I agree with Brownie's point that "wherever conflict exists, a religion is involved somewhere" I also put it to Brownie that where tragedy exists, whether tsunamis or whatever, religious people are to the forefront. What does this prove? Simply that you can't escape religion. Why? Because religion is part of humankind's makeup.

I wouldn't feel too good if I had convinced myself I was "non religious", considering the death and mayhem wreaked by the Nazi's (who owed far more to Darwin than any religion) or Stalin or Mao.

Interesting to observe the current phenomenal growth of Christianity in China.

As far as "go(ing) outside and be(ing) kind and helpful to whomever you might see", I think Jesus had quite a bit to say on personal relationships. Try these testers out: "In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" and "Love your neighbour as yourself".

Brownie
good thoughts of course. But very naturalistic and do I realllllly need to show that they might only be valid to 'you' ?
I put it to you differently. Religions are only involved with most conflicts because people identify with them. The conflicts themselves are less about religion and MORE about resources. This goes back as far as (and to the very beginnings of man) Abaham and Lot (read the story) where "Abraham and Lots herdsmen started fighting due to lack of grazing" THAT... my friend is the most fundamental reason for concflict. Please think deeper than that last piece of humanistic propoganda that you heard. and PUH-lease read some history.

The demonising of Islam is gaining pace. It is also spreading to any one who might think the war at present is unjust at the very least. I am with the Pope on this one.

It suits the purpose of those inclined to war to demonise the opponent. Just look at the images in the earlier "offical wars, numbers 1 and 2", it makes killing the designated bad guy easier. It would also make it fun, if you are to believe a senior American Military man; it is simply part of the standard war time propaganda.

To recognise it as a process of demonisation is far from "intellectual drivel" as some might see it. It is merely a simple observation. The sad fact remains though that to dismiss such an observation is reminsicent of fascism. But why arent I surprised?

The line has been drawn in the sand by most of the media and the process of demonisng Islam is almost complete - the ABC remains the exception; The print media is more and more throwing up the "if your not for us you're against us crap. It is becoming a crusade - just read the God Bothering analysis of Americas God given status as upholder of freedom on Peter and Helen Evans web site in the US. he is a returned man and she an office bearer in the heritage Association; read their stuff and be afraid, be very afraid. They have been ordained by God, or so it would seem.

Closer to home Bolt A, for example in the Herald Sun has championed this war and the cause of Bush and Associates since the prospect of war was raised - at one time in the press he noted that "it was time to stop talking and start shooting", in what I thought was a strange homage to the silly cowboy imagery the USA often throws up - "wanted dead or Alive"; an article in the documents of the project for the new American Century uses the imaeg of Liberty Valance for example in one of its arguements for unilateral action as if the romaticism of the old west has some basis in truth. Bolt A certainly is a strong critic of Islam. he is also a strong ctitic of anything remotely left, or intellectual or anti family - he even thinks Finding Nemo had a green/anti american sub plot.

More recently in the Age one of the columnists was taken to task, at least in the letters section, for a position she adopted on 'leftist feminist writers" and their relative silence ( measured by what criteria I'll never know) on the practice of female genital mutilation. It would seem that by not publishing a plethora of articles condeming the practice over the festive season or in the lead up to the Iraqi election they have betrayed womankind. - The article in the Age goes to imply that those on the left opposing the war were also now giving tacit approval to any and all the intolerances displayed by those who now should be our sworn enemies over and above FGM.

So as islam is being demonised so are those who believe a war directed against them - and that is what it has become - so are those opposed to the war; the stain of the propoganda is merely spreading to encompass a larger pool of "sympathisers" -

I am now and always will be Inkeemagee.

inkeemagee.
You have again mentioned an important point. A point which has been the focus of some of my own posts. But also that of others.
CRITICAL QUESTION.
The issue is: Truth or "demonizing" ??? If you are demonizing someone you will take the truth, bend it, adjust it, amplifiy it and add a host of suitable adjectives to embellish it further. When u have finished with all this, you have successfully demonized your opponent and made him easier for UNthinking soldiers to kill him. Every fact I mentioned above was true. I added no adjectives, I did not bend, add to, enhance or embellish.

If I was to "demonize".. the simple example is to do this:

Mohammed tortured some people by cutting their hands and feet off and gouging out their eyes and leaving them to die slowly in the deserte heat"..<== so far its FACTUAL from their own sources. Now.. to the 'demonize' part >>>>>> "And..sooo this moron, filthy scumbag wanna be prophet, who is the devil incarnate, who calls people to follow his highway to hell, who is beneath the dignity of anything remotely resembling a human being.. DEATH DEATH to allll like this"..... getting the picture ?????? That is the difference between demonizing and reporting factual information.

I don't think I've seen such rantings in Andrew Bolt, but if you have. please give me chapter and verse and I will happily look it up.
We can then apply the test of 'truth' or 'falsehood' to the material so presented.

Muslims, are people just like all of us. Deserving of our compassion. Sadly, the religious system they have been brought up with, has certain values in it which make it dangerous. "If u insult the prophet u will have to pay" (with ur life possibly) and they are the words of Migrant muslims in France, not Saudi Arabia.

Oh..one more thing. WHO ATTACKED WHO IN 911 ???? just a small question. Was there a 'war on terror' in the way we know now before that ? Who attacked US soldiers in Lebanon, (peace keeping force) and murdered over 200 in one go ? Who blew up the US embassy in Kenya ? strange..I dont recall any 'arab' embassies being blown up by US terrorists ? So.. this is the point where u start to talk about 'predatory economy and neo colonialism' of the USA which 'caused it all' right ? Where upon I direct your attention to EVERY empire or great power over the WHOLE of history that has done the same. Not saying that to justify any of those things, but I'm saying it is no 'less right' than the Ottomans, the British, the Dutch, the French, the Spanish, the Abbbasyds, the Umayads etc etc etc ad infinitum.

Its rather lame and indicative of either a biased or shallow mind to isolate ONE country in ONE time of history and try to suggest it is the 'great satan'. We are ALL the great Satan in embryonic form and our need is of redemption, renewal and transformation in mind, will and spirit.

Just a few lines - i haven't read all the comments here, it would take too long. Richardson is criticised/condemned for apparently asserting that reality is a mere construction of language. As far as i can see, he's not making that assertion, he's summarising the critical theorists' position.

I myself don't hold to that position, but i'm not sure that it's illogical, and it certainly isn't meaningless. I believe it was Wittgenstein who wrote, in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, that 'the limit of my language means the limit of my world' and 'of that which one cannot speak one must remain silent'. Now, Wittgenstein knew a thing or two about logic. Anyway this issue has a very long philosophical pedigree and is unlikely to be resolved in this forum. I have to say in any case that holding to such a view about language and reality does not facilitate bigotry or intolerance, as some here have claimed, quite absurdly.

Basically, when stripped of its academic gloss (and there really isn't much of it) the article is essentially a plea for careful analysis of authors' constructions and awareness of alternative constructions. A plea for critical thinking. Not very original, but, as i think Kierkegaard wrote, the truth may be boring but that doesn't mean that it doesn't bear repeating, over and over.

Luigi
amazing self discipline there.. sticking to the topic :)