims in our country, who are ordinary folks for the most part. You don't seem to understand that top Islamic scholars are preaching anti-western rhetoric to millions of people around the world as we speak. Including your close to home Sheikh Rageah who teaches that those who leave Islam should be murdered. World peace for these guys is for everyone on the planet to fall into line with their version of Islam. I agree with you that ISIL must be confronted on the battlefield. Where we differ is that I believe ISIL is largely a product of the anti-western rhetoric of Islamic scholars and Imams, and this too must be confronted. Sheikh Rageah has a master’s degree in Sharia and a BA in Islamic studies. He is the founder of the Masjid Huda mosque in Montreal, Canada, and the Masjid Aya in Maryland, US, among others. We're both fairly news aware, but I think where we differ is in our concerns about the threat Islam represents to our society. I'm not concerned about ideological threats, that is, what an imam might say. At least on our shores nothing can be done about radical imams. There are moderate imams also. It's better to let guys like Rageah talk because forcing radical Muslims underground has been tried in Turkey and Iran and only makes the problem worse. At least this way there is much needed dialogue, especially within the Muslim world itself. As far as overseas, little can be done. If the threat becomes a military one then we deal with it as we do any military threat. (And Iraq in 2003 was not a military threat.) The real conflict is within the Arab world itself and has been for a century or more. And will continue. A more moderate version of Islam is bound to be the result but it may take another century yet.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 21, 2015 0:57:34 GMT -5
Ezra Levant's voice on controversial issues seems to resonate with a lot of Canadians, and he says he's overwhelmed by the support he is receiving. I just received an email from a professing friend on Ezra's response on the Macleans article that claimed that Winnipeg was the most racist city in Canada. www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS7lpvUErOQ
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 21, 2015 1:10:33 GMT -5
We're both fairly news aware, but I think where we differ is in our concerns about the threat Islam represents to our society. I'm not concerned about ideological threats, that is, what an imam might say. At least on our shores nothing can be done about radical imams. There are moderate imams also. It's better to let guys like Rageah talk because forcing radical Muslims underground has been tried in Turkey and Iran and only makes the problem worse. At least this way there is much needed dialogue, especially within the Muslim world itself. As far as overseas, little can be done. If the threat becomes a military one then we deal with it as we do any military threat. (And Iraq in 2003 was not a military threat.) The real conflict is within the Arab world itself and has been for a century or more. And will continue. A more moderate version of Islam is bound to be the result but it may take another century yet. I have hope that a more moderate Islam will emerge after they realise their religion is doing them no favors. It's not just an Arab problem. Islam causes untold misery in non-Arab societies as well. How would you like to be a young Muslim in Canada and be told there's a death sentence on you if you leave the religion? If a leader of any other cult in Canada announced that the penalty for leaving the religion is death, I think there would be an uproar. Why are we so afraid to criticise Islam, and say it how it is? This is not some quaint harmless tradition. Once you believe it's Allah's will that those who leave the religion should die, then it's a small step to beheading Egyptian Christians on a Libyan beach.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 21, 2015 3:30:45 GMT -5
In free countries it's a human right to worship as we please, but the cult of Islam despises our freedom.
A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2010 found relatively widespread popular support for death penalty as a punishment for apostasy in Egypt (84% of respondents in favor of death penalty), Jordan (86% in favor), Indonesia (30%), Pakistan (76%), Nigeria (51%), and relatively minor support in Lebanon (6% in favor) and Turkey (5%)
It should be forbidden to preach and publish such an evil doctrine as apostasy in free countries. It's not compatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
If the Mormons or JWs taught that death was the punishment for changing religion, or if a trade union, friendly society or any other group taught that death is the punishment for leaving, I'm sure there would be an outcry.
Yet to criticise this evil doctrine is "Islamophobia".
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 21, 2015 9:07:48 GMT -5
Ezra Levant's voice on controversial issues seems to resonate with a lot of Canadians, and he says he's overwhelmed by the support he is receiving. I just received an email from a professing friend on Ezra's response on the Macleans article that claimed that Winnipeg was the most racist city in Canada. www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS7lpvUErOQ At one time I subscribed to the Western Report which he took over and ruined. He's seen as a loudmouth here in Ontario. No doubt he has his fans as did that idiot ex-mayor, Rob Ford. Fortunately no one under 40 likes either one of these characters so I remain optimistic. In other good news, the Sun News network, our Canadian faux news network on which Levant Was a regular, had its plug pulled this week. Very few people watched it.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Feb 21, 2015 12:14:14 GMT -5
Ezra Levant's voice on controversial issues seems to resonate with a lot of Canadians, and he says he's overwhelmed by the support he is receiving. I just received an email from a professing friend on Ezra's response on the Macleans article that claimed that Winnipeg was the most racist city in Canada. www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS7lpvUErOQ At one time I subscribed to the Western Report which he took over and ruined. He's seen as a loudmouth here in Ontario. No doubt he has his fans as did that idiot ex-mayor, Rob Ford. Fortunately no one under 40 likes either one of these characters so I remain optimistic. In other good news, the Sun News network, our Canadian faux news network on which Levant Was a regular, had its plug pulled this week. Very few people watched it. Ezra Levant is…well…Ezra Levant. He tries to be outrageous, extreme, provocative, and offensive. It is his “brand”. That being said, he can get so caught up in his arguments that he loses perspective. I don't think that serves either him or his "brand". I am not a follower, but he does gets mentioned often enough in mainstream media and coffee room/dinner table discussions. Through the years, I have felt he has been less than helpful in quite a number of situations. Occasionally, I think he says some things that probably need to be said.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Feb 21, 2015 14:27:18 GMT -5
Well, it's not that complicated. Arabs hate Jews, by and large. And the practices within their societies hold women in subjection. I think both of those are fair criticisms. By way of comparison, arguing that Muslims are inherently violent because of the their religious beliefs is not fair criticism. Well, I certainly do not see it – any of it – as being simple. I don’t think it serves anyone to deny that there are some deeply disturbing ideologies and behaviors within Islam. I think Syed Soharwardy would agree: It is people like Syed who have the understanding and influence to make a real difference within the Islamic community. For the rest of us, there is probably not a lot we can do, other than keeping our own reactivity in check so that we don’t exacerbate the situation. People like Ezra Levant are not helpful. Neither are the overly politically correct. I haven’t followed Syed Soharwardy that closely, but from what I have seen of him, and what I know of him, he is a genuinely peace loving individual, who loves Canada and the way of life he and his family have here. He is in a position of trying to provide some balanced leadership within a community with some progressive elements, some conservative elements, and, unfortunately, some radicalized elements. He has certainly made some missteps along the way. I’ve watched his English and his confidence improve. He has also been gaining skills at handling the media, which in itself is no small feat.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 21, 2015 15:22:13 GMT -5
Syed seems to have a good handle on the need for Muslims to learn how to tolerate other POV.
An obvious extension of that is to recognise the importance of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Muslim insistence on denying this basic human right is the root cause of Islam's problems.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 21, 2015 18:27:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 21, 2015 18:42:42 GMT -5
What's happening to Canada? Open letter from Ralph Nader to Prime Minister Stephen Harper
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
80 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
Dear Prime Minister:
Many Americans love Canada and the specific benefits that have come to our country from our northern neighbor's many achievements (see Canada Firsts by Nader, Conacher and Milleron). Unfortunately, your latest proposed legislation -- the new anti-terrorism act -- is being described by leading Canadian civil liberties scholars as hazardous to Canadian democracy.
A central criticism was ably summarized in a February 2015 Globe and Mail editorial titled "Parliament Must Reject Harper's Secret Policeman Bill," to wit:
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper never tires of telling Canadians that we are at war with the Islamic State. Under the cloud of fear produced by his repeated hyperbole about the scope and nature of the threat, he now wants to turn our domestic spy agency into something that looks disturbingly like a secret police force.
Canadians should not be willing to accept such an obvious threat to their basic liberties. Our existing laws and our society are strong enough to stand up to the threat of terrorism without compromising our values."
Particularly noticeable in your announcement were your exaggerated expressions that exceed the paranoia of Washington's chief attack dog, former vice-president Dick Cheney. Mr. Cheney periodically surfaces to update his pathological war mongering oblivious to facts -- past and present -- including his criminal war of aggression which devastated Iraq -- a country that never threatened the U.S.
You are quoted as saying that "jihadi terrorism is one of the most dangerous enemies our world has ever faced" as a predicate for your gross over-reaction that "violent jihadism seeks to destroy" Canadian "rights." Really? Pray tell, which rights rooted in Canadian law are "jihadis" fighting in the Middle East to obliterate? You talk like George W. Bush.
How does "jihadism" match up with the lives of tens of millions of innocent civilians, destroyed since 1900 by state terrorism -- west and east, north and south -- or the continuing efforts seeking to seize or occupy territory?
Reading your apoplectic oratory reminds one of the prior history of your country as one of the world's peacekeepers from the inspiration of Lester Pearson to the United Nations. That noble pursuit has been replaced by deploying Canadian soldiers in the belligerent service of the American Empire and its boomeranging wars, invasions and attacks that violate our Constitution, statutes and international treaties to which both our countries are signatories.
What has all this post-9/11 loss of American life plus injuries and sickness, in addition to trillions of American tax dollars, accomplished? Has it led to the stability of those nations invaded or attacked by the U.S. and its reluctant western "allies?" Just the opposite, the colossal blowback evidenced by the metastasis of al-Qaeda's offshoots and similar new groups like the self-styled Islamic state are now proliferating in and threatening over a dozen countries.
Have you digested what is happening in Iraq and why Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said no to Washington? Or now chaotic Libya, which like Iraq never had any presence of Al-Qaeda before the U.S.'s destabilizing military attacks? (See the New York Times' editorial on February 15, 2015 titled "What Libya's Unraveling Means".)
Perhaps you will find a former veteran CIA station chief in Islamabad, Pakistan, Robert L. Grenier more credible. Writing in his just released book: 88 Days to Kandahar: A CIA Diary (Simon & Schuster), he sums up U.S. government policy this way: "Our current abandonment of Afghanistan is the product of a…colossal overreach, from 2005 onwards." He writes, "in the process we overwhelmed a primitive country, with a largely illiterate population, a tiny agrarian economy, a tribal social structure and nascent national institutions. We triggered massive corruption through our profligacy; convinced a substantial number of Afghans that we were, in fact, occupiers and facilitated the resurgence of the Taliban" (Alissa J. Rubin, Robert L. Grenier's '88 Days to Kandahar,' New York Times, February 15, 2015).
You may recall George W. Bush's White House counterterrorism czar, Richard Clarke, who wrote in his 2004 book, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror--What Really Happened, "It was as if Osama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush, chanting, 'Invade Iraq, you must invade Iraq.'"
Mr. Bush committed sociocide against that country's 27 million people. Over one million innocent Iraqi civilians lost their lives, in addition to millions sick and injured. Refugees have reached five million and growing. He destroyed critical public services and sparked sectarian massacres -- massive war crimes, which in turn produce ever-expanding blowbacks.
Canadians might be most concerned about your increased dictatorial policies and practices, as well as this bill's provision for secret law and courts in the name of fighting terrorism -- too vaguely defined. Study what comparable practices have done to the United States -- a course that you seem to be mimicking, including the militarization of police forces (see The Walrus, December 2014).
If passed, this act, piled on already stringent legal authority, will expand your national security bureaucracies and their jurisdictional disputes, further encourage dragnet snooping and roundups, fuel fear and suspicion among law-abiding Canadians, stifle free speech and civic action and drain billions of dollars from being used for the necessities of Canadian society. This is not hypothetical. Along with an already frayed social safety net, once the envy of the world, you almost got away with a $30 billion purchase of unneeded costly F-35s (including maintenance) to bail out the failing budget-busting F-35 project in Washington.
You may think that Canadians will fall prey to a politics of fear before an election. But you may be misreading the extent to which Canadians will allow the attachment of their Maple Leaf to the aggressive talons of a hijacked American Eagle.
Canada could be a model for independence against the backdrop of bankrupt American military adventures steeped in big business profits…a model that might help both nations restore their better angels.
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 21, 2015 18:57:33 GMT -5
What kind of warped theology equates changing religion with treason - punishable by death? Would a parade of christian fundamentalists with warped theology help even things out?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 21, 2015 19:08:24 GMT -5
What kind of warped theology equates changing religion with treason - punishable by death? Would a parade of christian fundamentalists with warped theology help even things out? I wasn't aware that christian fundamentalists killed those who changed their religion.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 21, 2015 19:44:35 GMT -5
What's happening to Canada? Open letter from Ralph Nader to Prime Minister Stephen Harper The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P. 80 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2 Dear Prime Minister: Many Americans love Canada and the specific benefits that have come to our country from our northern neighbor's many achievements (see Canada Firsts by Nader, Conacher and Milleron). Unfortunately, your latest proposed legislation -- the new anti-terrorism act -- is being described by leading Canadian civil liberties scholars as hazardous to Canadian democracy. A central criticism was ably summarized in a February 2015 Globe and Mail editorial titled "Parliament Must Reject Harper's Secret Policeman Bill," to wit: "Prime Minister Stephen Harper never tires of telling Canadians that we are at war with the Islamic State. Under the cloud of fear produced by his repeated hyperbole about the scope and nature of the threat, he now wants to turn our domestic spy agency into something that looks disturbingly like a secret police force. Canadians should not be willing to accept such an obvious threat to their basic liberties. Our existing laws and our society are strong enough to stand up to the threat of terrorism without compromising our values." Particularly noticeable in your announcement were your exaggerated expressions that exceed the paranoia of Washington's chief attack dog, former vice-president Dick Cheney. Mr. Cheney periodically surfaces to update his pathological war mongering oblivious to facts -- past and present -- including his criminal war of aggression which devastated Iraq -- a country that never threatened the U.S. You are quoted as saying that "jihadi terrorism is one of the most dangerous enemies our world has ever faced" as a predicate for your gross over-reaction that "violent jihadism seeks to destroy" Canadian "rights." Really? Pray tell, which rights rooted in Canadian law are "jihadis" fighting in the Middle East to obliterate? You talk like George W. Bush. How does "jihadism" match up with the lives of tens of millions of innocent civilians, destroyed since 1900 by state terrorism -- west and east, north and south -- or the continuing efforts seeking to seize or occupy territory? Reading your apoplectic oratory reminds one of the prior history of your country as one of the world's peacekeepers from the inspiration of Lester Pearson to the United Nations. That noble pursuit has been replaced by deploying Canadian soldiers in the belligerent service of the American Empire and its boomeranging wars, invasions and attacks that violate our Constitution, statutes and international treaties to which both our countries are signatories. What has all this post-9/11 loss of American life plus injuries and sickness, in addition to trillions of American tax dollars, accomplished? Has it led to the stability of those nations invaded or attacked by the U.S. and its reluctant western "allies?" Just the opposite, the colossal blowback evidenced by the metastasis of al-Qaeda's offshoots and similar new groups like the self-styled Islamic state are now proliferating in and threatening over a dozen countries. Have you digested what is happening in Iraq and why Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said no to Washington? Or now chaotic Libya, which like Iraq never had any presence of Al-Qaeda before the U.S.'s destabilizing military attacks? (See the New York Times' editorial on February 15, 2015 titled "What Libya's Unraveling Means".) Perhaps you will find a former veteran CIA station chief in Islamabad, Pakistan, Robert L. Grenier more credible. Writing in his just released book: 88 Days to Kandahar: A CIA Diary (Simon & Schuster), he sums up U.S. government policy this way: "Our current abandonment of Afghanistan is the product of a…colossal overreach, from 2005 onwards." He writes, "in the process we overwhelmed a primitive country, with a largely illiterate population, a tiny agrarian economy, a tribal social structure and nascent national institutions. We triggered massive corruption through our profligacy; convinced a substantial number of Afghans that we were, in fact, occupiers and facilitated the resurgence of the Taliban" (Alissa J. Rubin, Robert L. Grenier's '88 Days to Kandahar,' New York Times, February 15, 2015). You may recall George W. Bush's White House counterterrorism czar, Richard Clarke, who wrote in his 2004 book, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror--What Really Happened, "It was as if Osama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush, chanting, 'Invade Iraq, you must invade Iraq.'" Mr. Bush committed sociocide against that country's 27 million people. Over one million innocent Iraqi civilians lost their lives, in addition to millions sick and injured. Refugees have reached five million and growing. He destroyed critical public services and sparked sectarian massacres -- massive war crimes, which in turn produce ever-expanding blowbacks. Canadians might be most concerned about your increased dictatorial policies and practices, as well as this bill's provision for secret law and courts in the name of fighting terrorism -- too vaguely defined. Study what comparable practices have done to the United States -- a course that you seem to be mimicking, including the militarization of police forces (see The Walrus, December 2014). If passed, this act, piled on already stringent legal authority, will expand your national security bureaucracies and their jurisdictional disputes, further encourage dragnet snooping and roundups, fuel fear and suspicion among law-abiding Canadians, stifle free speech and civic action and drain billions of dollars from being used for the necessities of Canadian society. This is not hypothetical. Along with an already frayed social safety net, once the envy of the world, you almost got away with a $30 billion purchase of unneeded costly F-35s (including maintenance) to bail out the failing budget-busting F-35 project in Washington. You may think that Canadians will fall prey to a politics of fear before an election. But you may be misreading the extent to which Canadians will allow the attachment of their Maple Leaf to the aggressive talons of a hijacked American Eagle. Canada could be a model for independence against the backdrop of bankrupt American military adventures steeped in big business profits…a model that might help both nations restore their better angels. Sincerely, Ralph Nader So what do you think about it all? Do you think we need to have a secret police? Are we really in that much danger?
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 21, 2015 20:13:31 GMT -5
hmmm Just had a post disappear into cyberland, but I think I concluded I didn't really know enough about the complexity of these issues to make intelligent decision. could argue either way, seems like, and one would be found out right or wrong, only depending on how it turned out. Pitiful answer , but how can one know what is the best way forward. Ignoring the issue will not make it go away, much as we'd like that. Alvin I have not listened to this , its long, but was sent to me by a friend today on the futility and insanity of war. www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/chris-hedges-war-is-a-drug-1.2954759Pulitzer Prize winner Christopher Hedges spent decades as a war correspondent before the suffering he witnessed became too much to bear. Now he is minister of social witness and prison ministry at the Second Presbyterian Church in Elizabeth, New Jersey, a popular public speaker, an author and freelance columnist who does not shy away from controversy. The presentation Chris Hedges gave at Ryerson University is titled War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. It's always hard. You see hallucinogenic landscapes that you could not imagine, what large shells -- for instance, when I was in Sarajevo -- will do to human bodies. It will sever them in half and they're still alive. You never sleep. The trauma is so intense because not only are you around violent death, but over the years many of those I have worked with, including my closest friends, were killed. It so upends the moral and physical universe that when you step outside the war zone you just cannot relate, you cannot function. Soldiers call it a combat high. I did it for 20 years and what happens when you cannot extract yourself from it is early death, whether that is through drinking, substance abuse, or a heart attack. -- Chris Hedges
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 21, 2015 21:48:28 GMT -5
Fortunately Ralph Nader was never elected President and he's unlikely to ever be. He has an extremely warped view of international politics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2015 22:14:32 GMT -5
Well, it's not that complicated. Arabs hate Jews, by and large. And the practices within their societies hold women in subjection. I think both of those are fair criticisms. By way of comparison, arguing that Muslims are inherently violent because of the their religious beliefs is not fair criticism. Well, I certainly do not see it – any of it – as being simple. I don’t think it serves anyone to deny that there are some deeply disturbing ideologies and behaviors within Islam. I think Syed Soharwardy would agree: It is people like Syed who have the understanding and influence to make a real difference within the Islamic community. For the rest of us, there is probably not a lot we can do, other than keeping our own reactivity in check so that we don’t exacerbate the situation. People like Ezra Levant are not helpful. Neither are the overly politically correct. I haven’t followed Syed Soharwardy that closely, but from what I have seen of him, and what I know of him, he is a genuinely peace loving individual, who loves Canada and the way of life he and his family have here. He is in a position of trying to provide some balanced leadership within a community with some progressive elements, some conservative elements, and, unfortunately, some radicalized elements. He has certainly made some missteps along the way. I’ve watched his English and his confidence improve. He has also been gaining skills at handling the media, which in itself is no small feat. unfortunately this man is now a target mostly from the radicals within his own faith but also from radicals within the opposite culture and those who call for peace will be shut up, there will be huge blood letting through out the world as the momentum increases as is becoming evident
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 21, 2015 22:24:22 GMT -5
Okay, so Ezra Lavant is a"nutcase" and Ralph Nader is "warped",but is there something in their messages that we can learn from or NOTHING they have to say is worth considering if it doesn't support my present position? I'm not so fond of either one ,either, but is there some truth in their arguments? Alvin
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 21, 2015 22:51:46 GMT -5
Okay, so Ezra Lavant is a"nutcase" and Ralph Nader is "warped",but is there something in their messages that we can learn from or NOTHING they have to say is worth considering if it doesn't support my present position? I'm not so fond of either one ,either, but is there some truth in their arguments? Alvin I would prefer greater powers for enforcement authorities in exchange for better security, but I realise other folks prefer to run the risk of losing their lives in another attack on civilians. Clearly the threat is real enough - there have been several attacks in North America already and many religious nut-jobs are keen to stage further attacks: www.cbsnews.com/news/al-shabaab-attacks-minnesotas-mall-of-america/
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 21, 2015 23:14:04 GMT -5
quote I would prefer greater powers for enforcement authorities in exchange for better security
I imagine everybody would agree with that. I sure do. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 21, 2015 23:21:03 GMT -5
Would a parade of christian fundamentalists with warped theology help even things out? I wasn't aware that christian fundamentalists killed those who changed their religion. Well, the OT speaks directly to that point - if anyone tries to get someone close to you to convert you should kill them. And since Jesus clearly stated that he was upholding the OT law this is still what Christians should be following. They may not kill those who change their religion. Just those who hold a different set of beliefs. What do you think about the National Liberation Front of Tripura? Or the Maronites? And then there is the Lord's Resistance Army. Scott Roeder and Eric Robert Rudolph are also good examples. fixit, your fixation on the perceived evils of all Muslims may well be clouding your your ability to see that the same behavior can be found in any extreme group.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 21, 2015 23:25:22 GMT -5
I wasn't aware that christian fundamentalists killed those who changed their religion. Well, the OT speaks directly to that point - if anyone tries to get someone close to you to convert you should kill them. And since Jesus clearly stated that he was upholding the OT law this is still what Christians should be following. They may not kill those who change their religion. Just those who hold a different set of beliefs. What do you think about the National Liberation Front of Tripura? Or the Maronites? And then there is the Lord's Resistance Army. Scott Roeder and Eric Robert Rudolph are also good examples. fixit, your fixation on the perceived evils of all Muslims may well be clouding your your ability to see that the same behavior can be found in any extreme group. I don't perceive evils in all Muslims. I perceive evil in the Muslim doctrine that proscribes death for leaving the religion. I wonder why you seem OK with that.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 21, 2015 23:37:25 GMT -5
The Muslim, and more notably, the extremist Muslim, is the anti-Christian's friend. The more Christianity can be neutralized, marginalized, emasculated or desecrated the better. But watch out for what you pray for. The IS does not distinguish.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 21, 2015 23:42:08 GMT -5
Okay, so Ezra Lavant is a"nutcase" and Ralph Nader is "warped",but is there something in their messages that we can learn from or NOTHING they have to say is worth considering if it doesn't support my present position? I'm not so fond of either one ,either, but is there some truth in their arguments? Alvin I would prefer greater powers for enforcement authorities in exchange for better security, but I realise other folks prefer to run the risk of losing their lives in another attack on civilians. Clearly the threat is real enough - there have been several attacks in North America already and many religious nut-jobs are keen to stage further attacks: www.cbsnews.com/news/al-shabaab-attacks-minnesotas-mall-of-america/The threat is there. The Army of God, the Church of Jesus Christ-Christian, The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, the Phineas Priesthood, etc. Of course, who knows what Wade Michael Page was thinking. Even considering he was thinking is being generous.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 21, 2015 23:48:12 GMT -5
Re-posting of link on Religion Thought and Doctrine board.
|
|