This is the only part of our conversation that bothered me, bb.

A religion or a cuture is not an individual; they are institutions. While I may be at times very critical and negative regarding the behaviors of the government of the United States, that does not mean that I hate Americans.

We would all do well to remember neilshams extremely pertinent lament. 'Hey guys, just keep one thing in mind: It's no picnic living in a Muslim society.'

Of course all people are just people regardless of the language they speak.

All I am saying is that terrorism and tyranny are also just terrorism and tyranny no matter what "language" they speak.

Fair enough.

Hello All.

Hope that everyone is fine, happy and...ready

OK ? here we goooooooo :



-While you're fully right, I want only to precise that the way history is used changes its usefulness completly. If it is venerated, and this is how religious, or at least reactionnary ppl look at History, it only serves to repeat its worst parts. However, if tooken objectivly, as a probable dead past fact, it can be very useful, definetly.

-nonetheless, in ME, especially when it comes to the PL-IL conflict, it is destructive. Why ? both ppl rely on religious history, to justify divine and acceptable carnage. Asking them to rely on anything else is like asking them to throw their religions. And when it comes to 'scientific' history, this is completly falsified by arab nations. all of them. Perhaps IL teach a more objective history in schools and media, but i'm not really sure...

-The more I think about it, the more it seems, including recent overreactions, that islamic ppl is tooken as an hostage of its leaders and its lies: first, the majority of sensible scientific knowledge like history and geography is falsified (schools, media, ppl), then the education 'blocks' any reception of different point of view by using the 'Western-sionist-manipulation' propaganda. thus muslims tends to have a paranoia of the complot. finally, the umma/SA$ takes care of any 'dissident' voice that could break the wall, by any direct or indirect methods of intimidation and defamation.

------------------------------




ADHD ???




Well said. I can add that the solution lies in an uninterrupted factually based critique to totalitarian islam, self-critique in Free World, Tranparency and free speech advocacing and strong and fair political decisions

These decisions should ALWAYS be accompagnied by a huge factual information about the context. Ex : corrupted countries should not be helped financially, and this should be said OFFICIALLY and permanently in mass medias, to not be 'transformed'/interpreted into an attack by the local partisan media. In simpler term, stop using the old fashionned Buisness to Buisness marketing and begin to do Buisness to Consumer marketing , adressed directly to concerned populations, and not to 'diplomacy'.

-------------------------



Hopefully




Your experience bb is really valuable, perhaps more than mine .
but i do not advice you to go to SA as a moslem (not foreigner of course), really...you will see by you eyes what talibania means...and it can hurt...

When I talk on moslems, i rely on :

-Religious sources :
1- koran (the only, the divine source of islm...)
2- hadith (the prophets life, interpretations..., sometimes worse than koran)
3-ijma'a ( the imams accepted interpretations, tha fatwas, the 'dead or living examples to moslems' like the prophts compagnions...)

these are the only and defining sources of islm. Anything different is certainly a consequence of ignorance, which happens to distant culturally, linguistically and geographically countries, or an act of 'courage' and autonomy, trying to invent own version of islm, independently of talibns

-Cultural and politic sources :
4-my 'local' envirenment (however complex and 'worldwide' ...)
5- mass medias (all TV AR, FR, ENG, NAfrrican net forums, ME foums)
6- my mind autonomy, beign born in a 'resistance' milieu, and respecting very different and wider perspectives ...

(
PS : about al-jazeera , double meaning the island - of freedom ?- , and al-jazeera-al-arabia ,the arabic peninsula (in arabic : the island of arabs)
extremly dangerous under the cover of free speech and modernism, double language , void critique, suffice to say that this qatari self-proclamed cnn of the arabic peninsula is not only more biased than cnn, or even fox news , it have also gained a wide acceptance as a 'western-style' channel. I have never seen a SINGLE documentary about SA ! this channel 'discusses' everything, if you see it you have the impression that the whole wold will explod tomorrow, never heard any constructive positive conclusions !

However, i'm not telling that the should throw a bmb on it as the us/uk seemingnly considered it. Free Speech above all, even for the facists, even for the fanatics the dumbs and the E.Ts...
)

-------------------------------------------



Sorry i meant free speech is not threatned by islamists, but by the democracies' citizens that do not use it, and that will lose it. but you I guess you have understood




big is watching us...


---------------------------------



yes, let's hope the americans do not succomb to the temptation of state-censorship or mind-dirigism, behind the justification of "tolerance". Everyone have to remember that tolerance only applies to tolerant individuals, people, religions and cultures. The equality and justice principles should stay above all in a democracy, and both need the ABSOLUTE and UNCONDITIONNAL FREE SPEECH (and belief as a result). Here is why :

-Equality : if we are all humanly equals, no group have the legal right to impose by any means his views on the rest of the citizens.

-Justice: is a mecanism, and cannot act or react without INFORMATION. Obviously, (self)censorship, lies, propaganda, deformation of thruth, and among all half-truths (much worse and EFFICIENT than lies or even illusion...) are the direct ennemies of the natural work of justice in a state-of-law. Retention of information is really nothing compared with law-protected propaganda.

And please, someone someday should tell these Western or democratic, and especially "leftists" politicians and civil society 'responsibles' that the magical word TOLERANCE have nothing to do in a democracy ! democracy in based on rights and duties ! no more, no less ! Tolerance is a religious word, that appears in a context like 'they are our ennemies, but we will do an effort to tolerate them'. this buzz word is so void, that it have an infinity of meanings inside communities, and when applied to democracy, lead simply to INaction, somthing directly opposed to democracy, and largly characteristic of religion fundamentalism, where the 'clerics' think in your place, interpret in your place, make or change laws in your place, decide in your place... and the only choice you have, is to follow and say an AAMEEN... (in arabic please...)

PS :I have nothing personnal agains left, or something pro-right, if these purely political concepts have any real meaning, but it could be an intersting debate of how much, by objective criterias, modern-day 'progressists' are progressists, and 'democrat citizen' are democrats and why....

---------------------



bb, I'm sorry that you still do not understand 3 important things about islam/moslems/umma :

1- In islam, the whole earth is 'ard-Alah' the land of Alah. I you, me of anyone else on this planet say anything, and not only caricatures, about islam that contradicts moslims, especially when it is REAL, TRUE or PROVEN, it is considered by the legitimate defenders of islam (SA, her legions, her petro$-financed worldwide organizations for world 'peace' and 'tolerance'), as a threat to their image of the GodFather. SA were the first country to withdraw it's embassador in DK. But it doesn't stop there.

2- The amalgam between a nation, DK, and a newspaper shows that moslem : a) Do not know WHAT is a state-of-law b) Use tribal nomad references to think, 1 member of DK represents the whole country... c) Have no respctful or human reaction in their religion/culture/education (means same thing, islam is total and global).

3- We can see a living example of what I said before, i.e that the more you get CULTUALLY distant with SA, the more'civilized' you become : no NA government, until now, asked for a boycott, and i haven't heard of any turkish, iranian, lebanese, or NA popular life-threathning reactions, or even boycott. Even Hezbolah (shi'a) is still silent, where hamas (sunna), indonesia (now mostly wahabist thanks to SA$...) and of course the 'arabian' area have already showed 'islamicly' their love and respect, not only for free speech, but also to a sovreign nation or a different, even contradictory culture.



I totally disagree with you. While the cartoons are childish, and do not even help to criticize the real problem (cultural, human, physical, not even religious), silencing the Press while moslems shout loudly 24/7, even before the publication of these cartoons, their hatred and despise, not only against israel, but jews (the confusion btwn IL the country, the ppl, the main religion is typical as DK/danish corps/christianity), hindus, animists, West, Christians, kafirs, etc etc, will play their game, especially the SA game, as it is the case from the begining...of islam.



-bb, moslems are not protesting, in reality, against these cartoons. They are furious because there is at LEAST one country that didn't blend for their unrightful revendications. moslems want a special treatment because they are moslems. because they are special. because the 'umma of mahomet' will win ! this is what they say ! openly 24/7 ! they are already at war. they were already at war and it won't stop. At least, not if Free World continues to 'shut up'...

-About the German hypocrisy : no it wasn't. nor the french that have similar laws. nor DK that have none of these laws. this is a matter of sovreignty (something that umma does not recognize because islam is Alah law, worldwide, while all these kafir's constitutions are only humans), and local history, and it's own ppl choice. The laws are there, because in this country as in france, there was a special dramatic event. These law are there -ideally-to protect agaisnt hatered and antisemitism. moslems have not the right to ask for any exception, because themselves are not only religiously antisemitic, but anti-evrything, xenophobic, and deeply intolerant, unless it is under-their control (and even in this condition, there is still no respect, ask the heretics, dhimmis, salman rushdie, taslima nisrine and others...)

-However, I totally agree with you that these laws are by PRINCIPLE, and in the name of democracy and intelligence bad, for very simple reasons :

1- if their aim is to culpabilize germany, it is already achived, but mutual respect cannot be build on culpability.

2- if their aim is rise awarness about the nazi antisemitism, studying objective history is much more shocking, cruel and efficient that any law can tell in a constitution.

3-laws cannot stop the fact that there is, necesseraly, xenophobes, in genral. the only way to be sure that there will be no more nazi is to track and exterminate ALL nazis, kill them. That reminds something, and has even the same well-intentionned 'purification' and 'cleaning' aim and goal...

4- free speech give us this : honesty, justice, transparency. only these can guaratee a fast and efficient reaction against facist propaganda. hiding a sad but real danger does not resolve it. NAZI were the best propaganda's friends and biggest freedom and free speech ennemies, for good reasons, they burned thousands of books, controlled the medias, and established and avant-gardist propaganda ministry...

5-the jewish community is not above any human law. this is obvious because jews are simple humans and because they participated in european rebirth and know very well its vertues. However, there is a normal communatarian jewish temptation that is inspired by their history, religion, and by actual events in israel that push some to ask for "special rights". I strongly belive that it is not only bad for the jewish culture and intelligence, but also won't help jewish people to self-critique, developp, find durable and human solutions. Which mean that they can also fall in the same cultural trap where moslems fell centuries ago. All ideologies, that are based on supermacies, end in bloody genocides, that destruct morally and intellectually all parties.

6- if these laws are here to protect IL from criticism, they only lead to hide the complexy of a religious and amibitious yet democratic society. IL cannot rely on dumbness to resolve it's problems, or on hypocrisy to face it's challenges. I really believe that IL ppl have more intelligence than what we see on TV, and intelligence has always been and will always be the way humans, can create robust acceptable solutions...



Yes, you have ! and it would be even better to add other cartoons about ALL personnalities, religious or not, to show the world that this brain CENSORSHIP, and VIOLENT reactions, is typical to islam ! yes, others religions will and should protest, but you will not hear about boycotts, bomb threats, national insults, withdrawal of embassadors, or dramatic TV coverage/incitation ! If only IN, JP, KR, CN, EU, US, CA, latinamerica do that to their leaders, religions and politicans.....




Jordanian newspaper have published it to show the cartoons and asked moslems if the images of kidnapping in irak were not more desastrous to islam than that. But later the newspaper sacked the editor and apologized...

----------------





Yes. Perfectly. bb, I will add that a cartoon is not a threat on a life, or even on the existence of the umma as a cultural phenomenon. the irrationnality/emotion is the normal usual state of humans. But when it become a permanent state, it perverts humanity and intelligence. Adding to that perhaps, behind this sad incident lies frustrations/bad treatement in moslem countries where many filipinos live and work...and suffer from multilevel xenophobia, religious, racial, linguistic...
Of course that was not a justification.




Yes, but the community is hopelessly silent, and in politics it means, whether we want it or not, acceptance.



If you mean the whole world, it have always been the case. unfortunatly. If you mean Free World, this is because of the lack of strategy, which means long term. democracies are mostly led by politicians that care more about their (re)election that any other principle. And when it is the case, the principle is rarely constructive, mostly 'arrogant' or 'supremacist'. Which weakens more the Free World, simply because arrogance is toxic for intelligence, and does not allow to take strong, while precise and democratic decisions. In my opinion, the solutions are so simple and efficient that it is a shame few free countries had adopter them ( i think recently Germany, and Canada...). Let me please explain :

1- Nationality, naturalisation, is not a right, it is a PRIVILEGE ! politicians mix between charity, which is a christian religious (kind but naive) concept, and democratic right/duty/individualism. So the naturalization process should not be dependant on the duration of stay/countru of origin/need of the market but simply on a : Public Verbal Alliegance ! this is no more no less than the 'Contrat Social' of Jean-Jaques Rousseau ! it is no suprise that homophobe/antisemit/antichristian/antiwest/antifeminist/antirationnal (openly most of the times !) immigrants, becomes themselves a direct threat against democracy and state-of-law !

What should be noticed also, is that the majority of migrants comes to the West in order to ... have a decent life ! Which is interpreted by the majority as profiting from high quality ($$$) hospitals/life/social security... something that they can even not dream of in their own countries, even the petrolian ones. There is however a minority that come for democracy and freedom.

2- the majority of politicians are really arrogants and ignorants, as they believe/claim that just living in a democracy whould turn any religiofacist, not only moslmefacist, into a respectful democrat ! this is a total ignorance of european heritage and history, whitout even taking into account the own's immigrant history. EVEN refugies from moslem coutries are not necessarly democrats, as many of them have been indeed persecuted by the 'socialist-laic-arabic' movements that were in power during the 50-60-70. Many of the worst leaders of the umma (the worst for democracy of course, but very good for umma...) are indeed british and us refuggees citizens !

So, having a better understanding of geopolitics and human sciences should be IMPOSED to politicians, and National Interests should be
well defined and clearly teached to new migrants, that have to accept them.

At the same time, the refugee status should be extended to all foreigners that share and claim the same democratic ideals as Free World countries. This will have 2 effects, ideally : giving more self-confidence to all reformators inside their own countries, and attracting ppl that want progress to their nations to have a chance to work with the democracies, instead of protecting the masterminds of the 'islam brothers', the salafists, the imperialist xenophobic islamic organizations that are specialized in 'cosmetics' when it come to self-critique.

3- There is apparently no efficient democracy pedagogy in the Free World, as it's politicians and the majority of it's citizens think that it is an election show, and hide the scientific/rationnal heritage from democracy because it is too 'cold', replacing it with mass-mediatic-poetic concept, totally strange to democracy, and even dangerous for it, like, once again : tolrance. (yes, i do not like this term, it is insulting for immigrants because it means 'we have to bear you...', it is insulting for the autochtonous, because it supposes sacrifices in free speech, mostly; and it is insulting for state-of-law, because tolerance means simply...no state-of-law...).


It is an intereseting topic, I think, more constructive that just describing what's happening or deciphering the events. I hope that we will come with intersting proposals or ideas, about the CULTURAL reform in the Free World, in order to be stronger, without sacrifying humanity, (self-)respect and intelligenge, I hope...


-------------------



bb, may I give an advice ? do not dream for an idealist fast perfect solution. what islm has become now is the product of 1400 years of isolationnism (yes GWB were right about the risk for the us of isolationnism), supremacist ideology arabocolonialism and destruction of any kind of opposing ideology, culture and way of life. So please, do not expect that ALL that would disapear in, let's say, 100 years of resistance against islmofascism ! the shock have just begun my friend, and if you value democracy do not let anyone say it have failed, because it is not the case. The POLITICIANS have failed. civilian SOCIETY have failed. world ORGANIZATIONS have failed. inteligence and MILITARY orgs have failed. not democracy. A fascist is dumb and 'blind'. and can never win, unless he plays against more fascist than him....do not lose hope

----------------------



Hello and welcome, Klepke

Unfortunatly, if things were so simple, the pertol-rich countries should be the more democratic, human, produtive, inventive, respectful... obviously this is not the case. Adding to that, even the 'poorest' african countries have an immensly rich soil. Using the 'complot theory' to explain this human failure and tragedy is only a justification that will not help .(even if the world powers, not only restricted to EU and US, are criticable). The sad reality is that underdeveloppement is MAINLY a human underdeveloppemnt. There is a hope however, not based on any foreign aid/support/charity, but on local proudness to be oneself, to be human, to hardwork, to invent, to think to create, to do SCIENCE and stop doing VOID POLITICS !

About the fact that you are pacifist, this is great, really, , but I want to remind you that we crunchers are ALL here pacifists, wasting electricity/computer/time to try to help ALL people on OUR planet, with no discrimination, justification or even obligation. And if we discuss, this is because I believe frankly (and i'm very sure it applies also to jd, bb and the rest) that the best way to protect peace, is to use our brains against the ennemies of peace, that can be specialists of hypocrisy, to understand their tactics, their justifications of 'supermacy', hatered and xenophobia. This 'brain weapon', is much, much more powerful and constructive than 'Chirurgical weapons'. One last thing : Peace is a principle, not a religion. If you belive in peace as a religion, you lose the fight for peace.


-----------------------------



Personnaly, I do not need to sleep, as I'm the Sherminator... ok ok cheap joke hope you regaind some force and happiness after un sommeil réparateur




While this is really welcomed, it is not spontaneaous , nor general.


.


wise words jd, once again

(Ps: 'the lament' : has it the same meaning as lamentation in FR ? if it is the case, jd, i'm really 'disapointed' that you consider what i'm saying as lament, because lamentation in french is related to weakness, loss and submission my bad writing style gives perhaps this emotive impression, but i'm really accepting my condition, thanks Alah . I'm saying all that in this thread only because i have great respect for creativity, freedom and humanism, worldwide, including my own co-citizens, and i see it right from here in danger. I consider what I do rather as a protestation and as an honest description, and i'm trying with great efforts to be objective. Unfortunatly, i have no concrete direct proofs to show you (and i'm not writing in french to express abstract ideas precisely), so it is very understadable that anyone could misinterpred what i said.
However if I'm wrong, i apologize for the 'sermon' and of course, you're absolutly free to think and to write what you want
)


-------------------------------------------



Yes very good idea indeed. This is democratic realism. religion is part of our lives, in any form. we cannot just deny it's existence, so I totally agreee with you bb that religionS should be taught in philosophy (labeled theology ) classes, in order to have some relativity in mind. but the education of responsible teachers have to be enlightning, not mystifying. A big challenge...


----------------

Now jd and bb, I think we should make a place for some construction : how can a free human interfere positivly with moslim culture, not ony individuals ?

-----------



Ok, so Good night and good luck

We will have time to discuss the last few excellent posts in more detail. For the time being the first order of business for me is to clear up any misconceptions that you have referred to, Neilsham. Sincerely, thank you for bringing them to my attention. After all, if I had decided to insult you then it would be quite embarrasing to realize that I had done such a poor job of it that you weren't actually certain that I had!

Seriously, my friend, there is no easier place to have your words misinterpreted than the internet. For this reason it is particularly important for each of us to take more time than is ordinarily customary to ensure that we are properly understood; and if we are not, to ensure that we correct any unintentional errors.


The term Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder has both a formal and a venacular meaning. Not to marginalize the formal disorder, the venacular term is used to refer to individuals who are of above average intelligent, persistent and who exhibit the frustrating tendency to appear as if they are in a mad dash to "squeeze it all in" as if there is "justnotenoughtimetofititallin." Often these individuals have been raised in an environment which stifles or inhibits their natural talents, as opposed to nurturing or facilitating them. Depending upon the context in which the term is used, in the venacular it is considered to be either "neutral (with just a hint of criticism)" or as a "left-handed" way of paying the individual a complement (with a mild, but humorous acknowlegment of the obvious.) I will assume that at this point, ns, you know exactly how I had intended for it to be taken.


O.K., ns, it is now time for you and I to share a good laugh at no one's expense.

You are correct about the language differences. Frankly, if I or anyone else had read your posts on this thread and concluded that you exhibit the characteristics of weakness, loss and submission they would have to be partially brain dead. In fact, you are one of the very few individuals living in a Moslim society who has had the clarity and independence of thought to state their observations with complete conviction. If anything, you come across as bold, perhaps to the point of being foolhardy (considering the fact that your neighbors would probably not appreciate you if they read your posts.)

The following is the definition of lament from the internet search.

#1 noun: a cry of sorrow and grief
#2 noun: a mournful poem; a lament for the dead
#3 noun: a song or hymn of mourning composed to a dead person
#4 verb: express grief verbally (Example: "We lamented the death of the child")
#5 verb: regret strongly (Example: "We lamented the loss of benefits")

The key terms are simply mourning/grief/regret and dead. There is no connotation of weakness or submission as the term is used in the U.S.

In American venacular a neutral context "lament" means that you are saddened by the price that your fellow citizens and society, as a whole, pays each day for living under such a repressive and tyrannical regime/religion.

In the active sense your words are both a defiant protest and a compassionate eulogy for whole of the Muslim world that live under this repression.

[As a humorous aside: I somehow do not find it inconsistent that the French culture and Muslim culture would share a common hypersensitivity, shall we say, to any potential innuendos regarding a lack of "real manliness" that inevitably finds it way into everyday parlance.]

Now that we have that cleared up I would like to share one observation with you, neilsham. Your decision to spend more time organizing and articulating your thoughts has been far more useful then you probably realize.

When I read you initial posts it was impossible to tell if the difficulty in readability of your posts was due to language differences (translation), excessive energy & enthusiasm, or perhaps early signs of a formal thought disorder.

Your increased attention to the manner of exposition of your thoughts has not only made your ideas more lucid; it has increased the aesthetic value of your posts (they are becoming more enjoyable to read as literature in their own right); and you are coming across as a considerably more mature and integrated thinker than before. In plain words: The brilliance (yes, I am quite serious in my use of the term) was there, but it was severly obscured by the poor attention to the necessary conventions of composition and exposition.

Thanks, & keep it up!

(NOTE: Added to original post 2 hours later.)

Just finished re-reading you last, ns, several times. It is simply an incredible post. I look forward to continuing the dialogue soon.

My apologies for hacking apart your post, ns; but if you insist on writing a bloody book, then you have earned this just reward for causing us to read it. My only preface: We seem to think remarkably alike.


Yes, of course, this is the difference between dogma vs. wisdom: “the dried-out withered husk of truth” (Hegel) vs. vibrant living truth.


Yes, without a doubt hostages of both their leaders and their culture/religion. In fact, the Muslim culture is the perfect cultural model for what is called in psychoanalytic theory, the “paranoid-schizoid” character disorder. The acid test of this hostage-hypothesis is to repeatedly observe the individual Muslim apart from his normal social context and under various conditions. We need only look at individuals such as you, ns, who are freed to develop apart from these unhealthy cultural constraints. The incredible power of an autocratic culture to influence and shaped the individual is broached by Erick Fromm in his book “Escape From Freedom,” which I highly recommend.

------------------------------


Great metaphor: From B2B to B2C, sans diplomacy. Of course, this goes back to the problem that the “expert sources” will always be somehow linked to the political system, either directly (politics) or indirectly (academia). If we were to find that source; then who would report it, because tragically they would have to first ask themselves that one fateful question: We could, but who would really listen?

-------------------------


Never underestimate the capacity for political indifference/apathy by the American public.


Many people parrot the words without having any clue as to why this statement is so true.


Your thesis vis-à-vis the legitimate function of tolerance in a democratic society eludes me. You appear to view the word tolerance as implying that the tolerating person/group is intrinsically in an assumed position of superiority. This assumed superiority, by definition, is not consistent with democratic ideals. When it comes to religion, however, it is perhaps this intrinsic superiority-dynamic that separates the “us” from the “not us.” Still, it is easy to see how the use of the term “tolerance” would eventually generalize to other areas of social life in an ideal democratic society, even if it did initially referred to strictly religious differences. Since other activities, such as politics, can easily become highly emotionally charged (as they do in the case of religious affiliations) the individual may then incorporate this “idealized belief system” into his self-identity. When these idealized beliefs become equal to the self-definition, it logically follows that this person naturally perceives “anyone with different views on this subject” as now “fundamentally different from me.” He would then need to behave “with tolerance” to others with different views on the issue. (Again, I am merely speculating as to your actual meaning, ns.)


Ah, if this were only possible. As Britain’s post Thatcher experience illustrates, the modern global community precludes static ideologically-based platforms (even about domestic issues such as health care reforms). This is the era of dynamic issues and trends analysis that must be considered in relationship to globally fluctuating political and economic dynamics. This further blurs the distinctions between parties and agendas. The real obstacle is that same sad truth: politics thrives on appearances and rhetoric; not on substance and results.

---------------------


Yes!


Good Lord. I have ears! I can hear! I can hear!


Ns, will you marry me?


Thank you, ns. I had not considered how great a premium would be placed on acceptance; blending in; and achieving social as well as political integration. The last thing they would want to do is to draw attention to themselves as Muslims: A very foolish oversight on my part.


Perhaps we should create a new descriptive term for this failure: Glad to govern; but too timid to lead.


Yes, we are in agreement up to here. (I was particularly encouraged when I learned that GBs New Labour had encorporated this concept as an integral part of their fundamental political platform.) Then I am afraid that I lost your meaning. Would you care to restate items 1-3?


The last half of item 3 is very nicely said - that is until the last phrase. I assume that you are referring to the familiar dialectic that any affirmative concept implies its own negation; thus to say "act with tolerance" implies that there exists an ongoing intolerance? Is so, I shouldn't believe that this logic applies to formative definitions, rules of conduct, and so on.

-------------------


Exactly. However, this in turn is more of a strategic and economic breakdown than what is generally assumed to be a moral or ethical breakdown by the “richer” countries. This common view is utter and complete nonsense. Without long-term, intelligent, internationally based human civil engineering of entire communities and cities there will never be an end to overpopulation, poor fresh water management, malnutrition, crime etc. It is not a moral issue. It is a logistical problem and it is staggering in its scope.

-----------------------------


You gentlemen may wish to consider making it a subdivision of History, instead. Do you really think it is a good idea to study religion apart from the actual social, psychological, cultural and historic determinants that actually shape the ideologies? There are lots of mines in this field.

----------------


Please, you first, ns.

Now, here is a statement that is bound to get a few “glances.” While I have not yet come up with any solutions other than the slow process of dialogues such as these that build consensus through genuinely open and honest assessments of reality; I have come up with a policy that could actually serve to resurrect Great Britain to its former pre-eminent, pre-WWII status. Of course, I will undoubtedly be dismissed as “affected” for this statement, or at least grandiose; (perhaps simply irreverent, if I am that lucky). Unfortunately, I am quite serious and quite certain that it could succeed. Now, if some of our British friends could just have Mr. Blair contact me, we could discuss it over some hot tea.

NOTE: This was added late the next morning. In the paragraph above, I stated: While I have not yet come up with any solutions other than the slow process of dialogues such as these that build consensus through genuinely open and honest assessments of reality; ...

As ns boldy and directed stated: "ABSOLUTE Free speech is essential!" My pithy comment perhaps detracted from the importance of this concept. While most of us are not psychoanalytically trained, if a science of human beviour in particular, is valid it is because it formalizes reality in such a way as to promote meaninful exploration and discovery, while minimizing potential confusion and miscommunication.

The Freudian technique (the "talking cure") is probably well known to all of us. We are all equally familiar with the benefits of having an honest and caring "ear" in times of trouble or misfortune. Many of us have also had the pleasure of working in with a small dedicated group in which "brainstorming" is vital to progress and the achievement of difficult goals. Freedom of speech is based upon the awareness that truth is not a thing, such as a static idea or ideology, but a creative process which facilitates: the taking of risks necessary to change erroneous views; the courage to explore unkown risks and dangers; and most importantly slowly developing the trust in each other conducive to the process of unraveling the "layers of the onion" under which lie the best of each of us and the worst of each of us. This process continues until we eventually reach that core "true human heritage" of total healthy interdependence as a community which paradoxically (to those of us who have not yet achieved it) serves to encourage the complete independence of each and every member of the community.

If just one artificial constraint is introduced into this process (absolute free speech is compromised or abridged), rest assured that this exception is the very one place that our fears, anxieties and lies will immediately seek out to avoid those particular painful truths, whatever they may be. Eventually, this "partial truth" will subvert our sincere hard work.

'When a man lies to himself, he destroys some part of the world.'

It is my firm belief that each of us knows this to be as fundamentally true as is gravity. It is unfortunate that we have not yet developed sufficiently as a "world culture" to have the social resources required to acknowledge it. But we must harbour abolutely no doubts that despite our apparent feelings of superiority, arrogance and contempt, the only obstacle to global human freedom and respect is our hidden feelings of self-contempt.

A man who truly respects himself, respects all things equally, without judgment or prejudice. Contemptuous hatred in any form is always a projection of internal self-loathing. These feeling are spawned in a personal hell in which total annihilation (the boundaries between the self and the external word are obscurred) is the only possible escape from excruciating pain and anxiety.

The world can not cause this; nor can the world cure it. Just as every healthy adult refuses to compromise or give-in to the furious rage of a toddler having a temper tantrum; for the sake of all things in this world equally, hater and hated alike, the world must never in any way either excuse or indulge these abjectly destructive behaviors.

Sometimes there are no good solutions, just necessary ones.