World Political Debate Team

[O'Rothlain]

America, Europe, Islamic Nations, North Korea, Rocky v. Drago, The Fall of the Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity...here is the place to discuss it. I personally feel you're all a bunch of wankers if you don't agree with me...no offense.

 

[Ripper]

No wonder SANZAR loves BBC...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...9/09/do0901.xml
http://home.comcast.net/~jat.action/BBC_bias.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../15/nbeeb15.xml

 

[St Helens RLFC]

RIPPER, RIPPER, RIPPER.

 

[O'Rothlain]

I did read the article from The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/09/09/do0901.xml, Time to watch the BBC bias that costs each of us £116 a year
By Charles Moore). The problem is, that the majority of media have been, historically speaking, biased slightly to the left. The media are always trying to present stories on the side of the everyman (if this reference bedazzels you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyman). In America we are now seeing a slight change, though with a strong right-wing bias (see all the references to FOX News). The other problem is not so much that the Corporations (ie BBC) have a bias, but the people they hire. They want to publish stories that either get people to read, or people to watch their broadcast. Sensationalism and slightly left wing, controversial topics get viewers/readers. Have they over time had an effect on society? Yes. Unfotunately in some cases (my opinion obviously).

 

[Ripper]

I did read the article from The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/09/09/do0901.xml, Time to watch the BBC bias that costs each of us £116 a year
By Charles Moore). The problem is, that the majority of media have been, historically speaking, biased slightly to the left. The media are always trying to present stories on the side of the everyman (if this reference bedazzels you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyman). In America we are now seeing a slight change, though with a strong right-wing bias (see all the references to FOX News). The other problem is not so much that the Corporations (ie BBC) have a bias, but the people they hire. They want to publish stories that either get people to read, or people to watch their broadcast. Sensationalism and slightly left wing, controversial topics get viewers/readers. Have they over time had an effect on society? Yes. Unfotunately in some cases (my opinion obviously).
[/b]

A Question - Whats your opinion on the New York Times - Obviously I rarely get to read it (Only when my Aunt brings one back from here regular business to Yankeeville - and its one hell of a Newspaper), but I've read in numerous places that due to new management just before Sept 11, it has become a mouthpiece for the left, things like unbalanced reporting and unfairly weighting the polls in favour of the Democrats (Although funnily enough, some say this had a negative effect in the 2002 Elections).

To be honest, most of my information came from here - http://www.amazon.com/Off-Their-Heads-Obst...n/dp/0060559284 , but i've read various other message board posts and what not.

It's a good book by the way, Especially the bit where he tells the "Hollywood Experts" to shove it and while he does work for Fox (ZOMG FASCIST@!!!11), he also critiscises Bush and the right in some aspects, and he was one of Clintons Top Advisors.

And on another topic, but still on-topic, what do people think of North Korea saying the sanctions were a "Decleration of War", I saw we send in Awec Baldwin.

 

[O'Rothlain]

New York itself lends itself to the left (in American terms Democratic) as does the whole of New England. The Times present a more left-minded view. In America the view is that the left are educated, sensible, business people. Whereas the right are uneducated, biased, working class folk. I can't say that it doesn't carry some validity to it, just look at the rights leader: George W. Bush. They've now broken everything into "red" and "blue" states (read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_state_vs._blue_state_divide).
The two parties have sort of evolve to embody what the other was a hundred years ago...interesting fact. I don't read the times much myself...I find it a bit to presumptuous (by that I mean they feel that both they and their reader are ultra-smart). I read and watch FOX, CNN and the BBC. I figure if I hear the story presented from three sources I can usually figure out the real truth or at least make a genuine educated opinion.

As far as Alec Baldwin goes...he's my favorite Hollywood liberal. I don't agree with him, but I sure do like him. He's staring in a new sitcom on NBC called 30 Rock written by and starring Tina Fey (head writer for SNL, writer of Mean Girls staring Lindsey Lohan) and Tracy Morgan (SNL). It's pretty funny.

 

[Gulli]

<div class='quotemain'>
So it's all justified because the French burnt some witches at the stake 600 years ago?

What happened to the peaceful religion that is Islam? If I form my own religion today, can I crucify you because the Jews/Romans crucified Jesus 2000 years ago? Preety please?
[/b]

I don't believe that is what he's saying, though. Regardless, there is a difference between Faith and Religion. Both Christianity and Islam are "peaceful" faiths, but as far as Religion goes they both have nasty track records. Any institution is prone to greed, power and ego problems, whereas faith in itself is a personal thing that you may share (have in common) with a group of people.
[/b][/quote]
(form the N.Korea thread)

to back up your point on faith and religion being seperate things, i was watching a film called dogma the other day and whilst not being particularly factual in any way shape or form it did make a good point when talking about how to get to heaven, that its not what you believe in that matters, but that you believe and have faith.

and christianity probably has one of the worst track records concerned with things done in the name of 'religion' i don't know as much about islamic track records but people have done some monstrous things through the ages in the name of god

 

[O'Rothlain]

People always have. It's impressive what people will actually do when they feel they have the blessing of the Supreme being on their side.
Every Religion under the sun has commited autrocities in the name of their Diety. The Romans believed Ceasar was diety. They sacked many a city and enslaved many a people in his name. Islam has asserted itself as the one true religion and abolished or murdered anyone not asymilating. Christianity waged wars, and persecuted people within it's own borders (the inquisition).
Being a Christian, I have to evaluate my faith in terms of what are the core beliefs. What does the Bible actually say, and what did Christ and his followers actually do and say. While I personally don't believe that just any faith will get you to Heaven, I do have faith in Christ as the Messiah (the prophetic embodyment of the Jewish Faith).
Dogma is actually quite a brilliant movie from that standpoint. Kevin Smith himself is a devout Catholic. The movie looks at the Rules, Regulations and Requirements we as men (mankind) have built around our Faiths. Every religion has done it, and will do it.

 

[tituslechmakus]

can't we talk about something else than religion please guys ? i'm fed up with it as i'm not beliving in any of them, and for me its only a source of conflicts. btw i don't need religion for my spirituality, even if it looks weird for you. religion is a personal stuf and should not be imposed to anyone. i respect everyone's belives only if they don't try to impose it to me... and it should be the same to everyone (after all isn't it what every messiah of any religion says ?)

 

[melon]

Most muslims in my country, Australia, claim they are not radical muslims. But i ask this question. The Kuran or whatever their teachings are in says that everyone outside the faith are "infidels" and they must be "irradicated"....if they claim to be muslims then how do they also claim not to be radicals or extremists? If they are muslims then they believe we are infidels. Simple as that. If they dont believe we are infidels then they shouldnt call themselves muslims. Therefore muslims should expect to be subject to discrimination, dislike and scournfullness.

 

[tituslechmakus]

well the main problem is that the Coran is a book written in the 7th or 8th century. at that time, it was the war between christians and muslims (spain conquest by them). this book is some kind of guide for these ppl, but it was for that time. the problem is that it has not been updated since then, and what was an advice at that time, it is obsolet for now. that's why we have the islamists now, 'cause the Coran said, back in 700 that muslims had to fight the infidel christians !!! its not the point now ... but how could you convince them that their spiritual guide is wrong for our times ?
look at the prok forbidden for muslims ... same explanation : muslims basically come from the middle east, which are very hot countries. the meat conservation at that time was awful, and when you don't conserv it properly, you can often catch the lone worm (tapeworm in english ). so they decided to put this in the Coran, the pork was forbidden for a question of public health (they had to find a rligious reason for that of course) ...

 

[O'Rothlain]

Most muslims in my country, Australia, claim they are not radical muslims. But i ask this question. The Kuran or whatever their teachings are in says that everyone outside the faith are "infidels" and they must be "irradicated"....if they claim to be muslims then how do they also claim not to be radicals or extremists? If they are muslims then they believe we are infidels. Simple as that. If they dont believe we are infidels then they shouldnt call themselves muslims. Therefore muslims should expect to be subject to discrimination, dislike and scournfullness.
[/b]

Does it actually say that? I'd like to know the actual reference for that to understand the context. Any single peice of text extracted from religious writing, whether it be muslim, christian, jewish, or hindi can be taken way out of the context of which it was written.

To ***us,

The reason religion is being discussed is not out of a persuasive nature, but rather to present cause and effect of world situations. If anything our world has been dramatically altered over the last 2,000 years by religion. Take it away and all of modern society would look dramatically different: from the advancement of Europe, to the settling of America. Even the negative response to religion created some of the modes of thinking that we rely on today (the enlightenment period for example...Voltaire, mon ami?). Everyone is indeed entitled to their own view of religion, but if I am asked my direct opinion about my religious views I will state them, unabashadly.

 

[tituslechmakus]

its all right my friend, nothing against you, being christian jew or whatever. you do what you want with your faith, after all, and even if u don't live in the country of democracy )), i respect your choices !!! but i prefer to see views on the geopolitical context instead of religion, 'cause i'll always disagree ...

 

[O'Rothlain]

You can't disagree with fact. By that I mean, that Religion as an institution has shaped the geopolitical scene. There is a difference between discussing faith and discussing what the pope's actions were in 1384 that affected the face of Europe. Let's be clear that the predecesor to the roman empire was the holy roman empire and the byzantine empire respectfully which were goverened almost exclusively by their respected churches.
Religion and history are intertwined. If Henry the VIII had never disagreed with the pope, there mightent be a civil war in N. Ireland. If that's not geopolitical, then what is?

 

[edinburgh_gunner]

Religion is gash. It's just starts pointless arguments and people kill and die for it. Why give or take life for something you can't prove exists? If you ask me, the Buddhists have it right. It's more a way of life than anything, they strive to be better people in their life. Not just do stuff to go to heaven.

 

[O'Rothlain]

Look past the dogma, and examine the real teachings of Christianity and you will find the same. No, it's not something worth killing over. Mankind has always had an agenda and uses whatever seems most powerful to fulfill it.

 

[melon]

Religion is gash. It's just starts pointless arguments and people kill and die for it. Why give or take life for something you can't prove exists? If you ask me, the Buddhists have it right. It's more a way of life than anything, they strive to be better people in their life. Not just do stuff to go to heaven.
[/b]

Yeh, i agree...most people have been drawn into something so strongly because of stories they were told when they were younger. There is no absolute truth about the supposed religious heads and overall there is nothing that can make people think twice about sayin what i am about to say. (im only going to talk about christianity and similar religions because i dont know much about the other religions, only little bits). Christianity relies on stories. Christianity relies on brainwashing children from a young age so that by the time they are older they will believe. Don't get me wrong though, some of their values are very sensible but in saying that i must also say that some of their values are stupid.

I prefer to believe there is a "great architect"...someone who just created. Apart from that though, i think its sensible to just realise that the world was a ball of dense matter and it blew up and its still growing, which is our universe. I, like other people, want to know exactly what was outside the ball dense matter before the creation of the universe, but that is entirely upto scientists to discover and stupid extreme religious people to debate.

In saying this, i think that it is fair to say that the only reason we have religions is because we dont have every answer to goings on in the universe and as a result people make up stories and beliefs to counter-act the inadequacy and the part in people who believe they need to know and because they cant know, they must make bullshit up to explain.

I dont think all that was written very well but i was rushing so please forgive any spelling errors and unstructured sentences.

 

[sanzar]

No wonder SANZAR loves BBC...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...9/09/do0901.xml
http://home.comcast.net/~jat.action/BBC_bias.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../15/nbeeb15.xml
[/b]

Wait, you're having a shot at me by quoting a news and then opinion piece from a Murdoch paper? I believe that's referred to as 'deflection'. You know, when you try and take away from your own shotty standards by attacking a group that actually has a reputation for producing journalism and not punditry. It happens here too, Channel 9 attacks the ABC for bias because they go after the government too aggressively, while they ask them tough questions like "You look like you've been working out Mr Prime Minister". You're gonna have to do better than that my little right wing cheer leader.
I love the middle one though. lol, anti-israeli bias. anything is anti-israeli bias for a zionist jew! If you mention that Israeli's have killed a lot of innocent civilians in their recent war on Hezbollah they say you're anti-semetic!

 

[Canadian_Rugby_Guy]

Ok. Catholic in the group here. I'm thinking that this whole brainwashing buisiness is a load of ****. If there's any brainwashing going on, it's not God, but humans. I can draw a parallel with the Koran and someone's statement to the effect of "oh yeah it stays stuff like kill all infidel dogs" far be it from me to be a scholar and a great wiseman to tell you that this is indeed false or true, but I can sure as hell bet you that it's got mostly to do with human interpretation. When the Church suppressed scientific progress claiming it to be witchcraft etc. we're talking about the falliable mortal man corrupted by power, and not God. As for certain ideas of the Church being a little faulty, perhaps there's a point there, but I firmly believe that the basic message of it all definitely has a meaning, and that all people can benefit from it.

 

[O'Rothlain]

Yeh, i agree...most people have been drawn into something so strongly because of stories they were told when they were younger.
[/b]

How does this explain the rise of Christianity? It wasn't brainwashing...it wasn't stories told to children. Unfortunately that is all you see of Christianity today. We live in a society (both America and the UK) that is both post modern and post christian. The present ideas are no longer radical, or life changing, they are old hat, so they aren't taken with the same consideration they used to be.