Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Zeev's Turnips -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (607)	11/18/2001 6:09:09 PM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 644

I don't follow either Robertson or Falwell, so I can't comment on what they did or didn't say, nor what they said when they apologized and explained what they meant. In any case, I think they made their point poorly. On the other hand what set me to make that post was some radio host I heard the other day who was a Unitarian/secular huminist, and he was saying that the cause of the problem was the religious intolerance of various radical groups such as the fundamental moslems and the religious right. Would you agree with that? Is this tragedy the fault of fundamental Christians? Is this tragedy the result of the bone fide religious beliefs of true Moslems? My opinion is that power hungry individuals are able to hold up our media and culture as examples of evil, and they use that to manipulate naive youths to do their bidding of evil. I hardly believe that people of any true religious group favor the mass extinction of any others (rather they tend to support the conversion of them). Thus I believe that to say that the whole tragedy was the result of people believing in a supreme being is far worse than what Falwell and Robertson said. If one believes in a supreme being, and in pre-determination, then one can only conclude that god had a hand in the events of 9/11. For what purpose? I certainly can't know the answer to that. Is God angry with America? Do we live in a modern Sodom and Gomorahh? I can certainly see how some might believe that, especially if all they see is our media. If it plays no other role, our media gives these evil doers something to hold up that they can point to and claim that it needs to be destroyed. Note that I'm no expert on what is on TV. I watch it only very rarely, and I won't let my children (4 and 6) watch it at all, except public TV. Flip it on a regular channel and if the program itself doesn't prominently feature sex and violence, certainly the commercials that will appear for other programs do. For similar reasons we are home-schooling my boys. We can't shield them from the world forever, but hopefully we can teach them right from wrong and a wholesome worldview. We did show them the events of 9/11 to show them that the world does contain true evil, but they don't need to see all of the bad things that the world has to offer. Some complain about the fact that Victoria's Secret apparently just had some sort of fashion show on TV (I didn't see it), but I am sure it probably had less sex, and certainly less violence that whatever else would have otherwise appeared on TV if it hadn't been shown. Note that I have no objection to "liberals". In fact if you will re-read my post you will not find that word in it. My objection is to the concept that there is no such thing as right and wrong, and that there is no true good or evil. To me that is the biggest place where the religious deviate from the huminists. People who believe in god believe that god handed down Commandments, and that those rules are written in stone (literally). People who belive in huminism believe that every moral decision must be made in context, and that to me is a slippery slope. To me "liberalism" largely conveys the idea that one wants to help others, and wants the government to play a part, while a conservative may want to help others, but doesn't want to do use the government to do it. Certainly over the years Christians have done a great deal of charitable work, and many Christians worked to end slavery and establish equal rights. If you are trying to imply that only "liberals" support just causes, or that only huminists are liberals, then I would strongly disagree. But in any case, this gets off my point, which was that, whether or not one believes that God caused this, it is way off the mark to say that this was caused because some people believe in god. On another topic, have you noticed a pattern in who got anthrax tainted letters? They went to members of the media and Democrats. Were they chosen by random luck? Because they were liberal? Because they were huminists? I don't know if they were huminists or not, by the way. Or were they chosen for some other reason? I don't know the answer, but I think the pattern is suspicious. I am increasingly believing that this was not the work of Bin Laden, but rather the work of some sicko right wing idiot who wants to blame Bin Laden for his evil. Yes, it could be Bin Laden, but it seems increasingly likely to me that it isn't. And if it is Bin Laden, it may support my premise that he objects to our media and culture, rather than opposing us because we are Christians - otherwise he would have targeted Falwell and Robertson. Still, I have this bad feeling that it was not Bin Laden at all. Whoever it is, I hope they find him/her. Carl

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (607)	11/19/2001 12:19:25 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 644

Zeev, If Falwell and Robertson existed in a poor country or part of the world, they would get angrier and angrier just as the bin laden movement has. That anger then could turn to violence too. Religious orthodoxy with the view that its my way or the highway ultimately will yield violence in backward areas. Islam has the lead in empoverished and undemcocratic countries and their falwells got angrier and angrier. When the Ayotolla was first exiled to france his anger(this is a guess) wasnt anywhere what it grew too by the time he attained power. mike