As far as I know, xenophobia is nothing new and appears to have existed at least as long as recorded history.
Continuing in a slightly skeptical vein, there isn’t even agreement upon when the Age of Aquarius began or will begin! …start dates ranging from 1447 AD to 3597 AD!!! At least the general agreement is that it will last for 2,150 years. Now that New Age acknowledgement has been made and the associated idealism has been given lip service if not actually found in vitro, projections upon future date catastrophic times as well as full enlightenment and wisdom times exist concurrently. Perhaps the recognition that all we have is *now* could be thrown into the mix? Surely being repetitive, Walt Kelly was right about who the enemy is. Right now ‘it/he/she’ can be found and destroyed if one wishes to do so. Here is the core issue. Yet, on a more mundane level, and with the advantage of the ability to study history objectively, omnipresent cycles of oppression have existed and remain in action and can be quite informative when actual cause/effect issues are addressed. The ‘truth’ is that much of the populous found within Western culture has some fear of being attacked by a few albeit perhaps growing in numbers of people who have said enough is enough and retaliation is the only way. Most honest people will admit to the familiarity of such feelings no matter how lacking in correctness they may be. Since the causes for such attitudes started long ago yet continue through today, until/if they are nakedly addressed and removed, the retribution dance will continue with its associated and appropriate nervousness… appropriate that is if one has any concern about personal death. Having said all of this, and having discussed ad nausea here how to ‘fix’ such a situation, the best that I can see is to first stop supporting any sort of hegemony and associated crimes against humanity and then just sit and wait for the hatreds to die out. Doesn’t sound too promising does it? Ah, well… In any case, whether we are at the dawning of a new age or not, surely we will all die. This is the only ultimate fear possible in such cases and is addressable. All shouldofs and couldofs evaporate into the mist of imagination from whence they came. What is, is. On Dec 16, 5:47 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > I think that Justin's read on Slips question was accurate, in that it > points to the racial hysteria that is now all around us, inflamed by > mainstream media and ignorance. In the US, as generations go on, so > does the racism, but the targeted race changes. During my > grandparents time, the Irish were targets. Now, because Islam is not > really a race, but a religion, anyone with medium dark skin is a > target, which could be Eastern European, Indian, Middle Eastern parts > of the globe and include, in truth, several different races and > religions that include a particular physical "look." It is our > tendency to identify with groups, and feel ourselves against others > and other groups that get in our way in significant but irrational > ways. My step daughter dates a guy who immigrated from Armenia at the > age of 7. He had someone call him an Arab with distain the other > day. Last I checked, Saudi Arabia and the US were allies. > > Even a relatively innocuous statement from Gabby against me and for > someone else will interrupt cohesion in the group. In terms of self, > moving against is always looking away from self. It is human nature > none the less. Wrap that up with a big coat of fear - fear of the > future, fear of war, fear of attack, fear of economic disaster, fear > that I won't be able to keep my stuff or have more stuff or hang on to > my irrational fear and anger that allows me to feel in the absence of > love, well, you are perfect fodder for herd mentality and those who > prey on it. Even that is simply a reflection of changing humanity. > It may be that what we are witnessing is really the death throes of > racism in a global society. > > On Dec 16, 7:47 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 15 Dec, 23:23, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Buzzer goes off, I'm not an Atheist, never claimed to be one, being > > > non religious is not Atheism. What I believe God is may be different > > > from others beliefs. Yes for sure I think the world would be much > > > better without politics and many other things including wealth, an > > > unnecessary state of being. Your interpretations are too micro. I'm > > > not picking on religion per se but it is within the context of this > > > thread, in case you haven't noticed, ie; Muslims um Religion um Islam > > > um Religion um Jihad um Religion. > > > {snicker!} Now my buzzer goes off. Which FORM of Islam? Not all > > Muslims are practicing, per se, and not all forms of Islam (for those > > who ARE practicing) are the same. Sunni vs. Shi'a is a big divide, > > for one, and ther eare four major 'schools of though' when it comes to > > deriving laws (Shari'a) from the Qur'an (scripture), ahadith (sayings > > of the Prophet) and Sunna (traditions of/about the Prophet). The you > > mention jihad. Which one? The lesser (more violent and outward > > fight) or the greater (the less violent and more inner struggle)? All > > these terms are not equal to one another. Much less are they even > > congruent. > > Have you looked at Islamic economics? If implemented well (and, of > > course, that's a huge caveat), there are no 'wealthy', as they would > > be charitable and share their excesses with those who have needs. Of > > course, this is one of the big areas where Islam and Western > > capitalism collide. Western capitalism allows for the stinking rich-- > > and encourages it--whereas that is not the case with Islamic > > economics, as the rich (those who have more than they need) have a > > responsibility to ensure that there are no poor, because they are the > > ones who are best placed to alleviate that condition. Yet, at the > > same time, Islamic economics isn't so far as communism, because it > > respects private property. It actually sits as a happy compromise > > between communism and capitalism based on social values in which the > > standard of living for everyone is (or COULD BE, if properly > > implemented) guaranteed. But the West doesn't like it because it > > means 'no fat cats' and the Communists don't like it because they have > > to give up some control. I.e., it's a compromise in which both sides > > give up something and everyone gains. > > > > On Dec 15, 9:00 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hah I guess then if that is the way you want to go, the same can be > > > > said of any human idea. Your an Atheist, so you too are segmented, we > > > > well know that not all atheists hold similar belives I.E. political so > > > > that to is segmention, so I must wonder why you point the finger at > > > > religion and level charges of segmentaion and nothing else. > > > > > You and I are more seperated idealogical by our politics than by my > > > > faith and your lack of the same. would you say then that you think the > > > > world would be a better place without politics, its segmentation > > > > of societies and a root cause of indifference? Or perhaps the concept > > > > of wealth? That is after all hugely segmentational. Or music, any > > > > other of the arts, the list is seemingly endless, why pick just > > > > religion I wonder? > > > > > On 15 Dec, 14:24, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > It remains the same Lee, your faith is segmented ie; not every > > > > > ascribes to your faith. Secondly it is not that religion itself is > > > > > fostering segmentation, it is just something of a byproduct. Many > > > > > religions are segmented within themselves by means of splinter > > > > > groups. Yours is not the only religion to see God in all but it has a > > > > > different name because in someway it is segmented. > > > > > > On Dec 15, 4:37 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > More generalist stuff from you Slip? > > > > > > > While it may appear true that some religions foster segmentation, I > > > > > > am > > > > > > happy to report that my own faith does no such thing and instead > > > > > > concentrates on seeing God in all, so it is indeed opposite to such > > > > > > segmentation. > > > > > > > On 14 Dec, 23:14, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Well thanks for the variations in view and the enlightenment on > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > situation as a whole, makes the most sense so far. It doesn't > > > > > > > change > > > > > > > much for me though, I'm still concerned. The water supply and > > > > > > > food > > > > > > > supply could easily be sabotaged by some radical, of course I'm > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > implying just that particular strain, it could be any nut job to > > > > > > > pull > > > > > > > that one off, like the shoe bomber, Richard Reid aka Abdul Raheem, > > > > > > > currently serving a life sentence. He converted to Islam in one > > > > > > > of his > > > > > > > earlier prison stints. I've said it before in other threads, I > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > the world would be a better place without religion, its > > > > > > > segmentation > > > > > > > of societies and a root cause of indifference. My life is so much > > > > > > > more peaceful without it and this concern I have is really rooted > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > religious ideology. I find it as annoying and irritating as the > > > > > > > Jehovah Witness knocking on my door on a Saturday morning. > > > > > > > Shalom! > > > > > > > > On Dec 14, 6:57 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 11 Dec, 18:11, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You make is sound so relaxing, Pat. I have to add that I do > > > > > > > > > not know > > > > > > > > > any Muslims and have never met any Muslims which may be one > > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > reasons for my apprehensions. However, it is not without any > > > > > > > > > basis, > > > > > > > > > ie; the Muslim Major Hasan seemed by "ALL" accounts to be > > > > > > > > > one of the > > > > > > > > > peace loving Muslim persons of whom you speak. Didn't people > > > > > > > > > know him > > > > > > > > > as such, wasn't he in the US Army? Didn't he shoot and kill > > > > > > > > > US > > > > > > > > > Soldiers? Was he a fundamentalist, a radical terrorist? > > > > > > > > > Are we being duped is the real question, are you? > > > > > > > > > Although I don't know Major Hasan, I can 'guess' (which is > > > > > > > > hardly > > > > > > > > good) that there were conflicts of interest going on in his > > > > > > > > mind. > > > > > > > > Muslims consider one another brothers--at least brothers in the > > > > > > > > faith. Yet the army is sending U.S. Muslims to kill non-U.S. > > > > > > > > Muslims. This is as much 'brother vs. brother' as we saw in > > > > > > > > the US > > > > > > > > Civil War, when members of the same family fought on opposing > > > > > > > > sides. > > > > > > > > It destroyed families for generations. In this case, it's > > > > > > > > caused a > > > > > > > > conflict of interest in the minds of Muslims who have a duty to > > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > Muslim brothers AND a duty to their country. Not all people > > > > > > > > resolve > > > > > > > > the issue in the same way and some, like Major Hasan I assume, > > > > > > > > crack > > > > > > > > under the pressure. Remember Hasan's last words before the > > > > > > > > rampage? > > > > > > > > "Allahu Akhbar", i.e. "God is greater"; i.e., his loyalty to > > > > > > > > Islam > > > > > > > > took over, although he was so far gone mentally that, while he > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > have got his allegiances correct, his actions were completely > > > > > > > > opposed > > > > > > > > to the guidance given BY Islam. At that point, it seems he > > > > > > > > felt it > > > > > > > > was better (and I disagree with him completely, BTW) to fight > > > > > > > > those > > > > > > > > who were killing his Muslim brothers than to join with them and > > > > > > > > kill > > > > > > > > his brother Muslims (and/or support the cause that kills his > > > > > > > > brother > > > > > > > > Muslims). So he indiscriminately started shooting. An act > > > > > > > > that would > > > > > > > > be considered reprehensible and punishable by death under > > > > > > > > Shari'a law, > > > > > > > > as what he did was plain murder, i.e., needless killing. What > > > > > > > > Hasan > > > > > > > > was was someone who cracked under the pressure. He failed the > > > > > > > > test. > > > > > > > > To pass, he should have resigned his commission from the Army, > > > > > > > > under > > > > > > > > ANY circumstances, and just gone back to civilian life. But > > > > > > > > it's > > > > > > > > obvious, > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
