Sunday, February 05, 2006

Yoga, Herbal Tea and it's all Good!


What is more interesting is how this timeless cycle of "Them versus US" continues, with each party acting and feeling all righteous whilst the devil and all else that should be condemned is safely and perfectly casted out in a projection onto the Damned OTHER

I'm not interested in details of who did what, I am interested in the universal patterns and themes.


I won't even begin to blog about the archetypes of the negative Sage (truth is on my side and if you disagree you will be sorry etc) that is so overwhelmingly apparent in our human heritage.


The way I see it, we are all guilty and we are all innocent as far as we don't really listen to each other and would rather stereotype each other.

Most religions are stuck in the negative sage archetype (who is hung up on absolute truths) and are not really in touch with the Inner Fool archetype (the one who makes fun of HIMSELF or who does honest inquiry)..

It's sad and twisted we can't just stop the projections and scapegoating and stereotyping!

Sorry Bulb, I would invite you for a Heineken or a Grolsch..Or perhaps a cup of religion free tea, if I wasn't so busy..But sending you some positive energy..:-) (as always)

I add AMEN..let's pray for ourselves..that we may see the reality of ourselves in the mirror of relationships with our "enemies".

Bulb, I never studies Islam, instead I dated Muslim men who all had different takes on the religion.

I never wanted to study the Islam because to me it was just as black and white as Christianity.

I think it´s unfair to see `evil` in Islam as a whole without looking at the Crusades for instance. Everything has it´s shadow but we can only find it when we deal with our own shadow first.


Honey, not trying to make you even more pissed off though..

20 Comments:

Anonymous YeeMan said...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_comments.php?entryid=288920&journalid=199996

5:20 PM  
Anonymous YeeMan said...

Bulb, I don't think we disagree.
I would be the first one who would leave the country if Islam or any religion was to be announced the law. I am trying to point at (objective??) dynamics, I am after all reading many papers and books about this subject now that I'm in an online seminar dealing with the same subject.

And as much as I regret it, I don't have time to read or study religion or politics: it always struck me as that nobody listened to one another..
I am, however, listening to you...

Not all is good..I am appalled by many things in the world, but don't want to be pulled in the downward spiral of condemning others. If I were a warrior for a greater good I would hope to win a war with poetry or songs..Not with guns. But I am lucky I never had that choice of being Jesus in the cross.

There is no contest here..And if there were, I hope that Truth will win, even if it means that I lose.

5:31 PM  
Blogger fineartist said...

Yeeman speaks with love, compassion and kindness, and so does Bulb in a sort of fed up, he's going to scream, kind of way.

Peace, by any means necessary?

8:14 PM  
Anonymous Yeeman said...

Fine Artist, Thanks, it means much to me that you do hear what I am trying to convey...I was wondering whether I should stop these peace meditations or blogging..If I only got people agitated, I was part of the problem or solution as well.

Bulb has inspired me to delve into the fact that I do live in a world where freedom of speech is a right we should protect.

And I will write an entry about the archetypes behind our freedom of free speech and the conflict that occurs with other archetypes when confronting cults/religions or any belief system (whatever, all the same to me) who want to shut people up (behead/kill/censor) who "dare" to be different.

Would it mean much Bulb, that I am aware that in those countries I would sure be hanging on the highest tree..How can I thus disagree with you??
I was adressing my frustration with general patterns, but I reckon my unwillingness to "label" things as "Evil", puts me in a negative light..

But since when has fighting ignorance of Good with violence and contempt ever helped? Only true knowledge can save anybody.
And that knowledge I think or hope is devoid of judgements that only keep us in a cycle of (self) destruction.

10:29 PM  
Blogger Jess said...

hey, where did my comment go?

1:03 AM  
Blogger bulb said...

@Yeeman,
Just when I thought I couldn't be pissed off more....

Just kidding. Ok you took sides. Good thing. You probably already know where those who stay neutral in a moral conflict are going according to Dantes Inferno.
The real enemy is not islam. Islam is a joke. Educate them a bit, protect them from each other (apostacy is an automatic death-sentence). Make it possible to leave the cult and we're done with it.
The real enemy is those politically correct idiots who stand at the sidelines and say: "Well rape, murder, slavery and torture is considered a good thing in islam and we should respect it." Or worse, those who won't even go through the trouble of studying islam because they cannot imagine the sheer horror of the cult.

You seem to be confusing "condemning evil" with "condemning others". My belief is that when one refuses to condemn evil because it might hurt others' sensibillities, you might as well start voting PVDA or SP (for the Americans, a bunch of fucked up liberals).

Lots of pissed of Love
Bulb

PS if sharia were to become the law here..... why run? Stay and fight.

1:42 AM  
Anonymous yeeman said...

LOL, Bulb....
Just when I was about to send you some incense and an Ohm cd...(plus free subscription to yogaclass with sexy chicks in leotards).

As a (devil's advocayte) lawyer though: please define "Evil" for me.
I had trouble with the concept when we discussed it at class in Sanfrancisco, maybe you can enlighten me..(and my yoga herbal attitude). We were very divided in class about it.

I don't agree with those who think we should respect "those belief systems" who adhere to any type of disrespectful treatment of "others, like for instance women or gays or other races".

PS: some think that the Chinese are the next enemy..Where can I run to? And who should I fight then?? Things are easy for a white male!

2:41 AM  
Anonymous Yeeman said...

And because I am so rigid and stubborn in NOT wanting to study religions, I will instead study these articles:
http://www.interdisciplines.org/terrorism

2:52 AM  
Blogger fineartist said...

F-ed up tree hugging, bleeding heart liberal whose going through menopause here…

But don’t worry, all that nonsense will be over soon enough, I mean the menopause…..

I hear what you are saying…I wont say anymore, for now.

3:37 AM  
Blogger Sassy said...

I dont know much about all this stuff, so I dont have much to say. What I do know is...every since 9/11 happened, shit like this scares the hell out of me! It made me realize YES, IT CAN HAPPEN. We could be here one day and gone the next. All because idiots try to play God.

4:23 PM  
Anonymous Yeeman said...

By the way, from a legal point of view, I do agree that anybody who incites people to commit violence should be convicted (no exceptions for religion).
People who know me, know that I am not as naive as Bulb seems to think. :-(

9:21 PM  
Anonymous Yeeman said...

(FinancialTimes.com: Middle Eastern Blogs commentary)

Cartoon controversy: Middle East blogwatch By Fiona Symon
Published: February 8 2006 12:43

Bloggers in the Middle East have been attempting to make sense of the furore that followed the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. The following is a selection of some of the best.


It is not hard to find Islamist sites in the region and beyond promoting the message that it is incumbent on Muslims to "defend God's messenger, the Prophet Mohammed" against attacks in the western media. It is the Muslim clerics who must bear the responsibility for inciting their followers to violence, several bloggers conclude.

Writing on Aqoul, the Middle East discussion site, one contributor is highly critical of the role of Muslim clerics in the region - including the popular moderate Egyptian preacher Amr Khaled - whose broadcasts reach millions.

The clerics' "almost primary school religious class sermons" presented the view that “there is evidence from the Quran and the Sunna [traditions of the Prophet] to prove that the defence of the Prophet and the chastisement/punishment of infidels is incumbent upon the Muslim population."

In seeking to use the cartoon incident to forge a sense of solidarity among Muslims, they ended up presenting the affair to their followers as evidence that the west rejects the Islamic World, the author adds.

Habib Trabelsi, writing from Paris for Middle East online, notes that some Muslim extremists have gone further, using the furore over the cartoons to rally the faithful to a jihad or holy war.

He cites the hardline Saudi cleric Sheikh Badr bin Nader al-Mashari as saying in a voice recording posted on an Islamist website. “Brothers, it's war against Islam..., grab your swords”, adding that the cartoons are “part of the war waged by the decadent West against the triumphant Islam”.

“To the billion Muslims: where are your arms? Your enemies have trampled on the prophet. Rise up,” said the sheikh, who is the imam of a mosque in Riyadh, the Saudi capital.

At the other end of the religious spectrum, the Middle East discussion forum, al-Hiwar, offers a quote from Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, the Sudanese religious scholar. The following was written on behalf of 'the silent majority' of moderate Muslims with reference to the Salman Rushdie affair:

"Although many contemporary Muslims would privately object to shari'a's suppression of freedom of belief and expression, very few are willing to express their objections publicly for fear of being branded as apostates themselves - guilt by association....To help these Muslims overcome their inhibitions, I have shown that shari'a was in fact constructed by Muslim jurists over the first three centuries of Islam....It should therefore be possible for contemporary Muslims to undertake a similar process of interpretation and application of the Quran...in the present historical context to develop an alternative public law of Islam which is appropriate for implementation today."

Ashraf al-Mansour, writing for Aqoul, finds it noteworthy that the nature of the protests differed so widely in the Middle East region. There were almost no demonstrations in the most populous Arab country, Egypt - home of the Muslim Brotherhood - but the violence in Palestine and Syria stood out as "extraordinary".

Al-Mansour sees this as an indication that the demonstrations were more rooted in the particular local situation rather than in an "Islamic rage". It is not that Egyptians, Turks or Iranians are inherently less violent than Palestinians and Syrians, but because the governments in those countries "simply didn't allow any violence against European institutions".

He notes that in Palestine, it was an offshoot of the secular Fatah - the al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade - that led the demonstrations against the cartoons, rather than the overtly Islamist groups Hamas or Islamic Jihad. This he sees as a reflection of the lack of authority of Fatah over its own followers in contrast with the discipline of Hamas.

The Lebanese government, on the other hand, “is the weakest in the region - but the ISF (Internal Security Forces) would rather shoot at demonstrators than let them damage an embassy."

Or Does it Explode draws attention to another cartoon controversy eight years ago, in which the French authorities demonstrated a less than heroic response to the defence of freedom of speech. In 1988, the regime of Saddam Hussein threatened to withdraw funding from an exhibition in Paris that featured a cartoon by the Syrian Ali Farzat satirising Arab military regimes.

"Although the show was on free French soil, Farzat's cartoon was removed, an example of how the regimes' repression is so often accepted, and even reinforced in the West. Draw your own parallels." The blogger goes on to note, though, that back in 1988, "there was a small happy ending: the other cartoonists rebelled, adding their own names to the offending picture and threatening to remove their work. For once, Iraq backed off."

The last word must go to Sa'ad, author of the The Angry Arab News Service blog:

"I may understand if somebody wants to boycott the Danish publication that printed the cartoons. But why boycott Denmark? The Danish people are not responsible for whatever a Danish publication prints. I have been to Denmark and find the people there to be friendly and nice. And I like the pastries. The Danish people may have been only guilty of electing a right-wing government that sent troops to Iraq. But that issue does not seem to anger Muslim/Arab demonstrators who are busy being angry at the cartoons.

“Angry Arab is often angry at Western and Eastern anger. I often identify with neither. Where do I go? Do they have soy milk on space stations?"
=============
Thought I should add this.

10:00 PM  
Blogger Rain said...

I probably shouldn't be writting this right before I fall out! What I think we are talking about here is Free speech and that is something I believe in and I am willing to fight for. And the more I hear about these damn cartoons the more I want to see them published everywhere. Wall paper the world with them. Because they are intolerant of our free spreech while their access to free speech is not being limited at all. So I wish some news papers here would run the cartoon. (sigh) there I have an a opinion!!
Their society almost smothers the women to death in there robes and their segregation from the men and matters of importance. So they do not have respect for women, otherpoints of view, only their own.
okay, keys are shifting around, gotta go good night.

3:22 AM  
Anonymous Yeeman said...

Hey everybody, I just read today that athletes will be prohibited to blog. Blogging is a fundamental outcome of free speech. The fact that we are blogging should thus be celebrated and is an outcome of many people who "fought" for this human right.
Yes, I agree, the fundamental issue is free speech. (I think that anybody who blogs knows this intuitively).

1:15 PM  
Blogger Ms Burden said...

Once, when I lived in Florida, the KKK had done a parade on the streets downtown, for some reason that I don't recall right now. And their members got really upset because no one, no local press, nobody turned that event public. I guess they thought their fuss deserved to be in the media. Why? Why do we need to give credit to those murderers??? And why are there still groups like those? Why is there so much hatred and intolerance???

2:29 PM  
Blogger Hamel said...

It's dangerous when we assume our beliefs and faith must be accepted by others. In the US the Christians are doing this, while over in your area it's the Muslims.

Faith is one thing. Force is another.

1:31 PM  
Anonymous Yeeman said...

Laila, a billion dollar question with no easy answers. But I am studying the dynamics in a group now and we are reading this:
http://www.willthompson.co.uk/ProjectiveProcesses.html


Actually, I find it hilarious that the KKK was upset about not getting atention. Why does it seem evil out there gets more attention than the 'evil and ignorance' within?

7:08 PM  
Blogger bulb said...

The KKK is just a social club for guys with really tiny wieners who know their wives secretly fantasize about eh..... ME mostly. And blacks.

8:21 PM  
Blogger Rosie (formerly known as Rox) said...

What? "The Religion Of Peace?" Who are they kidding? It has never made sense to kill for peace or to hate for love, and it never will.

~Rosie~

11:54 PM  
Anonymous Yeeman said...

http://www.odemagazine.com/article.php?aID=4251

"Walsch believes that most of our problems are in fact due to religious ideas: “Our religious systems have led to death and violence, social injustice and widespread poverty as well as an increasing gap between rich and poor. They have created ruthless competition, caused children to die of starvation, women to be mistreated and raped and have oppressed societies. Religion has brought us more grief than happiness, more war than peace and more hate than love for our fellow man than we’d like to admit.
: “Religions,” he continues, “have taught us that there is an absolute system of separation and superiority whereby God is the highest authority and the lowest echelons are populated by those who don’t want to accept God as God wishes. Moreover, religions have convinced us that there is a whole system of revenge that makes quick work of those who refuse to accept God’s will when it comes to these issues. Nearly all institutionalized religions based on exclusion speak repeatedly of an angry, jealous and harsh God who uses violence and death, and who forgives the use of violence and death as a means of solving religious conflicts. If you think this is tough language, simply consult the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon or the texts of other major religions. According to the Bible alone, over a million people were destroyed by the hand of God or on His authority.

Walsch sees his sharp criticism of religions as an attempt to help find real solutions to the planet’s problems: “As long as we disagree about the reasons behind human dysfunction, all our efforts to put an end to it will lead to nothing. This is also the reason why we continue to try and solve our problems along political, economic or even military lines. But this is not a solution because the problems facing our world are of a spiritual nature. They have to do with what we believe.”
The image humans have of God is particularly ripe for an overhaul. “The image that has been formed and developed throughout the ages by many religious institutions has affected us deeply. What if this image is wrong? What if it is a faulty version of a faulty vision? What I want to ask the institutionalized religions is whether they would be willing to thoroughly examine their doctrines to see if a few of them might not be urging us towards war, not peace.”

9:09 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home