It would not be a bad idea if they were. Yet, I still think that the wertern powers that be really like Buddhism, just look at the attention given to the Dalai Lama - a "man of peace", even though reports say he
supressed other cults (or does so) when in power. But how many of there so called advocates actually practice the faith? I think that buddhism, unlike Islam, doen't have thoughts set on interfering with the secular project of democratic governement. Look at images of buddhists in the news, and theyre all or mostly positive.
The recent bbc news intros had images of buddhist monks not once but twice. Its fair that imagery represent our allies and contemporary relations with faith groups, yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by06IJR5AxU
I am waiting for the dalai lama to die (sadly it will be, as for all of us), so we can see what the Chinese nominated and prepared veriosn says. That will be true
secularist buddhism. How could the authorities interfere, shock horror - unless its our authorities? I am not anti authority though, just going through some ideas.
It seems fair that people want to protect their civil rights etc, including freedom to religion. And their right not to be blown up by radicals, too.
Yet I resent peole playing chess with the population, and making their minds up for them. Because if you ask any authority "Aare you trying to socially engineer opinion etc?" they would probably deny it outright. Thats not playing fair, if there is disguise. And thats a great line of reasoning for radicals to exploit.
Personally I think more faiths ought be given airtime, not just the "big hitters" - its no good that a faith has blasted its way into the media through war and terror. I think that quiet minorities matter too and deserve a mention is free and fair society. So what about bahai, hindu, and sikhs getting a mention too? And the good works of charities in general, and secular peole trying to keep us on an even keel.
Also, if people accept that Muslims for example can do good (I was on a Muslim forum some years ago and media studies showed that (IIRC) over 95% of imagery if muslims was negative), would that be too much of a threat? As Sting sung "The Russians love their children too."
I think that peace psychology experts have discussed polarisation and propoganda in wartime, that the media can help to ramp up tensions by negativistic coverage. Politicians claim the radicals are trying to "divide us", but what about the journalists?
I recently read how "art films " at cannes festival nominated mostly films critical of our political rivals. Persopolis might be one, about life in Iran, but I have never seen it. Communists have told me how the Chinese "economic miracle" involved the peoples health care and pension rights being taken away, etc. Its just too much at times.
I am not sure, but even philosophy - the shias have a wide range of thinkers - but mention of "
muslm philosophy " in western (oxford, cambridge I have looked at) encyclopedeas is minimal, and normally floats around al kindi, ghazalli, and a couple of others. Not sure, but they may be presented as "failed westerners".
When youre out of work its plain enough that the public are "programmed" to say, ok when is your next visit to the job centre? I even do it to my friends. But faith programming, thats more mysterious, mason and uilluminati, tin foil hat territory.
