BD. You read the daily Terror, that explains a great deal on the contents of your postings!

From a recent article on Islamic fundamentalism and 'terrorism'...

" Since the 1970s, a diffuse fundamentalism has developed in Arab-Muslim societies. But that may be beginning to ebb away. The terrorist attacks in several Muslim countries have shocked the public. The challenge now is to separate Islam from Islamism. We must make sure that Islam plays a role in the war against fundamentalism."

For further insight into Islamic fundamentalism check out the following

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=14320&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Kippy....I also read the Age, Australian and SMH along with the Herald Sun and Jerusalem Post. So I gain a good idea of who is saying what and why.

Clearly to me there is a degree of exploitation of the clash of cultures/Islam issue by NewsCorp, and yes, I believe it is partly related to "ratings and ad revenue". But I've also noted that sometimes the Daily Terror has nothing at all about this stuff, yet the SMH does.

Regardless of this, I urge you in the strongest terms to have a look at "Obsession: The threat of Radical Islam" currently being shown on FoxNews (yes..I know..NewsCorp, and yes..'timing' US elections... I knowwwww :) and its produced by a Jew (is that 2 strikes ?) but apart from that, the material is very powerful, as its taken from Arab News casts.

It shows the 'friendly' face of radical Muslims when speaking to Western Media and their 'TRUE' face when speaking to their own. (often in English)
The do 'A' and 'B' comparisons.. same bloke..different venue.

Failure to appreciate this trend and reality will see us all in serious trouble if nothing is done.
cheers

Boaz,

I usually find you funny but this one tops it all:
boaz said
"Regardless of this, I urge you in the strongest terms to have a look at "Obsession: The threat of Radical Islam" currently being shown on FoxNews (yes..I know..NewsCorp, and yes..'timing' US elections... I knowwwww :) and its produced by a Jew (is that 2 strikes ?) but apart from that, the material is very powerful, as its taken from Arab News casts"

Sounds like me asking you to watch a balanced and fair article on the history of Israel aired on "Al Jazeerah" produced by hezbollah!
PS: and will be aired during the anniversary of the Palestinian uprising! :):)

Can you attempt to be objective for once?

Peace,

Yes Runner I believe pushing beliefs/ ideologies is intolerance. I think the exclusionary group of ideologies; Christianity, Islam, Communism and Fascism are especially intolerant. All offer no justification other than a fraudulent basis of justification.

Christianity and Islam justify their persecution and intolerance of others by a God that not one member has any true knowledge of and so is made up for the purpose to mislead. That is there is not a shred of truth concerning such a god, all is conjecture, all are lies.

Communism justifies itself that the welfare of the community is supreme over the welfare of the individual. Communism is a moralist movement and like religion has no basis in truth and so has no true justification in persecution and exclusion of those outside of the community. The community is a construct of the party and not an evolving organic social organisation.

Fascism the love of oneself through the love of the state is also a moralist movement and has no basis in truth to justify itself in its persecution and exclusion of those who fascists deem not of the state.

It is all the same, not of God, Not of the community, not of the state. Yes ideologies offer the choice of wether to join them or not. To accept Jesus or Hitler or Allah or the revolution all ideologists spout that choice.

The persecution and exclusion those groups conduct are not only in terms of violence and having exclusionary laws passed but also the persecution and exclusion of ideas.

Christianity, Islam, Communism and Fascism are manifestations of intolerance in its purest forms.

Why are Christians and Muslims who can provide no True confirmation and proof of their god to support the knowledge they claim of a god, so intimate only that god could know about so active in opinion and the media when there is millions of ideologies that do not get a mention? Trying to convince others that a God a claimant has no proof of is intolerant not only of other people’s beliefs but also intolerant of truth.

Once I read the research of W G Perry, based on the development of thinking in a cohort of medical students as they progressed through their studies. But possibly it applies much more widely. Truncating and simplifying it a bit, people typically develop through 3 stages. The first stage, black and white thinking in which we are white and they are black and everything that our leaders and authorities and source documents say is true and white. The second stage, when some glimmers of reality penetrate and we discover that reality isn't always black and white and that sometimes our revered leaders and opinion makers are just wrong. This leads to a lack of faith and a despair of relativism where any point of view is tolerated as being equally likely to be true. And stage 3, something called committment, where out of all the relativities one comes to prefer, believe, or have faith in one particular point of view - but remains open to the evidence and the possible validities of other systems of understanding. It seems to me that fundamentalism and ideology are too much stuck in an early phase of development. That has certainly been descriptive of my religious odessy.