Sir Bandelot

Don't know. But the mythology aspect as it relates to the OP simply imples, that these events need not have happened in the real world in order for them to impart some kind of message to the reader. Since it is an old book written long ago, one has to keep it in its historical perspective. And I understand that it was written and rewritten many times over the ages by different people. And so one could look at it as a book that contains some truth, and some lies. This analogy was told to me once by a very devoted bible-thumper christian.

Interesting. The rise of extremism could be the result of a backlash against the neo-political dilemma we are in.

Dawkins et al interpret the bible literally, as though the only interpretation is that God is some mean old daddy in the sky. Hence the jeering that bible believers might as well believe in the flying spaghetti monster. But if the bible is seen purely as a metaphor for the growth of the individual person, or some such abstract idea, their arguments have no legs.

And as I pointed out earlier, an unregulated market also faces risk of collapse. We just saw that happen in the USA. Globalization is another important factor. These faltering economies are connected to others, which exacerbates the damage they cause when one is in trouble. In globalization when they are strong, they are all strong but when they are weak, the are all weak. Then the risk is the whole house of cards can come down in one fell swoop. And that's bad, mkay? So it seems the best system is a good blend of capitalism, and some protections ie. safety net so there is a bottom, below which we cannot fall. As a result we may not be able to climb quite so high as others do, but that is the trade-off we must make, in order to be RESPONSIBLE.

Because they interpret it literally.

Yes, myths are sometimes based on true stories that are blown out of proportion. That does not mean it is impossible that there was a great flood event in that region a long time ago, and people were able to survive by living on a boat, nd brought along their farm animals. There's a lot about the past that we simply do not understand. The Mithras/ Jesus/ Krishna legends all have certian important similarities. Even if they are based on pure mythology, it's useful to understand the origins of our mythology and what it is trying to teach us. The only problem I can see is when people try to interpret it literally, whether they are extremist fundamentalists, or extremist athiests. Two sides of the same coin.

I'm talking about the propaganda war. Extremists will not respond to talk, they only understand power. The propaganda war is needed to minimize the growth of extremists. Turn the people against them, reduce the number of new recruits, reduce their moral support. That also makes the extremists easier to pick out.

Yup. It's the same strategy being used in Afghanistan by General McCrystal, in order to marginalize the Taliban. And in the past where Canada played important peackeeping roles around the world. Iit's the only long-term strategy that makes sense.

No one has a pistol to our head. This is not abou Sicily. There are plenty of Muslims and Christians who don't agree with extremist groups within their religion. The alternative view is to treat them like Germany treated the Jews. Some Jews are bad? Therefore all Jews must be arrested. Nonsense. We need to give the moderates a voice. And keep in mind that it only takes a small group of nut jobs to do a lot of damage.

If we are to do anything constructive about the problem of radicals, we have to keep the moderates engaged. It would be stupid to alienate the moderates, by misunderstanding and fearing them. They need to be empowered, and given a voice. I think a big part of the problem is that the media is only concerned with hyped-up news about violent extremists, ie. news that really sells. That is what gets all the attention. The voice of a moderate person who makes reasonable arguments about tolerance or equality is not exciting enough to make the news. The media does not give them a fair shake. So the perception is that these extremists are representatives of what's going on out there. Likewise when we write a thread or post something that condemns the whole group, moderate and radicals, we are only making things worse. We are suppressing the moderates and empowering the radical extremists. We have to think more about what we're doing.

Yet Canada did far better than the US in the recent "toxic loans" crisis.

It should also be noted that most reasonable people would probably consider abortion services in Africa, in particular, to be defensible in view of the fact that sexual violence and rape are such a common occurrence in some countries on that continent. How can Canada justify dictating policy in the rest of the world that it does not enforce at home? Guess again, scriblit

I thought this had something to do with third world countries, like Africa. Or wherever there are horrific tribal wars and women get raped by soldiers.

It also overlaps nicely with the Anne Coulter tragedy.

It's not a double standard. In the one case she breaks hate speech laws. Galloway does not (seem) to do that. But he has been accused of funding terrorism by giving money to Hamas. Different, but still against the law.

Its not terribly surprising because, he's a human being. So he has strong opinions on certain things, and feelings that can be hurt. And while it's all good and well to talk about our ideals of freedom to openly criticize sacred cows, it does not always work that way in the real world. The evidence is all around you.

Good for you Wild Bill. I like your sig. I know exactly what it means, being a guitarist myself for over 30 years!

Iggy may be using this and avery other issue possible to advance his own political agenda (beware a drowning man), but despite that I do support the local farmer, whenever I can. Some food grown in foreign lands can be adulterated. Pretty sure that milk and beef is not made from cows that are fed certain questionable steroids, in Canada. but who knows, we are lied to all the time by governments and special interest groups. Still, globalization as led to losses in manufacturing, textile industries in Canada, because these things can be made much cheaper in countries where there are no environmental regulations, labour laws or animal cruelty laws. It's ironic that we create such laws for ourselves, for the protections that they provide, then turn around and buy goods made elsewhere.

You read my point and you answered your own question. besides that point, Canada has the right to decide whether or not to let any non-citizen into the country. But we should not make excuses based on false assertions. Galloways speech, like it or not does not qualify as hate speech under Canadian law.

I don't see any inconsistency. The UK has hate speech laws. Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden Thus to allow a person wo come into the country and give such a speech would be illegal. I don't know if that was the case with this particular individual, but your post implies that it would be. I believe in free speech but there should be limits, as with all other things in a civil society. Let free speech be free, where said laws are not being broken. In comparison I doubt that Galloways speeches would break Canadian laws.

Good, as long as we understand each other, I'm satisfied!

He didn't conspire, but he said that Chavez should be killed. Likewise with the people at revolutionmuslim.com obscured their threats in a similar manner. Interesting... I wanted to contrast your lack of objection to a non-direct threat (Robertson) with your objection to another non-direct threat, in a country where free speech is legal.

No, only if you eat with your mouth open...

Oh, I thought you were talking about my protests in light of hate speech by Muslims in Canada just now: Seems like any discussion with you ends up more like one is playing "Poker". Ok. So I guess Pat Robertson was federally exempt on that one!

I'm pretty sure I said earlier that I think Parker and Stone know what they're doing. Let me check... Yep. So I think we're on the same page there. As stated, I support hate speech laws, and at least some restrictions to freedom of speech. I extend that to insulting someones sacred beliefs. Imams calling for death should be busted. Said that already Yeah, it makes sense to me. But you did not clarify your position... do you think hate laws are silly, as stated? Because if so, then it should be fine for this group to call for their death, especially if they're based in New York.