Least and most religious nations

[thir]

We had to face it as part of practical politics, because the Northern Irish religious divide was a major issue for most of my life. As Americans have recently discovered, you have to pay some attention to people who are blowing up your towns for their beliefs

That, however, was also politics. Catholics were oppressed.

Most of the new leaders of Muslim fundamentalism (and terrorism) are not poor and uneducated, as Thorne would argue: they're from the upper-middle class of the oil-rich nations (and of Europe's Muslim immigrants). They argue that they've been offered Western-style materialism, and found it worthless.

It is.

Myself, I suspect this has more to do with politics than religion. .[/I]

I think there is no religious violence that is not more based on politics that religion.

[lucy]

Most of the new leaders of Muslim fundamentalism (and terrorism) are not poor and uneducated, as Thorne would argue: they're from the upper-middle class of the oil-rich nations (and of Europe's Muslim immigrants). They argue that they've been offered Western-style materialism, and found it worthless.

It is.

It is? Really? Having a choice is worthless? Having economic safety is worthless? Having more or less achieved equality for women and men is worthless? Having a life expectancy of 83,71 years (for Swiss women in the year 2008), most of them in pretty good health is worthless? Having the right to voice your opinion is worthless? Having the choice to believe or not believe and more or less be unmolested by those who believe the opposite is worthless?

You know, you don't HAVE to buy all the crap you probably COULD buy. Because, unlike a lot of people who don't live in Western-style materialism, you have a choice. Or several, even.

Plus, if it wasn't for that worthless Western-style materialism, those terrorists still would be screwing sheep in the Arabian desert. Those idiots can't even be terrorists without relying on what they despise so much.

[thir]

It is? Really? Having a choice is worthless? Having economic safety is worthless? Having more or less achieved equality for women and men is worthless? Having a life expectancy of 83,71 years (for Swiss women in the year 2008), most of them in pretty good health is worthless? Having the right to voice your opinion is worthless? Having the choice to believe or not believe and more or less be unmolested by those who believe the opposite is worthless?

You know, you don't HAVE to buy all the crap you probably COULD buy. Because, unlike a lot of people who don't live in Western-style materialism, you have a choice. Or several, even.

Plus, if it wasn't for that worthless Western-style materialism, those terrorists still would be screwing sheep in the Arabian desert. Those idiots can't even be terrorists without relying on what they despise so much.

Yes, really. It is the materialism I am talking about, living in a consumer society where it seems the only function you have is to buy and buy and buy. I wasn't talking about anything else. I do not believe we have to have that in order to have equality or long life expectancy, rather the opposite.

[Thorne]

Yes, really. It is the materialism I am talking about, living in a consumer society where it seems the only function you have is to buy and buy and buy.

Yeah, I for one am getting very tired of all those corporation thugs coming around and forcing me into the stores to buy and buy and buy. I don't seem to have a choice anymore. Just spend, spend, spend or they'll take my family away and torture them. [/sarcasm]

To my mind, anyone who complains about "materialism" is only complaining because people have the choices and the means to buy things. No one is required to buy anything except the essentials. But having the choice implies having the freedom to choose, and to some people that freedom is heresy. People who have the freedom to choose which car to buy, or which TV program to watch, or which religion to believe in just might realize that they can have a choice in whether or not some asshole preacher/minister/priest/rabbi/imam should really be allowed to control other peoples' lives! Can't have that, now, can we?

[leo9]

To my mind, anyone who complains about "materialism" is only complaining because people have the choices and the means to buy things. No one is required to buy anything except the essentials. But having the choice implies having the freedom to choose, and to some people that freedom is heresy. People who have the freedom to choose which car to buy, or which TV program to watch, or which religion to believe in just might realize that they can have a choice in whether or not some asshole preacher/minister/priest/rabbi/imam should really be allowed to control other peoples' lives! Can't have that, now, can we?

Many people of the old Soviet Union felt they had freedom of choice, too. From outside, it was easy to see that they only had the freedom to choose what they were offered, and if one steps back and looks, the same goes for the freedom of choice in the Western world.

If you choose something not on the menu offered by the corporate system - like TV programs not controlled by the Murdoch corporation, or guaranteed GM-free food, or cars built to be fuel efficient rather than to make money for the industry, or a bank account that doesn't subsidise overpaid fiscal gamblers, and don't even think of a political party not controlled by big money - suddenly it gets a lot harder, and you realise that maybe you and everyone else were never as free as you thought.

Because if people really had the freedom they imagine they have, they might have a choice in whether some billionaire financer should be allowed to control people's lives, and that would be a change far more radical than squabbles over whether to worship Allah or Darwin. There's more than one way of making religion the opium of the people, and having them focus all their energy on hating their neighbour's faith works just as well.

[Thorne]

If you choose something not on the menu offered by the corporate system - like TV programs not controlled by the Murdoch corporation, or guaranteed GM-free food, or cars built to be fuel efficient rather than to make money for the industry, or a bank account that doesn't subsidise overpaid fiscal gamblers, and don't even think of a political party not controlled by big money - suddenly it gets a lot harder, and you realise that maybe you and everyone else were never as free as you thought.

Perhaps a little disingenuous here, don't you think? If you don't like what's on the TV, don't watch it. And make sure you tell advertisers that you won't watch it. And convince your neighbors to tell advertisers the same thing. That's how the system works. If people don't watch, the advertisers don't spend money, and the show goes away.

Problem is, the people DO watch. Programmers are smart enough to appeal to the lowest common denominator, virtually guaranteeing viewers for their advertisers. If you don't like it, of course, you're free to start your own network and create your own programming. Or just don't watch, find something else to amuse you.

Because if people really had the freedom they imagine they have, they might have a choice in whether some billionaire financer should be allowed to control people's lives, and that would be a change far more radical than squabbles over whether to worship Allah or Darwin.

As sad as it may be, people with money have always had far too much control over the people who do not have money. That's also the way things work. Mostly because the people without money are hoping that some of that money will pass on down to them somehow. Maybe if they wear the right clothes, eat the right food, drink the right wine, they can be rich as well. Meanwhile, they are spending what little they have and making the rich even richer.

The solution, of course, is to not succumb to hero worship and live your life, and spend your money, for your own benefit and not to benefit a corporation. Buying the expensive brand instead of the more economical brand is not going to make you more attractive/sexy/desirable. It will only make you poorer.

And just to satisfy my curiosity, could you please point me in the direction of the nearest Temple/Church/Mosque of Darwin? I've been dying to pray to old Chuck, but can't seem to find anyplace where I can worship Him.

[leo9]

Perhaps a little disingenuous here, don't you think? If you don't like what's on the TV, don't watch it.

My point exactly. Your freedom of choice turns out to be the freedom to take what you're offered.

And make sure you tell advertisers that you won't watch it. And convince your neighbors to tell advertisers the same thing. That's how the system works. If people don't watch, the advertisers don't spend money, and the show goes away.

And gets replaced with something almost identical with detail changes. When did you last see something genuinely different?

If you don't like it, of course, you're free to start your own network and create your own programming.

And compete with Sky and News International, good luck with that. But in fact, that *is* happening now with online news and entertainment sites, which is why the media giants are trying to get a grip on the Net so they can squeeze out content they don't like.

My point was, I feel your dedication to the war on religion sometimes blinds you to other social problems. The great consumer society is not part of the solution.

And just to satisfy my curiosity, could you please point me in the direction of the nearest Temple/Church/Mosque of Darwin? I've been dying to pray to old Chuck, but can't seem to find anyplace where I can worship Him.

In this country he's got his face on the most widely circulated banknote, that's about as close to cannonisation as a secular figure gets.

[thir]

Problem is, the people DO watch. Programmers are smart enough to appeal to the lowest common denominator, virtually guaranteeing viewers for their advertisers. If you don't like it, of course, you're free to start your own network and create your own programming. Or just don't watch, find something else to amuse you.

So, the freedom of choice here is Watch Our Shit (meant for the lowest common denominator) or Nothing. Some choice.
The only channels worth watching are often the non-commercial ones.

As sad as it may be, people with money have always had far too much control over the people who do not have money. That's also the way things work.

'Always'? How far back do we go?
Anyway it isn't 'the way things work.' It is the way some powerful people make it work. It is not a law of nature.

The solution, of course, is to not succumb to hero worship and live your life, and spend your money, for your own benefit and not to benefit a corporation. Buying the expensive brand instead of the more economical brand is not going to make you more attractive/sexy/desirable. It will only make you poorer.

But, according to you these choices are what gives you freedom! Why?

[thir]

[QUOTE=Thorne;904608]Yeah, I for one am getting very tired of all those corporation thugs coming around and forcing me into the stores to buy and buy and buy. I don't seem to have a choice anymore. Just spend, spend, spend or they'll take my family away and torture them. [/sarcasm]

Thanks, but I think I just about spotten that sarcasm ;-)

To my mind, anyone who complains about "materialism" is only complaining because people have the choices and the means to buy things. No one is required to buy anything except the essentials.

True, of course, except that we are told that we will not be happy if we do not buy this that or the other, for one thing.
It tends to take away the attention from other more important things as well.
I do not have all the words in my head right now, but I truly believe that 'the people' are there to buy, and the corps are the masters.

Having 15 kind of soap powder is not really nessecary for freedom, IMO, but this tendency does empty our the resources of the world which are not infinite.

But having the choice implies having the freedom to choose, and to some people that freedom is heresy. People who have the freedom to choose which car to buy, or which TV program to watch, or which religion to believe in just might realize that they can have a choice in whether or not some asshole preacher/minister/priest/rabbi/imam should really be allowed to control other peoples' lives! Can't have that, now, can we?

The funny thing is that in so many mails on mine I have gone on and on about how important choices are, and how taking people's choices away from them is treating them like things.
But I cannot see that having the choice of 124 kinds of radio is important, nor does it have anything to do with freedom of religion, or of the press, or any other freedom.

If it does, please explain, because I do not see it.

[Thorne]

[QUOTE=thir;904927]

True, of course, except that we are told that we will not be happy if we do not buy this that or the other, for one thing.

Well I can tell you right now that you will not be happy until you, and everyone you know, send me $100 right away. After all, isn't happiness more important than money? Just because someone tells you, or some commercial shouts at you repeatedly, that you need this, that or some other thing to be happy, does not mean you must buy it. The choice is still yours! Get the truth, study the data, so you can make an informed choice.

I do not have all the words in my head right now, but I truly believe that 'the people' are there to buy, and the corps are the masters.

That sounds more like an excuse than a philosophy. The corporations exist to make money. They do that by convincing people to buy their products. As in everything else, those with the money are in control. If you don't buy from the corporations they will have to change. If you decide that you just HAVE to have what they're selling, then you give them the power.

Having 15 kind of soap powder is not really nessecary for freedom, IMO, but this tendency does empty our the resources of the world which are not infinite.

Agreed. You only need ONE kind of soap powder. You only need ONE kind of canned soup. You only need ONE kind of razor blade. So which one will you accept? The one I choose? Or do you want to choose your own? Quick! Decide! while you still have the choice!

But I cannot see that having the choice of 124 kinds of radio is important, nor does it have anything to do with freedom of religion, or of the press, or any other freedom.

What about the freedom of CHOICE? What about the freedom of businesses to promote their own brand of radio? Once again we come to the fact that, as long as people are buying those 124 different radios, there is a demand which the corporations are more than willing to fulfill.

One other thing to consider is that, if you eliminate the choices, make it so that there is only one kind of radio, one brand of soap powder, than the corporation can charge whatever it wishes for it. Without competition, they absolutely DO control the prices. And the buyers.

[thir]

"But I cannot see that having the choice of 124 kinds of radio is important, nor does it have anything to do with freedom of religion, or of the press, or any other freedom."

"What about the freedom of CHOICE? What about the freedom of businesses to promote their own brand of radio? Once again we come to the fact that, as long as people are buying those 124 different radios, there is a demand which the corporations are more than willing to fulfill."

I think this is a new thread in its own right, and worth exploring. I will start one on democracy, freedom and commercialism here, and hope many will contribute, as I am running into thoughts here which are new to me!

One other thing to consider is that, if you eliminate the choices, make it so that there is only one kind of radio, one brand of soap powder, than the corporation can charge whatever it wishes for it. Without competition, they absolutely DO control the prices. And the buyers.