ORW
you mean they play our congress like the fiddle?
I'm looking for a link. At one time, the US took responsibility for the security of Israel according to a UN agreement. At least, that's the history I learned in high school and at least one college class. Of course, I would think the link I'm looking for would be more apparent, so ... hmmm.
This is probabl entirly wrong, but wasn't it senator ashcoft who wanted to censor the internet?
Ashcroft, Clinton, Reno ...
Freedom of speech on the internet seems to be the biggest enemy of supressing world wide information to the people.
It could become more important a development in human communication than the printing press.
To me, the biggest problem with religion is that its taboo, and this all ties in with politics. No one wants to come out and say "this is just flat out wrong".
Agreed in great part. I generally state it as a comparison: Where "chocolate or vanilla" doesn't have tremendous consequences, "Christian, Atheist, or Muslim" (or any other religion) does. This is because religions are superstitions designed to affect not just the manifestation of a person's will but the fundamental will itself.
religion also preys on weak minded people who feel hey need it, their victims come to them.
I hear you. So do politicians.
There are some religions, though, that actually seek to chase the "weak" away. Sufism, for instance, reminds everybody who comes to it, "You
do not want to do this!"
people who are deeply embedded in religion are incapable of having rational discussion about what others seem to find as flaws in their "perfect philosiphy"
As an American, I've found that religion has little or nothing to do with that, or more accurately, does not have the corner on the market.
politics is extremly complicated, and uses religion to their advantage every chance it gets. Religion is but another channel to deliver propaganda to the people.
I agree, but so is "greed". Do you consider "patriotism" to be a religion?
I personally have never read the quaran, nor will anyone reading a translation of the quaran read what is actually written there. All I have to go by is what I've seen and read and heard.
I agree about translations, but the same can be said of the Bible. I've argued here with posters before who
insist that KJV is definitive.
Watching TV news is like watching the surface of the river. It shows you a little bit of what's going on, but you must use your skills to determine which process is what. I can see the eddy. I can't see the structures causing it, and must look for them.
So it is with news stories.
or do I even have my own thoughts?
I generally would say so. But I might suggest considering the idea that you set the boundaries for your perceptions and thoughts. Of course they're your own thoughts no matter where they come from, but if like many your information flow is restricted to Gannett newspapers or CNN or the like, you're trapped in a narrow range of considerations. Think about my local TV news: The lead story is whatever reality show was on during primetime. The story breaks that Hussein tells Rather that he wants to debate Bush. The lead story is "Joe Millionaire", as I recall. Or one of my favorites, "Chilling footage from Rhode Island as a nightclub fire kills an estimated dozens. But first an update on ______ (fill in reality show from affiliated network)."
Is
a rebroadcast of "Evan and Zora's first kiss" really that important? Is the ten minutes of Jackson-related analysis really newsworthy? Makes it easier to fit less than one side of a war into the news, makes it easier to ignore local and possibly national scandals of police departments failing to investigate murders and missing people, or thousands of Muslims swept away and hidden by our government behind a veil of secrecy.
:m:,
Tiassa