Out with the Neo-Con We Say!

[Doc]

I?m not sure if people voted for Bush because he is or they are religious. I think that they voted for him because he ?sounds? religious. This is more about religious feeling than by the book religion. Bush sounds moral and interested. I don?t think people really care that much about if he is or if they themselves are. People operate on a lot of feelings rather than facts or hard ideas.

So, I think that this is an example of religion getting really watered down in this culture. I bet almost no one reads the bible, but instead they want to hear biblical kind of things. You would think that folks would be more interested since god wrote the bible! However, they aren?t or they never think about it. So, I propose that taking a religion from dogma to feeling is a sign of it?s end.

Exit polls showed Bush's faith to be a key factor in people's decision to vote for him. Whether or not that translates to anyone's religious beliefs is irrelevant, because as you say, people operate more on feelings than facts or hard ideas. Not coincidentally, religion, too, is based more on feelings than facts or hard ideas. Dogma ossifies those feelings, which stagnates them. Many religious scholars argue that a return to feeling-based spirituality is a direct response to hard-line, text-based fundamentalism. It is still fundamentalism of a different sort, but that is a sign of its entrenchment, not its decline, and certainly not its end.

As for you anger management comment to PWV--

Put people under the magnifying glass when they ask. Get over yourself and don't use your credentials as some kind of weapon, especially when you use them to make an unfounded argument. That is the last resort of someone with nothing to support what they think. It cheapens what you say and insults the people here with baseless arrogance.

[PsychicWarVeteran]

Psychology moment: This was meant to be humorous.

Really? I didn't get that. I guess use a smiley or something next time.

It turns out that I was right though (as I place my Dr. Evil pinky to my lips).

Talk about arrogant with a little blindness thrown in.

Huh? Now I'm all kinds of confused. Whatever. You're not interested in debate; you're interested in trolling. I'm getting bored.

[Jerico]

I'll stop the world, I melt with you. You've seen the difference and it's getting better all the time.

The future is open wide

[Omaru]

I'll stop the world, I melt with you. You've seen the difference and it's getting better all the time.

The future is open wide

lol
Thanks, Jerico. It was beginning to bore me, too.

[Mikey_C]

I must say I find it a bit sad people are falling out over this. Such is the nature of "political" threads I guess. If I can risk getting psychological may I suggest there's some fear behind some of this? Not surprising perhaps in an unstable world, but dangerous as a motivator.

I also get the impression that noone on this thread (certainly not I!) is or even claims to be an expert on Islamic culture or religion, still we live in democracies (just about) and have a right to express ourselves about what is one of the biggest issues around (I would be tempted to say the biggest, but I think it is tiny in comparison to ongoing genocides caused by starvation and preventable diseases and the impending likelihood of environmental catastrophe).

I'm afraid if anyone is going to use the "Nazi" comparison they need to be incredibly precise and outline exactly where the similarities lie. Otherwise it's just below the belt emotionalism. I hear this said about Israel too, and reject it there as well. Also, talking about the pre-WW2 scenario this opens up wide debate about how much the Holocaust could have been foreseen, or was even preplanned at that stage. My personal impression is that it could have been and it was, but that just might reflect my own prejudices as the "appeasors" were largely on the Right at that time. Certainly it was plain that Hitler's economic policies were expansionary but we'll let that lie.

At the end of the day I think we're all agreed on the fact that religious extremism and communal politics of any shape or form are a Bad Thing. We differ on whether we agree with the benevolence or effectiveness of a belligerent US / British foreign policy in dealing with this. Now if the US is now dedicated to spreading sweetness and light throughout the world, as some of the well-intentioned left(ish) apologists for Mr Blair would have us believe - at which point did this change - as the record proves otherwise. Let's not forget who built up Bin Laden, supported and armed Saddam Hussein, etc, etc, surely all this doesn't need to be repeated?

My personal view is the world's being suckered. I don't think there's any great conflict of interest behind Islamic fundamentalism and US corporatism. The neo-cons can gains support at home through the fear they create, meanwhile shafting everyone with their free-market lunacy, whilst the Islamic Fundamentalists can seize control and repress their own population by exploiting legitimate grievances against the West. Once in power, they could strike some deals together. Anyone read "1984"? Nothing like a war to keep us under control. We had this with Maggie and the Falklands. Without that war, she'd have been out and the world could look very different. "Oh by Jingo!"

Please, people - drop the fear and look at what's going on.

[Jerico]

Good one, mate