GENIUS FORUMS

To comment on the entire religious aspect of this conflict; is it any wonder that the most violent and opressive times in the history of civilization occur when religious fundamentalism is at the helm? It seems as if mankind is a broken record that keeps repeating history over and over again. Like a pendelum that swings between religious fundamentalism and enlightenment. Looks like the pendelum is heading back towards fundamentalism again.

I prefer to think of it like an egg, rolling end-over-end lengthwise on a slight slope. Human actions build up kinetic power which causes the egg to move. When the centre of gravity is to the left, which is released when the egg rolls over the peak and the centre of gravity moves to the right side of the egg, and as a result the speed of change to the right can be very fast. Just paint the egg on one vertical side Liberal/Atheist and the other side Conservative/Fundamentalist - each will have their turn on top.

Scott wrote:

Ray, that annoying poster a while ago, was right about at least this one thing - "politics is entertainment for the damned".

So very true.

I read this one the other day, "Politics is the art of swallowing toads without making a face."

I'm still wondering why so many people on this thread are getting heated by what is essentially the activity of insects.

If we are going to get all passionate about what is currently happening in the Middle East, why aren't we also being as passionate about, say, the political intrigue which occurred in the Boer War, or in the murder of Augustus Caesar in Ancient Rome, or indeed in the local anthill?

Marsha earlier criticized some people here for making "off the cuff" comments about this issue. But to my mind, if you are not making off the cuff comments about this isse, then there is something seriously wrong.

-

[edited for grammer - DQ]

What we need is for more Australians to take part in world affairs :).. If the Al Aksa mosque was attacked now by some fundie Christian group, then the shit could really hit the fan.

On February 1, 1981, an article "Islam Reborn" written by Don A. Schanche appeared in the Opinion section of The Los Angeles Times. It related the following information:

The Islamic conference, for example, was born in a worldwide surge of Muslim outrage over the August, 1969, burning of Jerusalem's Al Aksa mosque, third holiest shrine in Islam after Mecca and Medina, by a deranged Australian Jew, who many Muslims believed was a pawn in a Zionist plot. The call to gather in Rabat, Morocco, to unify and do something to redress the outrage drew only 25 of the more than 40 nations in the world with Muslim majorities. With only one cause to unite them, the kings and presidents talked for only a day and issued a call for the restoration of Arab sovereignty over Jerusalem and other territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Then they adjourned. The meeting and the newly founded organization were all but ignored by the rest of the world.... Last week, with its membership now grown to 42, but attendance weakened by the suspension of Egypt and Soviet-occupied Afghanistan and the pointed absence of Iran and Libya, the Islamic conference went a long way toward achieving its long-sought goal of power in unity.

I think a Crusading William the LionHeart, the Christian Conqueror from South Philly, galloping an assault to the heavily manned and protected Black Rock shrine in Mecca would be a remarkable bit cinematography, if the right people pulled it off.

Of course Saladin and his flying chariots would be defending as well as the Djinn of someone's polished bottle. Just don't let Spielberg direct it, please. It would be an epic battle and I can see myself devouring popcorn as a result.

Leyla,

DQ: Again, we are talking about seriously deluded people who are living in their own paranoid, nightmare world and who are beyond the reach of all reason. There is no such thing as a wise Muslim teacher, just as there is no such thing as a wise Ku Klux Klan leader.

LS: Is there such a thing as a wise Christian teacher and, if so, how do you define one?

No, a wise Christian teacher cannot possibly exist, for essentially the same reason - because, like Islam, the Christian religion is a pack of lies from top to bottom, and beyond salvaging.

On the other hand, Christianity is far more likely to produce wise teachers than Islam because there is actually some genuine wisdom in the Gospels. Soren Kierkegaard and Meister Eckhart, for example, were able to use these few wise passages in the Gospels as an inspiration to become wise themselves. But in doing so, they had to completely renounce the standard conception of Christianity.

Kierkegaard even spent the last part of his life openly attacking the Christian religion, which was a big deal in those days since nearly everyone in Denmark was a Christian.

-

Tharan,

You got a problem with Speilberg? Munich was great.

Spielberg is a man-child. *edit* An austistic savant.

David:

I'm still wondering why so many people on this thread are getting heated by what is essentially the activity of insects.

If we are going to get all passionate about what is currently happening in the Middle East. why aren't we also being as passionate about, say, the political intrigue which occurred in the Boer War, or in the murder of Augustus Caesar in Ancient Rome, or indeed in the local anthill?

You post this thought, which is filled with wisdom, then you follow with this emotional based sweeping blanket statement.

No, a wise Christian teacher cannot possibly exist, for essentially the same reason - because, like Islam, the Christian religion is a pack of lies from top to bottom, and beyond salvaging.

What lies? The records and eyewitness accounts are as valid as one can find anywhere in history. You might be refering to the ludicrous interpretations and varying doctrines, that does not invalidate the texts themselves.

I can tell you right now, you cannot disprove in regard to the records, there is overwhelming proof of the texts. I have spent decades in study and tried my very best to disprove the records. You might think this is just irrational chest beating, I am telling you, after decades of objective study, the records are as ironclad as one can possibly find.

You might want to check the Nag Hammadi records first. Fifty books, with brand new authors that have not been read for almost two thousand years and they all concur with the New Testament records. Books that have just been translated in the last twenty years. Books that have not been seen or read or even knew existed - and they all, everyone, validate the eyewitness accounts. They even quote the same identical statements.

I grow weary of the mindless wave of the hand in regard to the accounts of Jesus, you simply do not know the facts because if you did - you could not possibly, logically, make this statement

"the Christian religion is a pack of lies from top to bottom, and beyond salvaging."

I ask again - what lies?

On the other hand, Christianity is far more likely to produce wise teachers than Islam because there is actually some genuine wisdom in the Gospels. Soren Kierkegaard and Meister Eckhart, for example, were able to use these few wise passages in the Gospels as an inspiration to become wise themselves. But in doing so, they had to completely renounce the standard conception of Christianity.

This I agree with for the most part.

The only point I would disagree with is " few wise passages ".
That however, is subjective and is a matter of what leads us to truth.

Scott,

Help me out if I get this wrong...you said that because the US imports a lot of crude oil, it means they're stealing it from the middle east?

No.

Or at least trying to get it cheaper?

Not quite.

You posted links to websites which had the numbers, claiming that the government is revealing that it's doing this.

No. I posted a link to a government website disclosing those figures.

But I don't think that just because like half of the US's crude oil is imported, it means that the war in Iraq is about oil. We've always gotten oil from other places in the world.

Statements I have made -- that is, ones without your emotional spin on them based on God knows who you’ve been listening to -- tend to go something like this, “The US has substantial interest in oil in the Middle East.” But, I’m glad that you are now actually thinking about it and asking me directly for clarification.

If the numbers have risen, perhaps it was just because we don't want to use up our own reserves! Not because the war was about getting more oil for less money.

How do you propose the US government protects its reserves if OPEC enforces trade embargoes? Do you think other suppliers and political relations simply and suddenly appear out of nowhere to fill the consequent hole that brings oil dependent countries to their knees?

.

BeingofOne wrote:

DQ: No, a wise Christian teacher cannot possibly exist, for essentially the same reason - because, like Islam, the Christian religion is a pack of lies from top to bottom, and beyond salvaging.

BO: What lies? The records and eyewitness accounts are as valid as one can find anywhere in history. You might be refering to the ludicrous interpretations and varying doctrines, that does not invalidate the texts themselves.

I can tell you right now, you cannot disprove in regard to the records, there is overwhelming proof of the texts. I have spent decades in study and tried my very best to disprove the records. You might think this is just irrational chest beating, I am telling you, after decades of objective study, the records are as ironclad as one can possibly find. [

You might want to check the Nag Hammadi records first. Fifty books, with brand new authors that have not been read for almost two thousand years and they all concur with the New Testament records. Books that have just been translated in the last twenty years. Books that have not been seen or read or even knew existed - and they all, everyone, validate the eyewitness accounts. They even quote the same identical statements.

They may well be valid historical records, but I don't really care either way. What matters is whether or not wisdom is being directly expressed in the words in the here and now. The origins of the words are unimportant, unless your only interest is finding somebody to hero-worship.

In my opinion, around 15%-20% of the Gospels expresses wisdom (a compilation of which can be found here). The rest is rubbish.

The Christian religion, in all of its various forms, is a pack of lies because it steadfastly ignores the wisdom in the Gospels and focuses solely upon the rubbish.

Or as a prescient Jesus himself once said, "The stone the builder rejected has become the cornerstone". From the very beginnings of its emergence, Christianity has always been built out of the values and concepts that Jesus (and other wise men) reject.

For example, Jesus expressly rejected the idea of marriage and stressed that no one who valued Truth would ever consider getting married. Yet not only do ministers and priest around the world completely ignore this, but they happily earn their income presiding over weddings and giving married couples their blessing! All done in the name of Jesus too!

Talk about kicking Jesus in the balls and stomping on his face.

-

Dan Rowden wrote to Kevin Solway:

Oh, hang on! How come you're allowed to engage in factless, wild speculation and I'm not? Doesn't seem fair. You're just trying to oppress me. You are quite the Jew, Kevin.

My funny bone must be asleep – I know you are joking, but I just don’t get it.

Plus I'm not sure why you think there is actually insufficient evidence to reasonably speculate that those guys knew in advance. I wouldn't have speculated such a thing if I hadn't first followed the evidence trail. It's not like their actions and arrest are a conspiracy theory.

Another joke – “evidence trail” – much funnier!

-
Sue

drowden wrote:I'm not sure why you think there is actually insufficient evidence to reasonably speculate that those guys knew in advance.

Dan, there is no evidence.

Let's speculate that they heard a rumour that something would happen in New York at that time. Does that mean they knew something was definitely going to happen, and knew exactly what would happen? No, it doesn't logically follow.

David:

What matters is whether or not wisdom is being directly expressed in the words in the here and now. The origins of the words are unimportant, unless your only interest is finding somebody to hero-worship.

Or dissing heros, that way you can be antihero worshipper.

What is your opinion of Siddharta?

You said "the Christian religion is a pack of lies from top to bottom, and beyond salvaging." - that is a blanket statement.

I could say "the Buddhist teachings are a pack of lies from top to bottom, and beyond salvaging." - that would only show my lack of knowledge and railing against God knows what.

In my opinion, around 15%-20% of the Gospels expresses wisdom (a compilation of which can be found here). The rest is rubbish.

That is your opinion indeed. Your teaching is far above most all Christian ministers David, it is not, in any way, superior to the teachings of Jesus. This is, in essence, what you are saying and it is just a lack of understanding on your part.

Everyone seems to know more and be smarter than Jesus these days - what an amazing phenomenon. Its like a Christian who 'knows' more than the Buddha - funny that.

My opinion is that you should ask me what the 'rubbish' means so that you could clarify your understanding. More than likely this 'rubbish' part is Jesus dealing with the ignorance of his listeners but that takes study and dedication rather than just blanket comparisons of knee jerk reaction.

Go ahead - hit me with your best shot of this 'rubbish'.

The Christian religion, in all of its various forms, is a pack of lies because it steadfastly ignores the wisdom in the Gospels and focuses solely upon the rubbish.

And Buddhism doesn`t do that eh?

They keep the limb of the tree alive and replant this limb that Gautama sat under to regrow the tree, real wisdom springing up from Buddhism.

I have relatives that are Vietnamese Buddhists and I can assure you that ignorance is not limited to your standards.

Have you seen the videos of Buddhist monks fistfighting? It is a real eye opener.

There is no superior form - that is a myth and delusion. It is in individuals that wisdom is found regardless the 'form'.

Or as a prescient Jesus himself once said, "The stone the builder rejected has become the cornerstone". From the very beginnings of its emergence, Christianity has always been built out of the values and concepts that Jesus (and other wise men) reject.

And so has Buddhism, Hinduism, and all Monotheistic religions.

The double standard approach has never worked and will never work - in fact its why the recent war was fought.

If you think there is a superior form than Christianity, lets hear it.

David, you must rise above all forms and be that which transcends all ignorance not participate in line drawing. You are contributing to being part of the problem instead of the solution.

I could say "all those that practice the teachings of the Buddha are deluded" - that does not make any contribution to anything and yet if you are practicing his teachings - you still do not get it. If you truly 'get' the teachings of the Buddha, you no longer need his teachings.

For example, Jesus expressly rejected the idea of marriage and stressed that no one who valued Truth would ever consider getting married. Yet not only do ministers and priest around the world completely ignore this, but they happily earn their income presiding over weddings and giving married couples their blessing! All done in the name of Jesus too!

Talk about kicking Jesus in the balls and stomping on his face.

I am celibate as you well know so you are preaching to the choir. I have no wife or children.

Jesus did not expressly reject the idea of marriage, you might be refering to these passages:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Whoever does not hate his Father & Mother as I do cannot become a disciple to me. And whoever cannot love his Father & His Mother as I do cannot become a disciple to me. For my mother gave me falsehood, but my true mother gave me Life.

To make the assumption he was antimarriage is to not understand what he was saying at all.

You also must disregard his statements here:

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

And here:

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

It takes as much time to understand the teachings of Jesus as it does the Buddha not just a wave of the hand dismissal.

Dan wrote:

Given the opportunity, yes, absolutely, yes. What do you think the Zionist movement in the US is all about? Jesus wept, have I not already posted enough material to demonstrate this? Do I have to start linking back to material I've posted in this thread?

That is the exasperating thing -- trying to get across the fact that there is such a thing as Zionism -- fundamentalism within Judaism. It is astonishing how people want to cling to the idea of Israel being a state populated by modern, educated atheists and agnostics.

There is one Hasadic sect that I encountered once that I found very fearful. I cannot recall the name of the particular branch. David Hodges might know because he lived in NYC. I went to New York once in the eighties. I was traveling with some Anglo-Americans. We got slightly lost and I cannot recall now exactly where we were. We went through some "bad" neighborhoods. Then, suddenly, we came into this oasis -- seemingly. It was dark but there were women and children and men on the street -- laughing and talking and the kids were playing. In sharp contrast to the bad neighborhoods where people scurried about in fear.

We were in the neighborhood of this fundamentalist Hadistic sect. I read about them later. The reason their neighborhood was safe was because they carried and kept heavy weaponry and had no qualms about using it. They were all dressed alike -- long black coats, big black hats, long hair that dangled from beneath the hats. The women were all dressed the same, too. I felt very fearful in that neighborhood.

It was nice to see people enjoying their neighborhood in a large American city even at night. But the thought of all those Uzis was unnerving. Plus just the cult feeling of the place. Looked like Moonie-land or Manson-land. My feeling was that I could not be welcome there. My feeling was that no "foreigner" could be welcome there. You were either "us or them." In a very big way. The feeling you got was that you were in hostile territory.
Very hostile.

I did not feel that way because they were Jews. I would have felt the same among the Falwell crowd or certain so called Buddhist sects or Muslim fundamentalists.

I cannot for the life of me understand why it can in no way be accepted that Jews can be as oppressive and murderous as Americans and fundamentalist Muslims. It is very true that no Jew was involved in the WTC attacks or other overt attacks of terrorism on a large scale. But Zionists do not have to do that. Not that I mean to imply that there could ever be an excuse for murder. But, without the luxury of full US support and sanctioning of everything it does, what alternative other than terrorism would the Zionists -- who are religious fundamentalists as well as state of Israel zealots -- would they have? Without US support, the tables might be turned. For instance, if Palestinians enjoyed the support of the western world in opposition to Israel, there would be no Israel.

I am not advocating that the tables be turned. I do, however, acvocate an excursion out of the current Magical Mystery Tour and into reality.

Faizi

Beingof1 wrote:What is your opinion of Siddharta?

Please move this discussion to a new thread.

No doubt David will suggest that some of what is in the New Testament came from a wise man, perhaps Jesus, and the rest didn't.

MKFaizi wrote:trying to get across the fact that there is such a thing as Zionism -- fundamentalism within Judaism.

No-one has suggested that there isn't a fundamentalist Judaism.

It is astonishing how people want to cling to the idea of Israel being a state populated by modern, educated atheists and agnostics.

There is a good degree of free speech in Israel, which means that the state isn't dominated by fundamentalism.

The women were all dressed the same, too. I felt very fearful in that neighborhood.

All religious sects are scary.

I once stayed at a Hare Krishna community where they all kept on repeating the Hare Krishna mantra. I found myself hoping that they didn't stop saying their mantra, because I was worried they might kill me if they stopped. I was afraid to go to sleep.

I cannot for the life of me understand why it can in no way be accepted that Jews can be as oppressive and murderous as Americans and fundamentalist Muslims.

Anyone can be oppressive and murderous.

This is not saying anything.

You might wish to say that they are in actuality equally murderous. That would be very difficult to prove, since you would have to prove what the inner intentions of either side are. For example, you would have to prove that the Israelis intend to make the Palestinians suffer, as opposed to simply applying high security to reduce the number of Israelis being blown-up.

On another note, do you still keep in touch with anyone from the Muslim community you used to live in? Was it fairly normal, or was it more influential among the whole of the Muslim nations?

I hear from my husband's brother now and then. He lives in New York City. I have not heard from anyone in Pakistan since the WTC attacks. I used to get email and the occasional phone call. We used to get packages of clothing and bangles and trinkets and wedding invitations and Eid cards. Even photographs which are strictly forbidden in the Koran. Not now. I am sure that they are scared to send anything.

Was it fairly normal? I can't imagine what you mean. Was it influential among Islamic nations? I don't think so. Just a bunch of Paks from Faisalabad transplanted to Baltimore. The usual crap. Large families of gas station owners and pizza franchise owners. Pak pizza is the best pizza I ever tasted. The usual junk -- fallen Muslim men who drank a lot and ran with some very ugly prostitutes though they were married to lovely and educated and refined Pakistani women. Once in a while, a wife would hit a man over the head with a frying pan. I used chair throwing for discipline -- worked for me.

My husband did not drink or run with prostitutes. He was weird.

They all went to mosque on Fridays. Then, they would come to our home usually for a Paki meal that I cooked and tea. My husband only drank the tea I made because he said I made it better than anyone. We had Eid parties and Ramadan parties with goat and large vats of rice and Tandoori chicken. Sewain. Mangoes. Stupid Bollywood movies. Qualis. Lots of music -- mostly secular. Children everywhere. Very spoiled children -- Pakistanis spoil their kids much more than Americans. Children are nearly worshipped -- both sexes. But sons are more spoiled.

Just normal stuff. I never heard any discussion of terrorism or hatred. Most of the conversation was gossiping.

Normal crap.

What did you expect?

Shaheena Faizi

Kevin wrote:

I don't believe that the Israelis are purposely trying to oppress and destroy their lives.

You WILL NOT believe it. I swear, you could witness it first hand and you would still not believe it because it goes against your beliefs. Kevin, your mind is as set in concrete as an old man with Alzheimers. I hate to call you a block head but you are a block head. No offense. Truth is truth.

Faizi

MKFaizi wrote:you could witness it first hand and you would still not believe it

Bluster won't get you anywhere. Where is your proof? What proof do you have that the reason for the curfews and roadblocks is to cause suffering to the Palestinians, and isn't for security purposes, to reduce the number is Israelis being blown up.

Step up to the plate instead of yelling from the sidelines.

sschaula wrote: I think whining about it is an example of how stupid people like you are. I'm not just being defensive here. Ray, that annoying poster a while ago, was right about at least this one thing - "politics is entertainment for the damned".

It's pretty easy to label what I'm talking about as politics isn't it? You're simply too afraid to see the true nature of our president especially when you support him. His true nature being idiocy, idiocy that you support.

sschaula wrote: Sure he's not a sage, but he is closer than Kerry or Gore ever were to embodying wisdom. At least he embodies masculinity. In fact, I think anyone who says Bush embodies absolutely no wisdom is way off. He may not seem intelligent, but any wise person should know how big of a difference there is between wisdom and intelligence. That's not to say he is unintelligent. That's only how he appears.

You think Bush embodies masculinity? What do you think masculinity is, charging into a country with guns blazing and hanging out with the good old boys on his ranch in Texas? You must have no idea what masculinity really is. Bush is a Woman through and through. He is a Christian fundamentalist who makes volatile decisions in distressfully emotional states. He doesn't know how to make decisions based in logic, only through his emotions.

sschaula wrote: They were mostly moved to Syria. Some of Saddam's old higher ups came forward with the information. Old news...your argument is just the same old rehashed falseness.

Do you really think a big country in the middle east will have NO WMDs whatsoever? Yeah right!

This one one of the shittiest excuses I've ever heard as to why we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq. Any dictator like Saddam would not hesitate to use their WMDs, if they had them, when their country is facing a complete invasion. At this point, what have they got to lose? They would have certainly used these WMDs to defend themselves from the USA.

sschaula wrote: Well, apparently not stupid at all, because he's been doing it for a few years now.

Yes you are right, he is definitely running it, running it straight into the ground.

sschaula wrote: I believe you can do stem cell research without abortion. Is that correct?

Yes, but it is limited and much less practical.

sschaula wrote: Also, how is it a great technological advancement when nothing tangible has been accomplished by it? Hmm!

It's a fairly new technology, and when you have religious fundamentalists like Bush deciding whether or not it recieves sufficient funding it's hard for it to even get off the ground.

sschaula wrote: That's not the case at all...a lot of people have argued against it with sensible arguments. But it just depends on what the majority of people want...freedom to say anything without worrying about the FBI, or the freedom to walk the streets without worrying about your family and friends being blown apart by a car bomb.

There was just a supposed plot to detonate bombs at the Mackinac bridge in Michigan on labor day. Here's a picture:

Some of my extended family walk across it every year on that day. I'm glad the government can pay attention to what I do, so that I don't have to worry about these types of things happening a lot.

Besides, I just have to ask something to any opposer: do you have something to hide?

Bad things happen, does that mean we should direct society towards a state of constant marshal law? Besides, these laws affect lawful Americans, not the terrorists training on the other side of the world. Read about why the founding fathers created a checks and balances system, and a government by the people, of the people, and for the people. We might as well stop calling him President Bush and start calling him King Bush the way he abuses power.

sschaula wrote: How is the government involved in my day to day life...well...they aren't, beyond my military contract. So I don't see your point.

The government regulates every thing you do involving a significant amount of money. And the Patriot Act doesn't allow the government to listen to your phone conversations without you ever knowing right? The truth is you really have no idea how much the government is actually involved with your life now.

sschaula wrote: Everything we do in the US is up to us. If we want to get more money, we take it. If we are too stupid to do so, then we live in ghettos, do drugs, commit crimes and violence, and get sick. Sure, it sucks, but if you want the government to get involved in that you're going to be out of luck until a democrat comes into office.

I don't think the Americans born into poverty, or a family of drug dealers and criminals, choose to do so. If you were born into it chances are you wouldn't escape it, as most don't.

Kevin wrote:

Palestinians feel oppressed.

Feel, hell. They are oppressed. They don't have to feel oppressed. Feeling is a luxury. Read, dude. I don't think you even bother. You are very accustomed to taking an authoritative stance and going with that pretty much unopposed.

You know a lot about unwordly matters. But it is plain that you are deficient in the worldly ones.

Faizi

MKFaizi wrote: . . . They are oppressed . . .

Yes, we've already established that fact.

When are you going to say something?

MKFaizi wrote:There is one Hasadic sect that I encountered once that I found very fearful. I cannot recall the name of the particular branch. David Hodges might know because he lived in NYC.

I had very little interaction with the Hasids. As you said, they are deliberately a very closed, insular community. I can tell you that some other New York Jews don't like them very much.

I do recall one day when I was a truck driver, I had to make a pickup or a delivery at a Hasidic school. There were all these kids running around, with the hats and the little curls on the side of the head, speaking Hebrew. I remember thinking, wow, how many of these kids will be able to break out of this? Very few, I bet. Trained from birth to be a Hasid.

As they become teens, however, it's got to become impossible to not notice that there is a whole non-Hasidic world out there. That's got to be quite a struggle, for the young Hasidic punk rocker.

I had never heard about them being heavily armed - it's very difficult to get a carry permit in Manhattan - but it would make some sense, as many are apparently involved in the diamond trade, and that one big camera store (42nd St Photo, I think it is) seems to be entirely staffed with Hasids.

DavidQuinn000 wrote: I agree that we in the West abuse and squander our freedoms. However, the fact still remains that we are free to criticize every aspect of our society and, for the most part, not suffer extreme punishments in return. If a person in an Islamic country, even a moderate one, were to begin criticizing the Muslim rituals or teachings, he would be ex-communicated in no time, and possibly put to death.

That view doesn't seem to be based on any observation or knowledge about Muslim dominated societies. It sounds just like a bunch of prejudice trying to pass of as 'general knowledge'.

David Quinn wrote:Have a look at the quotes from the Koran which Kevin Solway posted above. The Koran repeatedly commands its followers to kill disbelievers who pose a threat. Anyone who thinks is, by default, a serious threat to Islam.

Quoting scripture I never considered good argumentation. The Koran talks just as much about peace and tolerance, if one finds the correct quotes (Eg: "The first thing created by Allah was the Intellect").

Same goes with the Torah. But all these things hang on interpretation, context and culture. Literalism is practised only by a minority in every religion. Why sling it at the whole of Islam?

David Quinn wrote:I've personally been told by Muslims that I wouldn't last an hour in Pakistan if I said the sort of things I say here in Australia.

You mean if you were noticed. But philosophy becomes so much more interesting when ones life is at stake with every word! Then again, ones philosophy never really goes beyond the culture one is part of. So transplanting you by imagination in another culture doesn't make sense.

David Quinn wrote:Again, we are talking about seriously deluded people who are living in their own paranoid, nightmare world and who are beyond the reach of all reason.

I don't see this is in such extreme terms and see no reason to. If you strip away all cultural baggage, the same baggage you are carrying but in another shape and form, I suspect to find wise teachers in these 'extremist' circles as well. No doubt to my mind. For example, when I read formal statements of Iranian leadership, religious and political, they sound entirely reasonable and rational to me, for the most part. Compared to them it's totally dark in the White House, supposedly a 'bastion' for our Western values.

David Quinn wrote: Western culture is immeasurably superior to Islamic culture because it allows criticism and thought to flourish without fear.

I don't see anything flourishing in "Western Culture". If you were right why can't I go to university or any mainstream place to learn about real philosophy? Or to find worthwhile thought. Why can't I turn on TV, radio, read papers to find all these great thoughts? Your praise just doesn't fly.

And besides that in my opinion a real thinker, even in the West, has many good reasons to "fear" all kinds of knee-jerk reaction, prison, court cases and hostility for his ideas. If his words do not create some violent or extreme reaction when spoken in public, they haven't reached deep enough, yet.

Finally, what we call "modern Western culture" might be a very temporary unreal spat in the sea of history. It certainly appears as a very fertile environment for much human and inhuman behavior. But critical thought is not the first thing that comes to mind, not really. No evidence has been presented for that to my knowing.

Leyla,

Me: Help me out if I get this wrong...you said that because the US imports a lot of crude oil, it means they're stealing it from the middle east?

You: No.

Me: Or at least trying to get it cheaper?

You: Not quite.

Oh, how very revealing! I love talking to an unfinished puzzle. It makes me feel so accomplished when I finally put it all together. Like I'm really fucking smart...and I love to feel that way!

Me: You posted links to websites which had the numbers, claiming that the government is revealing that it's doing this.

You: No. I posted a link to a government website disclosing those figures.

Which is basically the same thing I said. Should I apologize for not saying "a government website"? It was implied. Stop being so defensive and just have a normal discussion with me about this.

Statements I have made -- that is, ones without your emotional spin on them based on God knows who you’ve been listening to -- tend to go something like this, “The US has substantial interest in oil in the Middle East.” But, I’m glad that you are now actually thinking about it and asking me directly for clarification.

I'm sure you are glad that you're finally getting some attention from me. But if you continue avoiding actually making any points, I will just give up. You're being a little brat.

But if your ONLY statement is that the US has substantial interest in oil in the Middle East...lets just leave it at that. Don't put your emotional spin on it, by adding that that's what the Iraq war was about. God knows who you've been listening to!

How do you propose the US government protects its reserves if OPEC enforces trade embargoes? Do you think other suppliers and political relations simply and suddenly appear out of nowhere to fill the consequent hole that brings oil dependent countries to their knees?

I really don't understand what you're talking about. Are you saying OPEC is against the US keeping its oil and buying other countries' oil, but it's okay with the US trading its own reserves for other countries' oil? If so, I don't see the point of OPEC. A country should be free to do what it wants with its oil. If it wants to keep it for itself, then it should be allowed to do so. If it wants to buy some from someone else, it should be allowed to do that so long as that other country wants to sell.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

I don't get what you're saying about suppliers coming out of nowhere...really, your questions make little sense. But that may be because I'm stupid on the issue.

How about you start making sense, and just speaking openly instead of talking this way?