I mean isn't this really the key to solving a lot of the problems going around.
Having the people in close proximity to the trouble makers, or problems, fixing it a the ground level. But maybe that is naive. Maybe it works only for situations that are less violent, like dealing with the spread of aids. I am thinking of when the UN would come in with all sorts of manuals and plans to address the spread of aids in places with epidemics, to little avail. But then the local leaders would come up with their own solutions, with much better results. But maybe that wouldn't work with groups like Boka Haram or Drug Cartel gangs. ---In [email protected], <noozguru@...> wrote : From an interview with a reporter on this event, the guys who attacked may have never even read the Koran. They were just stupid fools who wanted to get their names in the history books and maybe get those virgins sooner. This is a problem that it is really up to the Islamic community to clean up since it is giving them a bad name. There are many Muslims who want to live in the 21st century, get along with their non-Muslim neighbors and friends and many who probably haven't been to a mosque in years. Perspective is everything. Every other day or weekend here in the SF Bay Area we get shootings but they don't shut down SF for it. On 01/13/2015 03:04 PM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Religious taboos are memes, concepts designed to protect ideas that do not stand up to scrutiny from being scrutinised by way of coercion and fear, an attempt to condition the mind, which is naturally curious, from directing its attention in the direction of such scrutiny. 'It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to Infidelity.' —Abraham Lincoln ---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], <s3raphita@...> mailto:s3raphita@... wrote : Thanks. Yes, he seems to be making the same point as I just have. Re "I don't think cowardice comes into it.": well, in The Guardian's case it seems not - judging from the article; but in may other cases fear is for sure playing a part. ---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], <[email protected]> mailto:[email protected] wrote : Watch the Guardian editor explain why the Guardian did not reprint them. The argument was that every journal has its own voice, and these cartoons do not represent the voice of the Guardian. They were written for another publication, another readership. (He explains it much better than that -- it's a few days since I watched it.) I don't think cowardice comes into it. The Guardian view on Charlie Hebdo: show solidarity, but in your own voice | Editorial The Guardian view on Charlie Hebdo: show solidarity, but... Editorial: Journalists were murdered for exercising free speech. They trampled on religious taboos. But the principal conflict is not between liberty and majority M... View on www.theguardian.com Preview by Yahoo ---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], <s3raphita@...> mailto:s3raphita@... wrote : One issue that has cropped up in recent days is where we've had many pundits criticizing newspapers for not re-printing the Mohammed cartoons to show solidarity with the murdered journalists of Charlie Hebdo. The offending editors are (correctly) being accused of cowardice. I've mixed feelings about this one. What I mean is: suppose some idiot were to publish an article claiming the Holocaust never happened. Then further suppose that a Jewish activist group murdered this idiot and announced that anyone who followed his example and dared to print such denials of Jewish suffering would be likewise assassinated. Now, I believe that people can express any opinion they like so I'd condemn the killing without reservation. But if I were a newspaper or magazine editor would I feel under an obligation to *myself* print the Holocaust-denying article? Surely not. I know the situations are not strictly comparable but I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from. Any thoughts?
