Religions > Atheism > The Dawkins Delusion; dangerous religion and other worldviews.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Thandarr" |
| Date: |
21 Jun 2007 08:20:27 PM |
| Object: |
The Dawkins Delusion; dangerous religion and other worldviews. |
Is it religion or ideology that makes people kill?
McGrath makes the point, which I think has merit, that it is not
merely religions, but worldviews that can give rise to fanaticism (p.
58). Some of those worldviews are religious; some are not. Of
course, McGrath forgets his own point when he repeats the libel that
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and other Communists committed their crimes in the
name of atheism a scant twenty pages later.
One of the most unjust arguments, of which the theists are incredibly
fond, is that the murderous regimes of the twentieth century,
Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia , and Maoist China,
committed their crimes in the name of atheism.
The accusation is absurd. There's no reason to kill people to
suppress superstitious nonsense.
Of course, they always forget that Hitler was not, by any stretch of
the imagination, an atheist (but that's a different argument since at
least McGrath didn't repeat that particular nonsense).
To the very small extent that the communists committed their crimes
for ideology, rather than to eliminate other potential sources of
power, they did so in the name of communism, not atheism. Historical
realities and Marx's muddled theorizing is all that caused communists
to align themselves with atheism.
To me, communism has frightening parallels with theism. Both
communists and theists believe in phenomena on the basis of theory
without the slightest evidentiary support. Both look forward to an
apocalyptic future. Both engender fanaticism. Both venerate their
prophets. If I could believe anything in Acts of the Apostles, I'd be
constrained to conclude that the earliest Christian societies were
socialist.
I recognize that it seems counterintuitive, not to mention insulting
to both theists and communists, but I suggest that communism was just
another "religion," at least when analyzed from the standpoint of its
impact on its adherents.
Thandarr
.
|
|
| User: "Pt. Lurk Pt." |
|
| Title: Re: The Dawkins Delusion; dangerous religion and other worldviews. |
21 Jun 2007 11:41:56 PM |
|
|
"Thandarr" <thandarr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182475227.356277.45330@g37g2000prf.
To me, communism has frightening parallels with theism. Both
communists and theists believe in phenomena on the basis of theory
without the slightest evidentiary support. Both look forward to an
apocalyptic future. Both engender fanaticism. Both venerate their
prophets. If I could believe anything in Acts of the Apostles, I'd be
constrained to conclude that the earliest Christian societies were
socialist.
I recognize that it seems counterintuitive, not to mention insulting
to both theists and communists, but I suggest that communism was just
another "religion," at least when analyzed from the standpoint of its
impact on its adherents.
I would say the above were good points well made.
Something that one might add about Stalin's particular variety of so-called
'Communism' (Marx wouldn't have recognised it...) is that it took root in an
uneducated population made stupid and uncritical by religion. Thus the 1917
Revolution brought about no replacement of religion by rationality, but
rather the opportunity for millions to abandon a counter-empirical religion
that put them at the bottom of the heap and replace it by a
counter-empirical religion that put them (supposedly) at the top.
L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Dawkins Delusion; dangerous religion and other worldviews. |
22 Jun 2007 03:51:25 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:20:27 -0700, in alt.atheism , Thandarr
<thandarr@yahoo.com> in
<1182475227.356277.45330@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Is it religion or ideology that makes people kill?
No. That is, if we look at the world around us we see that killing is
pretty common, even among those species with neither religion nor
ideology.
McGrath makes the point, which I think has merit, that it is not
merely religions, but worldviews that can give rise to fanaticism (p.
58). Some of those worldviews are religious; some are not. Of
course, McGrath forgets his own point when he repeats the libel that
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and other Communists committed their crimes in the
name of atheism a scant twenty pages later.
But some communists sure did commit their crimes in the name of
atheism. Why is that so distressing to people here? It does not say a
thing about whether or not there is a god, it does not say a thing
about whether or not some particular atheists are going to do bad
things, it does not really help us decide if atheists in general are
going to do bad things.
One of the most unjust arguments, of which the theists are incredibly
fond, is that the murderous regimes of the twentieth century,
Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia , and Maoist China,
committed their crimes in the name of atheism.
The Nazis were not atheist at all, Christianity was deeply engrained
in their ideology. But certainly plenty of people in the Communist
revolution saw religion and/or the Church as a cause of the evils in
the world and their solution was to kill
The accusation is absurd. There's no reason to kill people to
suppress superstitious nonsense.
That you have no desire to do that does not mean that no one else
does. It astounds, and sometimes amuses me, that people here declare
that there is nothing about atheism except a lack in belief in god,
then they turn around tell us that atheists can't do something or
other. Of course atheists can kill in the name of atheism: it is not a
requirement, but neither can the idea prohibit it.
Of course, they always forget that Hitler was not, by any stretch of
the imagination, an atheist (but that's a different argument since at
least McGrath didn't repeat that particular nonsense).
Then who is the "they"?
To the very small extent that the communists committed their crimes
for ideology, rather than to eliminate other potential sources of
power, they did so in the name of communism, not atheism. Historical
realities and Marx's muddled theorizing is all that caused communists
to align themselves with atheism.
Really? Not objection to the use of the Church, and belief in God, to
support the Czar?
To me, communism has frightening parallels with theism. Both
communists and theists believe in phenomena on the basis of theory
without the slightest evidentiary support.
Wow, talk about nonsense. There certainly is evidence to support
socialism (both families and corporation are examples of organizations
based on shared use of resource rather than market driven price
setting). And since communism is a form of socialism that evidence
provides some support for communism.
Both look forward to an
apocalyptic future.
Excepting communism, where the future is utopian not apocalyptic. Oh,
and not all religions propose an apocalyptic future. But don't let,
well, evidence get in the way of your theories.
Both engender fanaticism. Both venerate their
prophets.
And now you try to pretend that metaphor is the same thing as reality.
That is, you use a religious metaphor to refer (badly, but I don't
expect you to understand religion) a political position, and then
claim that this makes it real.
If I could believe anything in Acts of the Apostles, I'd be
constrained to conclude that the earliest Christian societies were
socialist.
Probably were. Did you have a point here? Or are you seriously
confusing economic arrangements and political views?
I recognize that it seems counterintuitive, not to mention insulting
to both theists and communists, but I suggest that communism was just
another "religion," at least when analyzed from the standpoint of its
impact on its adherents.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: The Dawkins Delusion; dangerous religion and other worldviews. |
23 Jun 2007 12:12:40 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
Thandarr <thandarr@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
To me, communism has frightening parallels with theism. Both
communists and theists believe in phenomena on the basis of theory
without the slightest evidentiary support.
Wow, talk about nonsense. There certainly is evidence to support
socialism (both families and corporation are examples of organizations
based on shared use of resource rather than market driven price
setting). And since communism is a form of socialism that evidence
provides some support for communism.
What's your opinion of Hugo Chavez? Is he a communist dictator to be
feared by the US? What's wrong with his policies that makes him such
a supposed threat to our freedoms?
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
"Some foreign governments, especially the government of the United
States, view Chávez as a threat to global oil prices and regional
stability."
Does the opposition to him all stem from his control of Venezuela's
oil, or is it more than that? He was supposedly elected
democratically, and can be voted out of power, so is he really a
dictator or not?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Dawkins Delusion; dangerous religion and other worldviews. |
23 Jun 2007 01:01:06 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:12:40 -0500, Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
Thandarr <thandarr@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
To me, communism has frightening parallels with theism. Both
communists and theists believe in phenomena on the basis of theory
without the slightest evidentiary support.
Wow, talk about nonsense. There certainly is evidence to support
socialism (both families and corporation are examples of organizations
based on shared use of resource rather than market driven price
setting). And since communism is a form of socialism that evidence
provides some support for communism.
What's your opinion of Hugo Chavez? Is he a communist dictator to be
feared by the US? What's wrong with his policies that makes him such
a supposed threat to our freedoms?
He wants his country to benefit from its oil, not US owned
multinationals.
He wants to trade oil in Euros not dollars.
As did Hussein.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: The Dawkins Delusion; dangerous religion and other worldviews. |
23 Jun 2007 03:03:40 PM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
Thandarr <thandarr@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
To me, communism has frightening parallels with theism. Both
communists and theists believe in phenomena on the basis of theory
without the slightest evidentiary support.
Wow, talk about nonsense. There certainly is evidence to support
socialism (both families and corporation are examples of organizations
based on shared use of resource rather than market driven price
setting). And since communism is a form of socialism that evidence
provides some support for communism.
What's your opinion of Hugo Chavez? Is he a communist dictator to be
feared by the US? What's wrong with his policies that makes him such
a supposed threat to our freedoms?
He wants his country to benefit from its oil, not US owned
multinationals.
I've watched several documentaries about him and it seems he's using
some of the oil money to provide health care and low-cost housing to
many of the people in Venezuela, so many people there want to keep him
in office. Why is that wrong?
He wants to trade oil in Euros not dollars.
As did Hussein.
I read a conspiracy theory a while back about that being one of the
main reasons the US government wanted to take Hussein out of power.
Apparently if all world oil is traded in euros, then it would
seriously harm the value of the US dollar. Is that true?
Why is it wrong for the citizens of a country to benefit from whatever
natural resources they might have in their country, instead of a few
select private companies and their leaders benefiting from them
instead? It goes completely against capitalism?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pt. Lurk Pt." |
|
| Title: Re: The Dawkins Delusion; dangerous religion and other worldviews. |
23 Jun 2007 06:04:21 PM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message news:
I've watched several documentaries about him and it seems he's using
some of the oil money to provide health care and low-cost housing to
many of the people in Venezuela, so many people there want to keep him
in office. Why is that wrong?
Three reasons, my dear chap. (i) Washington doesn't benefit from it; (ii) If
the idea spreads, other countries in the region will decide they want the
same, and that will be bad news for Washington; (iii) If the idea spreads
further, the *US population* will decide they want the same, and that will
be *very* bad news for Washington.
Why is it wrong for the citizens of a country to benefit from whatever
natural resources they might have in their country, instead of a few
select private companies and their leaders benefiting from them
instead?
See above, my dear chap. The world and its resources all belong to US
corporations; 'tis a vile and treasonable act to think or behave as if this
ain't so.
For the rest, here is a media watchdog mailing about the treatment of Chavez
in the UK re. his recent action against a TV company:
Bests,
L.
---------
MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media
June 13, 2007
MEDIA ALERT: CHAVEZ AND RCTV - TILTING THE BALANCE AGAINST 'THE BAD GUY'
As we have previously reported* Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has long
been demonised by the Western media as a "leftist firebrand" (The
Independent), "Venezuela's demagogue" (Washington Post), and as a
"militaristic strongman" (Financial Times).
No surprise, then, that Chavez's decision not to renew the licence of Radio
Caracas Television (RCTV) has elicited outrage across Britain and America.
In an article titled, '"He is losing the country's respect",' Catherine
Philp wrote in the Times:
"The move has fuelled accusations that Mr Chavez is moving towards an
increasingly authoritarian rule and is quashing dissent against his
'socialist revolution'." (Philp, '"He is losing the country's respect",' The
Times, May 29, 2007)
The Washington Post described the action as an attempt to silence opponents,
supplying further "proof" that Chávez is a "dictator". (FAIR, Media
Advisory, 'Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs - Distorting the
Venezuelan media story,' May 25, 2007;
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107)
One might think from these comments that Chavez is indeed behaving like a
stereotypical "strongman". So why is he refusing to renew the licence?
According to CNN reporter TJ Holmes the motive lies in the fact that RCTV
"has been critical of his government" (Ibid). The Associated Press also
stressed that RCTV "has been critical of Chávez". (Ibid) A Guardian headline
carried the same emphasis: "Chavez silences critical TV station - and robs
the people of their soaps." (Rory Carroll, The Guardian, May 23, 2007) A
Financial Times news report was titled: "Chavez pulls plug on dissenting TV
station." (Benedict Mander, Financial Times, May 9, 2007)
These and similar claims have given the impression that Chavez is simply
crushing dissent. An Independent leader came closer to the truth:
"President Chavez has long detested RCTV, accusing it of helping to incite a
coup against him in 2002." (Leader, 'A show of intolerance,' The
Independent, May 30, 2007)
As this suggests, the problem with RCTV does not revolve around political
differences with Chavez; it revolves around RCTV's attempts to overthrow the
democratically elected government of Venezuela.
A consistent theme of media reporting has been to ascribe this "accusation"
to Chavez personally. Thus the Independent wrote of the "station, which Mr
Chavez believes was plotting against him". ('Anti-Chavez protesters clash
with police,' The Independent, May 29, 2007)
The Times reported: "President Chavez withdrew its licence, accusing the
network of 'coup plotting'". (Philp, op. cit)
Likewise the Financial Times: "Chavez has repeatedly alleged that it
supported the [2002] coup..." (Richard Lapper, 'TV channel axed in latest
Chavez drama,' Financial Times, May 26, 2007)
And the BBC: "He [Chavez] says they were involved in a coup that nearly
toppled him five years ago." (James Ingham, 'Venezuelans protest over TV
issue,' BBC Online, May 27, 2007;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/6695769.stm)
These media reports thus all distort the truth by attributing a mere "claim"
to Chavez, someone they have all previously demonised as an authoritarian
"strongman". This earlier demonisation acts to undermine the credibility of
the charge against RCTV in readers' minds, so reinforcing the bias of
ostensibly balanced reporting against the Venezuelan government. Robert
McChesney and Mark Weisbrot explain:
"This is a common means of distorting the news: a fact is reported as
accusation, and then attributed to a source that the press has done
everything to discredit." (McChesney and Weisbrot, 'Venezuela and the Media:
Fact and Fiction,' Common Dreams, June 1, 2007;
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/01/1607/)
Consider, for example, that the BBC's Ben Brown said of Saddam Hussein:
"He claims UN sanctions have reduced many of his citizens to near
starvation - pictures like these [of a malnourished baby and despairing
mother] have been a powerful propaganda weapon for Saddam, which he'll now
have to give up." (Brown, BBC News, June 20, 1996)
And ITN's John Draper:
"The idea now is targeted or 'smart' sanctions to help ordinary people while
at the same time preventing the Iraqi leader from blaming the West for the
hardships they're suffering." (Draper, ITN, 22:30 News, February 20, 2001)
And the Observer:
"The Iraqi dictator says his country's children are dying in their thousands
because of the West's embargoes." (John Sweeney, 'How Saddam "staged" fake
baby funerals,' The Observer, June 23, 2002)
Viewed from the perspective of honest reporting, the opinion of Saddam
Hussein - a thoroughly demonised and non-credible source - was irrelevant to
an analysis of the effects of sanctions. A range of very credible reports
from the United Nations, aid agencies and human rights groups all blamed
mass death in Iraq on sanctions. These were the views that mattered for
anyone who cared about the truth.
Likewise, it is a simple fact, not a claim, that RCTV was deeply complicit
in the 2002 military coup - and the views of the West's Venezuelan bete
noire should be placed front and centre only if we are content for media
demonisation to undermine this truth.
A Climate Of Transition - Overthrowing Chavez
In a rare example of media honesty, the Los Angeles Times reported last
month that RCTV had initially been focused on providing entertainment:
"But after Chavez was elected president in 1998, RCTV shifted to another
endeavour: ousting a democratically elected leader from office." (Bart
Jones, 'Hugo Chavez versus RCTV - Venezuela's oldest private TV network
played a major role in a failed 2002 coup,' Los Angeles Times, May 30, 2007;
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-jones30may30,1,5553603.story?ctrack=1&cset=true)
Controlled by members of the country's ruling elite, including station chief
Marcel Granier, the channel saw Chavez's "Bolivarian Revolution" in defence
of Venezuela's poor as a threat to established privilege and wealth.
Thus, for two days before the April 11, 2002 coup, RCTV cancelled regular
programming and instead ran constant coverage of a general strike aimed at
ousting Chavez. A stream of commentators delivered fierce criticism of the
president with no response allowed from the government. RCTV also ran
non-stop adverts encouraging people to attend an April 11 march aimed at
toppling the government and broadcast blanket coverage of the event. When
the march ended in violence, RCTV ran manipulated video footage falsely
blaming Chavez supporters for the many deaths and injuries.
On the same day, RCTV allowed leading coup plotter Carlos Ortega to call for
demonstrators to march on the presidential palace. After the overthrow
appeared to have succeeded, another coup leader, Vice-Admiral Victor Ramírez
Pérez, told a journalist: "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I
have the opportunity, let me congratulate you." Another grateful leader
remarked: "I must thank Venevisión and RCTV." (Fair, op. cit)
RCTV news director Andres Izarra later testified at National Assembly
hearings on the coup attempt that he had received clear orders from
superiors at the station:
"Zero pro-Chavez, nothing related to Chavez or his supporters... The idea
was to create a climate of transition and to start to promote the dawn of a
new country." (Bart Jones, op. cit)
While the streets of Caracas erupted with public outrage against the coup,
RCTV turned a blind eye and showed soap operas, cartoons and old movies
instead.
On April 13, 2002, RCTV's Marcel Granier and other media moguls met in the
Miraflores palace to offer their support to the country's new dictator,
Pedro Carmona who, at a stroke, demolished Venezuela's democratic
institutions - eliminating the Supreme Court, the National Assembly and the
Constitution.
Finally, when Chávez returned to power (April 13, 2002), the commercial
stations again refused to cover the news.
In a leader titled, 'Chavez clampdown: Closing TV station is part of pattern
of authoritarianism,' the Financial Times observed last month:
"The closure limits freedom of expression and reflects the arbitrary and
authoritarian approach that has come to characterise Mr Chavez's government.
In a region where the media have been becoming more open in recent years
after the dark period of military rule in the 1970s and 1980s, this is a
backward and worrying step." (Leader, Financial Times, May 29, 2007)
The irony is bitter indeed. It was a "backward and worrying step" of exactly
this kind that RCTV attempted to impose on Venezuela by means of a military
coup. As the coup appeared to have succeeded in April 2002, the Financial
Times helped create "a climate of transition" for British readers:
"But while the Chavez administration was hobbled by inefficiency, a lack of
support across class lines and an inability to tackle the country's economic
problems and rising crime rate, it was Mr Chavez's overbearing and
authoritarian style that analysts said transformed the public's resigned
acceptance of an ineffectual government into an active desire among a
majority to see it removed." (Richard Lapper and Andy Webb-Vidal,
'Militaristic president falls victim to military revolt,' Financial Times,
April 13, 2002)
As for the Venezuelan media's involvement in this "backward and worrying
step", the Financial Times had no complaints, other than to comment:
"An example of Mr Chavez's militaristic style has been his confrontational
relationship with the local media, particularly television. On Tuesday, when
the business sector and union confederation began what was then a 24-hour
strike, the state began interrupting broadcasts that showed the success of
the work stoppage with turgid interviews with ministers and old video
footage of oil wells operating normally." (Andy Webb-Vidal, 'Chavez tests
limits of nation's patience,' Financial Times, April 12, 2002)
The liberal media - often considered great bastions of democracy and honest
reporting - queued up to present the overthrow of Chavez as an inevitable
response to his alienating authoritarianism and multiple failures. With
Chavez apparently gone for good, Alex Bellos wrote in the Guardian of "the
leftwing firebrand":
"Mr Chavez was elected in 1998 on a wave of popular support and quickly
established a reputation as Latin America's most charismatic leader. But his
popularity plummeted as he antagonised almost every sector of society and
failed to improve the lot of the poor."
Bellos concluded:
"Mr Chavez polarised the country by his attacks on the media and Roman
Catholic church leaders, his refusal to consult with business chiefs and his
failed attempt to assert control on the unions. The US accused his
government of provoking the crisis by ordering its supporters to fire on
peaceful demonstrators." (Alex Bellos, 'Ousted Chavez detained by army,' The
Guardian, April 13, 2002)
In fact it turned out that the US had conspired with the coup plotters to
overthrow the government. Likewise, Chavez supporters had been +defending+
themselves against sniper attack. The Venezuelan media had misrepresented
film footage to present the required version of events.
In similar vein, the Independent wrote of Chavez:
"His authoritarian style, his friendship with Fidel Castro and his inability
to reverse Venezuela's 20-year slide into poverty and corruption, took their
toll on his popularity ratings... Convinced he was embarked on a 'Bolivarian
revolution', inspired by the ideals of his hero, independence leader Simon
Bolivar, Mr Chavez was messianic in his fervour. He alienated every
organised group from the former leftist guerrillas of Bandera Roja to the
employers' federation, Fedecamaras." (Phil Gunson, 'Deposed Chavez to be
exiled as anti-coup rebels speak out,' The Independent on Sunday, April 14,
2002)
And the Observer weighed in:
"In almost four years in office Chavez alienated most sections of Venezuelan
society and was fast becoming as much of an irritant to the US as Fidel
Castro, the Cuban leader."
The conclusion:
"His popularity waned in recent months as he became more autocratic, pushing
through constitutional changes and alienating former supporters. He
exasperated many Venezuelans by implementing economic policies by decree,
and accused the news media and Roman Catholic leaders of conspiring to
overthrow him." (Faisal Islam, 'Venezuelan civil war fears as ousted
president leaves,' The Observer, April 14, 2002)
Even after days of non-stop media broadcasts had succeeded in working for
the overthrow of Chavez, for this Observer journalist talk of a media
conspiracy remained merely Chavez's accusation.
The opinions of these ostensibly well-informed, highly-trained professional
journalists were instantly rubbished by the vast popular uprising that
restored Chavez to power, and in the longer term by Chavez's eleven election
wins in nine years. In truth the coup was a class-based revolt by and for
privileged elites, led by Pedro Carmona who, as the BBC reported, was "head
of Venezuela's biggest business organisation, Fedecamaras". Carmona, it was,
who "marshalled business and trade union opposition to Mr. Chavez's economic
policies". ('Profile: Pedro Carmona,' BBC Online, May 27, 2002;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1927678.stm)
Genuine Attacks On Free Speech That Go Unnoticed
A May 30 Independent leader declared:
"RCTV was the sole opposition-aligned station with a national reach. Now it
has gone. All governments need media opposition to keep them honest. But it
appears that President Chavez does not have much time for this concept."
(Leader, 'A show of intolerance,' The Independent, May 30, 2007)
Refusing to renew the licence of a TV channel complicit in the demolition of
democracy described above is somehow "a show of intolerance" for the
Independent. In fact RCTV has not "gone" - it is being allowed to continue
operating by satellite and cable.
The Venezuela Information Centre (VIC) notes:
"In Britain, TV and radio must adhere to the Broadcasting Code which
embodies objectives that Parliament set down in the Communications Act of
2003. This states that 'Material likely to encourage or incite the
commission of crime or to lead to disorder must not be included in
television or radio services' and that 'Broadcasters must use their best
endeavours so as not to broadcast material that could endanger lives.'
RCTV's role in the coup would have clearly violated these laws." ('The truth
about RCTV - a VIC briefing,'
http://www.vicuk.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=186&Itemid=29)
FAIR also makes the obvious point: "Were a similar event to happen in the
U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup
plotters, it's doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to
continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela." (FAIR, op.
cit)
The BBC reported: "The decision to close RCTV has received international
condemnation, including from the EU, press freedom groups, Chile and the US,
which urged Mr Chavez to reverse the closure." ('Venezuela head in new TV
warning,' BBC Online, May 29, 2007;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/6702965.stm)
Almost unmentioned anywhere in the media are the statements of support made
by a number of countries and leaders, such as Rafael Correa in Ecuador,
Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Luiz Inacio Lula da
Silva in Brazil. The BBC report cited RCTV's general manager Marcel Granier
who described the "closure" as "abusive" and "arbitrary" - not a word was
written of Granier's role in the 2002 coup.
In a letter published in the Guardian (May 26, 2007), Gordon Hutchinson of
VIC noted that despite claims made by opponents of Chavez, there is no
censorship in Venezuela, where 95% of the media is fiercely opposed to the
government. This includes five privately owned TV channels controlling 90%
of the market. All of the country's 118 newspaper companies, both regional
and national, are held in private hands, as are 706 out of 709 radio
stations.
While the British and American press focus intensely on the alleged crushing
of free speech in Venezuela, little is written about comparable actions
elsewhere. A report on 21 countries, including the US and in Europe, by J.
David Carracedo published in the magazine Diagonal, found that there have
been at least 236 closures, revocations, and non-renewals of radio and TV
licences. (See: VIC, 'The truth about RCTV,' op. cit)
There is also little media interest in genuine attacks on media freedom
elsewhere in Latin America.
In Honduras, beginning May 28, 2007, President Manuel Zelaya ordered all TV
and radio stations to broadcast daily one-hour prime-time programmes for ten
days to counteract what he called "misinformation" on his administration
provided by the press. (Ibid)
The BBC reported Zelaya's actions on May 25 (Will Grant, 'Honduras TV gets
government order'; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6690217.stm) A
June 11 media database search found that in the previous two weeks the US
press had mentioned Zelaya's actions in four articles - the highest-profile
outlet being the Miami Herald. Over the same period, the US press had
mentioned the words "Chavez" and "RCTV" in 207 articles. The British press
had not mentioned Zelaya's actions at all - Chavez and RCTV had been
mentioned in 23 articles.
In Colombia, President Álvaro Uribe was asked if he would have refused to
renew RCTV's licence. Uribe replied: "I would not do that to anybody."
The Inter Press Service News Agency commented wryly:
"But the rightwing Uribe cannot shut down opposition TV stations for the
simple reason that there aren't any." (Diana Cariboni, 'Easy to See the
Speck in the Other's Eye,' May 30, 2007;
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37957)
In October 2004, Uribe closed the public Instituto de Radio y Televisión
(Inravisión). The Colombian government argued that Inravisión was
"inefficient." But the underlying problem "was the strength of the union" of
Inravisión employees, according to Milciades Vizcaíno, a sociologist who
worked for nearly 27 years in educational programming for the channel.
(Ibid)
In Nicaragua in 2002, La Poderosa radio station lost its licence and had its
equipment seized without any legal proceedings by the Enrique Bolaños
administration. La Poderosa was an outspoken critic of the government.
These and many other attacks on free speech across the region do not make
the front pages of the British and American press. As usual, alleged
concerns for democracy and human rights mask deeper priorities: protecting
governments that toe the line dictated by Western power, and undermining
those that do not.
SUGGESTED ACTION
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for
others. If you decide to write to journalists, we strongly urge you to
maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
Ask the following journalists why, for example, they cite Chavez as the
source for a mere "claim" that RCTV was deeply involved in the military coup
to overthrow Chavez. Why do they not state RCTV's involvement in the coup as
an undeniable fact?
Write to Catherine Philp
Email:
Write to Richard Lapper
Email:
Write to James Ingham
Email:
Write to Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor
Email:
Write to Simon Kelner, Independent editor
Email:
Please send a copy of your emails to us
Email:
Please do NOT reply to the email address from which this media alert
originated. Please instead email us at
Email:
This media alert will shortly be archived here:
www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070613_chavez_and_rctv.php
* See our earlier Media Alerts:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060405_cartoon_time_channel.php
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060516_ridiculing_chavez_the.php
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060518_ridiculing_chavez_the.php
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060619_the_system_works.php
The Media Lens book 'Guardians of Power: The Myth Of The Liberal Media' by
David Edwards and David Cromwell (Pluto Books, London) was published in
2006. John Pilger described it as "The most important book about journalism
I can remember."
For further details, including reviews, interviews and extracts, please
click here:
www.medialens.org/bookshop/guardians_of_power.php
We are happy to maintain these alerts as a free service but please consider
donating to Media Lens:
www.medialens.org/donate
Please visit the Media Lens website: www.medialens.org
If you wish to unsubscribe please click on the link below:
http://www.medialens.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/medialens/mailproc/register.cgi?unsubscribe=f1t1nOl1FIzk
15/847 - Release Date: 12/06/2007 21:42
---------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Chavez and Communism and Oil |
24 Jun 2007 11:26:15 AM |
|
|
Pt. Lurk <Pt. Lurk@renvcom.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message news:
I've watched several documentaries about him and it seems he's using
some of the oil money to provide health care and low-cost housing to
many of the people in Venezuela, so many people there want to keep him
in office. Why is that wrong?
Three reasons, my dear chap. (i) Washington doesn't benefit from it; (ii) If
the idea spreads, other countries in the region will decide they want the
same, and that will be bad news for Washington; (iii) If the idea spreads
further, the *US population* will decide they want the same, and that will
be *very* bad news for Washington.
You're talking about the US population wanting the government to
nationalize existing oil fields? I'm sure the oil companies would be
against that, and we don't really have any massive oil fields left, do
we? I guess we don't really know, since it's too expensive for
private companies to do much exploration these days, plus
environmentalists are against such exploration.
Maybe there's huge amounts of untapped oil here in Texas where I live,
just waiting to be sucked out of the ground, who knows? I know for a
fact that there's all kinds of wasted land around here, not being used
for anything at all, which might have oil underneath it.
I'd really like to see us get away from relying on oil for power, but
I also dislike us having to rely on other countries to supply our oil,
if we might have more than we need right here in our own country,
if we can only find it.
Why is it wrong for the citizens of a country to benefit from whatever
natural resources they might have in their country, instead of a few
select private companies and their leaders benefiting from them
instead?
See above, my dear chap. The world and its resources all belong to US
corporations; 'tis a vile and treasonable act to think or behave as if this
ain't so.
I watched a sad documentary about the diamond industry in Africa, and
how it's caused wars and fighting. The people in the countries that
have the diamond mines are actually among the poorest in the world,
meanwhile the companies that are mining and selling the diamonds are
getting richer than ever. It doesn't seem right to me...
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thandarr" |
|
| Title: Re: The Dawkins Delusion; dangerous religion and other worldviews. |
22 Jun 2007 11:18:35 PM |
|
|
On Jun 22, 3:51 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:20:27 -0700, in alt.atheism ,Thandarr
<thand...@yahoo.com> in
<1182475227.356277.45...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Is it religion or ideology that makes people kill?
No. That is, if we look at the world around us we see that killing is
pretty common, even among those species with neither religion nor
ideology.
McGrath makes the point, which I think has merit, that it is not
merely religions, but worldviews that can give rise to fanaticism (p.
58). Some of those worldviews are religious; some are not. Of
course, McGrath forgets his own point when he repeats the libel that
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and other Communists committed their crimes in the
name of atheism a scant twenty pages later.
But some communists sure did commit their crimes in the name of
atheism. Why is that so distressing to people here? It does not say a
thing about whether or not there is a god, it does not say a thing
about whether or not some particular atheists are going to do bad
things, it does not really help us decide if atheists in general are
going to do bad things.
The communists committed their crimes to accumulate power and
eliminate enemies. You are correct that it is no particular stain on
atheists that some of their number have done very bad things.
Nevertheless, the historical context shows that the communist mass
murderers were only peripherally concerned with superstition, and very
concerned with gaining and maintaining a monopoly on power.
One of the most unjust arguments, of which the theists are incredibly
fond, is that the murderous regimes of the twentieth century,
Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia , and Maoist China,
committed their crimes in the name of atheism.
The Nazis were not atheist at all, Christianity was deeply engrained
in their ideology. But certainly plenty of people in the Communist
revolution saw religion and/or the Church as a cause of the evils in
the world and their solution was to kill
The church was a political ally of the tsar and reactionary and anti-
communist forces in Russia. To that extent, it was a cause of evils
in the world.
The accusation is absurd. There's no reason to kill people to
suppress superstitious nonsense.
That you have no desire to do that does not mean that no one else
does. It astounds, and sometimes amuses me, that people here declare
that there is nothing about atheism except a lack in belief in god,
then they turn around tell us that atheists can't do something or
other. Of course atheists can kill in the name of atheism: it is not a
requirement, but neither can the idea prohibit it.
There are some murders who just murder because they're insane. Let's
rule them out, because they really aren't a big part of the kind of
mass murder we're talking about here.The majority of the killing in
human history has been calculated killing designed to achieve a
result. Gain and consolodate power, steal land and goods, secure
mating opportunites, protect mating opportunities, and other very real
motivations are behind most wars and atrocities. Killing others
always involves a risk of adverse consequences. People calculate the
risks and benefits. There is no reason to kill others just because
they believe in superstitions. There is all kinds of reason to kill
people who are oppressing you by means of political power or, if you
are the oppressor, opposing your political power.
Of course, they always forget that Hitler was not, by any stretch of
the imagination, an atheist (but that's a different argument since at
least McGrath didn't repeat that particular nonsense).
Then who is the "they"?
The numerous Christians who assert that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao
committed the greatest crimes of the 20th century because they were
atheists.
To the very small extent that the communists committed their crimes
for ideology, rather than to eliminate other potential sources of
power, they did so in the name of communism, not atheism. Historical
realities and Marx's muddled theorizing is all that caused communists
to align themselves with atheism.
Really? Not objection to the use of the Church, and belief in God, to
support the Czar?
Those were some of the "historical realities" to which I referred.
Religion was reactionary and conservative and very much linked to the
pre-revolutionary power structure.
To me, communism has frightening parallels with theism. Both
communists and theists believe in phenomena on the basis of theory
without the slightest evidentiary support.
Wow, talk about nonsense. There certainly is evidence to support
socialism (both families and corporation are examples of organizations
based on shared use of resource rather than market driven price
setting). And since communism is a form of socialism that evidence
provides some support for communism.
Communism is based on Marx and Engels's philosophizing and theorizing,
which was supported by almost no empirical evidence. Sure, Marx did
know and chronicle previous historical trends, but he massively
misinterpreted them. Marx's predictions were wrong. Communism is
inimical to human nature. It can survive for a time, as long as
there's a good crisis going on, but it has collapsed of its own weight
in Russia and is being quietly discarded in China. Only a few small
states which are suffering from external pressures have managed to
maintain communism, and I predict they'll abandon communism soon after
those external pressures wane. For instance, the American hostilities
toward Cuba stiffen the Cuban people's resilience. If the US would
just cut out that nonsense, communism would collapse.
Both look forward to an
apocalyptic future.
Excepting communism, where the future is utopian not apocalyptic. Oh,
and not all religions propose an apocalyptic future. But don't let,
well, evidence get in the way of your theories.
I suppose I have to concede this point. There is a difference. But
both expect horrible upheaval to come before an earthly paradise. I
don't know about all religions. I've only been exposed to a few.
Both engender fanaticism. Both venerate their
prophets.
And now you try to pretend that metaphor is the same thing as reality.
That is, you use a religious metaphor to refer (badly, but I don't
expect you to understand religion) a political position, and then
claim that this makes it real.
I don't understand this comment. Communist veneration of Marx,
Engels, Lenin, and Mao is a whole lot like veneration of saints and
prophets.
It's hard for me to understand religion, although I have spent a lot
of time trying to understand it. I have concluded that I don't
understand most religion because it doesn't make any sense. Still,
I'm willing to learn.
If I could believe anything in Acts of the Apostles, I'd be
constrained to conclude that the earliest Christian societies were
socialist.
Probably were. Did you have a point here? Or are you seriously
confusing economic arrangements and political views?
No. I was only talking about economic arrangements. There was no
political movement for state socialism in the first century, and at
that time the Christians had no hope of taking political control at
that time. The delusion that socialists and the earliest Christians
shared was that you could successfully run an economy in which all
property is held in common and distributed on the basis of need.
That's contrary to human nature and does not work. It'd be real nice
if it did, but it doesn't.
Of course, later the Christians did take control of the Roman Empire,
but that was around 313. [And it only took them about 150 years to
run the greatest empire in the history of the western world into the
ground.]
I recognize that it seems counterintuitive, not to mention insulting
to both theists and communists, but I suggest that communism was just
another "religion," at least when analyzed from the standpoint of its
impact on its adherents.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.orghttp://www.darfurgenocide.orghttp://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
