bills of rights

today i overheard a small part of a discussion about religion, i really didnt listen and i was terribly annoyed, i am very sorry to say, but

islam religious talk is quite as absurdly focussed on ancient right wing text, the wish to govern 'the masses' has allways been a material one.

it is maybe more intense but that could arguably be for the following,
it is terribly oldfashioned,

again i am sorry to say but it is as if i hear my grandparents (that is one of them) talk at best, and contrary to any definition i ever applied to her attachment for religious precisions i even realise she was a product of an evolution of philosophy of the human right not to be bound by any , let alone irrational, preconceptions.

and it went booom ubrahim isa and i dunno , jezus, etc. pitty they didnt mention budha, the ever quiet one, but i guess the incarnations of vishnu caused confusion.

in all it boiled down to the matter of basic law,

mh, that is not quitte true, there is certainly discomfort with the current egypt situation..
this is probably a result of several factors, the overall unwill of hierarchy to change, abuse of the army for to the adagio mubarak or say saddam, well each of the blokes, "muslims you treat hard"

(cus they react harsh on to many things to expect emancipation to come without pains, some of it however is the discomfort with a geopolitical dominance over more of africa that does not change)

concerning darfur that means ivorycoasts establishment from beneath the 10th(sortta),
has been implied in the whole lot, ranging from armed attacks on civilians to and probably the most significant, rightwing politics that prejudice the poor and advantage the rich.

with no change in sight from one side of the line the other also appears to deserve a benefit of the doubt is not it?

well thats code. darfur. for: that would be a thing to have said in darfur.in this case.

well that besides there is the idea that libya was with ghadaffi one of the more free society's in islam, and that the rebound could hardly discourage the west to take advantage from the authoritarian tendency's that are the result.

that in turn would lead to even more fanatism in religion possibly, so the disappointing pace of changes works not to well, and has a foreboding shadow over it.

that way it would rather be better to respect a folk like ghadaffi for a people like libya.

by the way anyone thinks elections are to follow.

uhm, i got distracted, oh yes,

so that comparison was drawn, like constitutional rights, (sth. eu newspeakingly tries to forget the word i'd say)

like 'a fundamental law' or perhaps a bill of rights.

indeed they assumed if and where it had to be 10 (we didnt grow smart enough for 11 yet),

they could get stuck with refer what moves people to kill.. in the first.

so besides i loved the take, and perhaps the joke, i was pissed and didnt pay attention to the rest of the repitious stuf 'of the books'. (of the religions of the book(s))

i think btw did well in explaining my discomfort wich was not ill received.

for the rest i neglected the whole thing, i was playing a boardgame maybe a bit of a pitty but it feels like the good old indoctrination of the christians to listen to the stuf, and i want to be free,

free from religion,

so whenst i get remembered the next day for two,

here is nr one,

freedom of religion means the freedom to choose to be free from religion.

if christians would go off like what went on i would evade them , would generally dismiss the subject in friendly terms, i must say i would also expect a way dumber, yet not less primitive exchange.

actually i think it doesnt deserve(1) mention, goes by it's own and shouldn't be on nr 1.

just historical interesse allows me to seriously suggest the joke.

(1) indeed also should not need