Friday, June 16, 2006
Secular is far better than Religious values --isn't it ?
After all -all religions do is create wars. NO as Ghandi said - Men create wars
One of the greatest paradoxes of the new milleneum is the Failuer of most antireligiuos elements in the West to take their own tutors seriously.
Modern mind Science supports the idea and importance of all people having "a religion" Its good for you to have one , maybe even necessary! -
Shock horror you say, just don't call it that, like the ageing reactionaries in the West do .Boxing into thin air !
The box is not to be rejected but assimulated
People need a world view to live.Sure they use a world vew to kill too , but take the whole idea seriously or all the West will do is find excuses to DO nothing and DO nothing positive to resist WV that we disagree with .
DENIAL of this reality turns attention away from theeal issue in politial affairs yes religion is critical and if you need a new word for it try World view .
American theologian William Cavanaugh at Melbourne University this month, and I largely follow his argument.
This myth plays a valuable role for secularists. It helps them marginalise Christians and demonise Muslims, and creates a blind spot about violence by the West. It confirms an "us" (the rational, peace-making, secular West) against a "them" (violent fanatics in the Muslim world). To quote Cavanaugh: " Their violence is religious, and therefore irrational and divisive. Our violence, on the other hand, is rational, peace-making and necessary. Regrettably, we find ourselves forced to bomb them into the higher rationality."
Most religious believers have bought this myth, too. They try to fight it by two arguments. First, they say that violence in the name of religion is really usually about politics or economics. Second, they claim that people who perpetrate violence, by definition — the Crusaders, for example — are not really religious. Australian Muslims constantly say this of terrorists: "These people aren't really Muslims, because Islam is a religion of peace." I understand their predicament, but the argument doesn't work.
First, it's impossible to separate religious motives from the rest to make religion innocent. So the first argument by defenders of religion shares the same flaw as the myth itself. How can you separate religion from politics in Islam when Muslims themselves make no such separation?
Completre article - three pages :
One of the greatest paradoxes of the new milleneum is the Failuer of most antireligiuos elements in the West to take their own tutors seriously.
Modern mind Science supports the idea and importance of all people having "a religion" Its good for you to have one , maybe even necessary! -
Shock horror you say, just don't call it that, like the ageing reactionaries in the West do .Boxing into thin air !
The box is not to be rejected but assimulated
People need a world view to live.Sure they use a world vew to kill too , but take the whole idea seriously or all the West will do is find excuses to DO nothing and DO nothing positive to resist WV that we disagree with .
DENIAL of this reality turns attention away from theeal issue in politial affairs yes religion is critical and if you need a new word for it try World view .
American theologian William Cavanaugh at Melbourne University this month, and I largely follow his argument.
This myth plays a valuable role for secularists. It helps them marginalise Christians and demonise Muslims, and creates a blind spot about violence by the West. It confirms an "us" (the rational, peace-making, secular West) against a "them" (violent fanatics in the Muslim world). To quote Cavanaugh: " Their violence is religious, and therefore irrational and divisive. Our violence, on the other hand, is rational, peace-making and necessary. Regrettably, we find ourselves forced to bomb them into the higher rationality."
Most religious believers have bought this myth, too. They try to fight it by two arguments. First, they say that violence in the name of religion is really usually about politics or economics. Second, they claim that people who perpetrate violence, by definition — the Crusaders, for example — are not really religious. Australian Muslims constantly say this of terrorists: "These people aren't really Muslims, because Islam is a religion of peace." I understand their predicament, but the argument doesn't work.
First, it's impossible to separate religious motives from the rest to make religion innocent. So the first argument by defenders of religion shares the same flaw as the myth itself. How can you separate religion from politics in Islam when Muslims themselves make no such separation?
Completre article - three pages :
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Clue for the labor party
I don't like seeing the comfortable conservatives gloating either.What labor is missing is clear, but not to them . They are too busy on tracks they are unwilling to get off .Old habits .
What they need is to take seriuosly values and wholistic medicine to cut off the conservatives at the pass ( the key issue is speed and vehicle, not direction ) we are agreed ----the conservatives often drive a clapped out model.
What they need is to take seriuosly values and wholistic medicine to cut off the conservatives at the pass ( the key issue is speed and vehicle, not direction ) we are agreed ----the conservatives often drive a clapped out model.
Monday, January 03, 2005
Unecessary Post Modern blues
The left's commitment to reactionary politics doesn't make sense.There is a lot of good in our culture- the challenge is to find it amongst the barrage of cynical reactionary stuff that has been so much part of the 60's generation idea of news since then . After all its broadly "the West"that anticipates plans and prevents. There would have lots less casualties from a tsunami if it happened in the Pacific.
Sunday, December 12, 2004
The technocolour yawn of consumer ethics
Modern theology is a mess. You don't get wholistic worldviews by picking and choosing from the supermarket shelves.
To get away from the sickening overload and indigestion of 'such and such value "first you get out of the "consumer is king"paradigm and look for something that actually works.
Example : Silence in the new ABCchurch? John Cleary’ s program ABC local radio 12 December Sunday night
The church of God hasn’t failed mate. Secularism has ! Take Nannyism ( check out blogspot ). Take political correctness. Take meddling social policies that cost the earth, but do not cut where it counts. Chesterton was right to predict it --a whole century of no progress for the reactionaries, the new theologians and there costly rhetoric .
Old lefties and rebels from the faith of our forefathers don’t have influence: They have jobs in the public service where they meddle and nit pick . The faith of our forefathers was on a proven , effective and efficient road to liberty and freedom. The faith of those who have rejected that faith is now in the law and its extremely costly, unsustainable , pedantic and politically correct” thou shalt not talk “policies .
To get away from the sickening overload and indigestion of 'such and such value "first you get out of the "consumer is king"paradigm and look for something that actually works.
Example : Silence in the new ABCchurch? John Cleary’ s program ABC local radio 12 December Sunday night
The church of God hasn’t failed mate. Secularism has ! Take Nannyism ( check out blogspot ). Take political correctness. Take meddling social policies that cost the earth, but do not cut where it counts. Chesterton was right to predict it --a whole century of no progress for the reactionaries, the new theologians and there costly rhetoric .
Old lefties and rebels from the faith of our forefathers don’t have influence: They have jobs in the public service where they meddle and nit pick . The faith of our forefathers was on a proven , effective and efficient road to liberty and freedom. The faith of those who have rejected that faith is now in the law and its extremely costly, unsustainable , pedantic and politically correct” thou shalt not talk “policies .
Monday, November 29, 2004
The left doesn't want to grow up
At the heart of the lefts's stumbling through the last few years is their unwillingness to give up their favourite toys. How long will they continue to rely on cheap digs at the clearly critical issues of establishment matters.
