Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@Theswingisyellow said:
In so far as ISIS they are not on board with liberal ideas: self determination, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and living in a democratic system. Their ideas emanate from the 7th century and this is where they would like to take us. They are pernicious and are fascists and should be dealt with as such.
I know Nazis (not the Zombie kind) are people too, but I don't feel that we should tolerate that which is intolerable.
The problem here is when this escalates into a hate war that can make more victims than those regimes themselves left on their own. Worse is that dealing with them will probably not make them better either. According to the article below one third of the world lives under authoritarian regimes:
For instance many Muslims are being radicalized in Europe to go and do bad things against other Muslims in Syria and Iraq. Why promote hate and discrimination against peaceful Muslims which are the majority of Western Muslims? So more can be radicalized?
Thank you for the history lesson @Chaz
In so far as dealing with the Germans or the Japanese in WW2, they brought war to us. The Japanese bombed us and three days later the Germans declared war on us. Should we have not gotten involved? Do I like the excesses of our bombing campaigns? No I don't. War is an atrocity but is the world a better place with people like Hitler in it? Do we just make nice with such as these? Let the camps keep functioning, or allow the Japanese to continue dropping plague on unsuspecting civilians in China, using these "logs" as they referred to the Chinese as test subjects to see the efficacy of their weapons or raping Nanking. We should just let it be, it is obviously the determination of the Japanese and German people that this is the kind of government they want no matter how intolerant and deadly it may be to them and the world. The Germans, on top of the extermination camps and its staggering death toll, killed 24 million Russians. They also lost 8 million of their own. If you were a POW of the Japanese you had a greater chance of dying than if you actually fought them. The people in Iraq and Syria, maybe they desire this type of intolerant fascism, where you as a Buddhist would be made short work of, as you don't even qualify for any type of consideration, the people over there and their children as well as the rest of the world will suffer from such stilted, 7th century ideals. Remember the Arabs, they named most of the stars, discovered algebra, without them we wouldn't know of people like Socrates, Plato or Aristotle, because in the west the religious fundamentalist there were burning their works in the dark ages, and what happened to this bright yearning for knowledge and learning? Religious fundamentalism took hold, even declaring math the work of the devil. They have not recovered, from the 12th century onward. Does it matter? It sure the hell does matter. Hundreds of years, the ability to reason, to think, to advance humanity was denied and continues so. Its thinking continues to water the seeds of hatred and intolerance.
Some ideas are just bad and people are welcome to their stupidity, one may think blacks or Jews or Buddhist are beneath them and worthy of death but I don't want them in charge. I want their stupidity to be relegated back to where it belongs, under a rock. ISIS wants to use force of arms to push its pernicious ideas, we could let their ideas take hold and flourish or answer them in kind.
I should be tolerant of such stupidity and harm?
Again it is tolerating what is intolerable.
I still like that saying: It's not checkers its chess.
It's not putting a fire down with gas, it's recognizing this for what it is and dealing with it appropriately.
Well have to agree to disagree (I hate that saying!)
@Tosh said:
From the secular UK, it strikes me that to be a 'good, patriotic, American', you also have to be a Christian.
Is there any truth in this?
Absolutely not. The military is filled with stereotypical flag-waving Americans who otherwise don't believe in God let alone Christianity. Myself included.
@Theswingisyellow said:
I still like that saying: It's not checkers its chess.
It's not putting a fire down with gas, it's recognizing this for what it is and dealing with it appropriately.
Well have to agree to disagree (I hate that saying!)
We both agree in recognizing this for what it is and dealing appropriately with. What, maybe, we diverge in is in what it is and what appropriate dealing is. I like that saying too by the way.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
@Tosh said:
From the secular UK, it strikes me that to be a 'good, patriotic, American', you also have to be a Christian.
Is there any truth in this?
No truth, only implication. That's bad enough. The implication strikes me as un-American, not to mention un-Constitutional when the Pledge and National Motto have religion mixed into them... oops I just mentioned it! There's a stigma against any non-Christians, but especially against atheists and Muslims. The government at least is supposed to be neutral, but it's still run by people, the majority of which are Christians. You won't find many atheists in Congress; certainly not "out" atheists. And so it's a constant fight against corruption of an otherwise secular government by people who want their religious beliefs imposed on everyone, and think that's how America is supposed to be.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@Chaz said: If they want to be governed by fascists, and as deplorable as that may seem, that's their business and none of ours.
Yes, as long as 'they' are homogenous in their preference, which 'they' aren't. Malala Yousofzai is a good icon for 'they aren't' .
I hope we as a species learn there are better responses to our felt intolerance than extermination. Intolerance doesn't have to result in extermination, but something else, which we are obviously struggling to find out. Your above argument presumes a level of intrusion that is not . . . necessary or inevitable.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited October 2014
I doubt very highly there has been too many oppressed people rallying for more fascism.
Unless they've been programmed to do so, of course. Banning the written word for the poor is an important first step.
@Hamsaka said:
I hope we as a species learn there are better responses to our felt intolerance than extermination. Intolerance doesn't have to result in extermination, but something else, which we are obviously struggling to find out. Your above argument presumes a level of intrusion that is not . . . necessary or inevitable.
Yes, as long as 'they' are homogenous in their preference, which 'they' aren't. Malala Yousofzai is a good icon for 'they aren't' .
Well, no people is ever "homogenous", with regards to matters of governance.
In the current state of affairs, I'd like to know what you'd suggest for demonstrating our "intolerance". That would actually be effective. I'd also be interested in knowing how you'd manage without further interferance in their cultural and national development - a condition that actually put us in the mess in the first place. Our intrusion is at the heart of this "problem" - intrusion that goes back to the days following WW1.
Probably the best thing we can do is to leave them alone, and quit playing the world's cop, especially when we don't have moral leg to stand on or even an invitation.
What's going on in Iraq right now was, sadly, unavoidable due to our involvement. Further involvement will only make things worse.
The pendulum will eventuall swing back in the other direction, but only if we allow to. We can't force it.
3
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
I guess it's to those like Yousofzai that we can extend our direct, practical concern (which we did), but what about the silent ones? I can assume they are there. The organized protests against Israel's bombing in Gaza are one way to demonstrate intolerance in a nonintrusive way -- but effective? Depends on what you mean by effective.
I'm not as well read as you perhaps on 'what went down' between the US and the Middle East, but enough that I agree that what we are experiencing NOW are the consequences. Not to justify the means they go to at all, just acknowledging the connection.
I can participate in debate without having the foggiest idea of what would be effective -- again, effective for exactly what. In a way, all of us participating in such debates are just flapping our gums about ourselves, passing the time, making no measurable headway in the great scheme of things a la @Vinlyn's previous comment. That we are going to do it anyway implies there is some resonance, maybe? with the greater field. We are discussing human affairs, and we are humans.
I think leading by example is a good thing. Many people in those countries would rather live in more open societies governed by the rule of law. With time probably the majority of people including politicians will want a more liberal society, if not for other reason to improve their economies. I once remember reading an article of how Iranians were constantly shifting their satelite plates in order to watch a Venezuelan soap opera which the regime was constantly jamming the signal.
Of course not, but lets be fair. Your suggestions could also be viewed as stupidity, because what you seem to be advocating - deepening a conflict we have no business being involved with in the first place - could be viewed as stupidity in and of itself. It's stupid because we've tried what you seem to advocate - interference in a culture and nation's evolution - and it has caused the problems we are discussing. So it would most likely cause more problems than it will solve. Some would call that stupid.
Desperate people often look to religion to support their desire for a better life. If a situation is desperate enough, they will use their religion to support violent resistence to what they blame for their deperation. We are dealing with desperate people.
It's one reason we can't prevail through force of arms.
I think what I get from this, from a Buddhist prespective, is that as a group people are people everywhere and alike in spite of different languages and religions. It would be nice to think that there is something inherently evil and different in a group like this ISIS who slaughters entire villages and brags to the world about beheading someone. It's shocking to us, this naked in-your-face violence. Such deeds are supposed to happen at night and in secret, I suppose.
Yet for our entire human history, this was normal warfare. Crowds in civilized London used to cheer as people were drawn and quartered or beheaded. Our US Army slaughtered entire villages of Native Americans before, during and after we fought a war to free the slaves.
It can drive you crazy trying to make sense of it all. And religion? Nothing to drive people into a killing frenzy like being one of the chosen people, is there?
@Cinorjer said:
It can drive you crazy trying to make sense of it all. And religion? Nothing to drive people into a killing frenzy like being one of the chosen people, is there?
I can be frustrating, to be sure.
Sometimes I think religion has little or nothing to do with world events that are often asociated with religious movements.
I doubt that the Crusades were intended to wrest control of the Holy Land from the Muslims for the greater glory of God. It was land, power and wealth. There were people who died believeing they were dying for that glory, but it was a dupe. It was easier to get buy in from the unsuspecting population if they threw in God. After all, who would willing die to make someone else wealthy?
In the US manifest destiny was often given a religious slant, but the attrocities that occured as a result were for wealth and power and not some sense of greater purpose. They killed the Native Americans for the resources of the lands those people lived on.
With ISIS, I think we have something similar. This isn't some great Jihad they're on, regardless of the rhetoric. The people behind this movement are after land and power, and are cynical enough to leverage Islam to get it.
So when I here about those daamned Muslin terrorists my eyes start classing over. Come on, guys, this is the work of a bunch of greedy bastards. Religion has nothing to do with it.
4
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
Ahhh, this makes perfect sense @Chaz. I agree with how you put it. No doubt there are some excessively romantic types who really DO believe, but they are not the leaders of a movement, they are the fodder. I see how important this distinction is, especially because I reflexively blame religion for a lot of ills.
So what do you make of the 'new atheists' like Dawkins and Hutchins? Are they barking up the wrong tree? Honest question, it popped into my head considering your point.
@Hamsaka said:
Ahhh, this makes perfect sense Chaz. I agree with how you put it. No doubt there are some excessively romantic types who really DO believe, but they are not the leaders of a movement, they are the fodder. I see how important this distinction is, especially because I reflexively blame religion for a lot of ills.
"Religon" is just an idea. An abstraction. Religion can't really "do" anything. People can, though.
So what do you make of the 'new atheists' like Dawkins and Hutchins? Are they barking up the wrong tree? Honest question, it popped into my head considering your point.
Dawkins is the real deal, or so it seems. Hitchens was more of a rabble rouser in my estimation. Seeing as he was a "professional atheist" he had plenty of time to develop his ideas which translated into book sales. Nothing wrong with selling books. Everyone has to make a living and shit, I wish I could sell as many books as Hichens sold. Plus, he didn't even have to truly believe in what he was saying and that's where my skepticism comes in. He walked and talked like an atheist, but I never got the sense he was sincere. There have been many religious figures who were in it soley for the money. I'm sure there have been and continue to be "atheists" who are just milking a movement they helped to create. One thing for sure is that he was a capitalist.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@Chaz; OK but when Dawkins goes off on the destructive nature of fundamentalism, are your eyes crossing? Should mine be ? If religion is just an idea, and can't 'do' anything (has integrity with your eye rolling response) then atheists touting religion as a cause of social ills ought to provoke the same reaction. Well, in my mind they are practically the same thing. Using the eye crossing as a kind of shorthand.
I'll admit that I'm seeing it that way, and it pulverizes the new atheist premise. They are missing the point. Instead, focus on the human deficiencies that give rise to power and wealth mongering, which are direct causes of social ills and suffering. Yeah, but railing against religion sells more books . . . and it's not in vain, perhaps it's a step between ignorance and wisdom, to let go of religious ideals. Letting go of them asks people to let go of fantasies of self-importance, immunity against the troubles that befall the sinful, etc.
@Hamsaka said:
Chaz; OK but when Dawkins goes off on the destructive nature of fundamentalism, are your eyes crossing? Should mine be ? If religion is just an idea, and can't 'do' anything (has integrity with your eye rolling response) then atheists touting religion as a cause of social ills ought to provoke the same reaction. Well, in my mind they are practically the same thing. Using the eye crossing as a kind of shorthand.
I'll admit that I'm seeing it that way, and it pulverizes the new atheist premise. They are missing the point. Instead, focus on the human deficiencies that give rise to power and wealth mongering, which are direct causes of social ills and suffering. Yeah, but railing against religion sells more books . . . and it's not in vain, perhaps it's a step between ignorance and wisdom, to let go of religious ideals. Letting go of them asks people to let go of fantasies of self-importance, immunity against the troubles that befall the sinful, etc.
There are always charlatans in any religion, but to dismiss out of hand the motivations of tens of thousands of fanatics is silly. Religion has almost everything to do with it. People don't detonate themselves and busloads of children out of "greed" and desire for land. And they don't behead designated infidels and non-believers for land. "Strike the ubelievers at the neck" is a religious injunction being followed to the letter. So too with the imposition of dhimmitude and the jizya for conquered religious minorities.
ISIS is quite clear in its intent and motivations. They seek the conquest of secular or insufficiently Islamic regimes. The Caliph Al-Baghdadi has a doctorate in Islamic studies.
Sam Harris, one of the original Four Horsemen of New Atheism stated it succinctly when he said that the failure of modern liberalism is the inability to appreciate religious ecstasy and its consequences.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
-Steven Weinberg
@Theswingisyellow said:
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
-Steven Weinberg
Not sure I agree with the first sentence, but the rest makes sense.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@Frozen_Paratrooper said: Sam Harris, one of the original Four Horsemen of New Atheism stated it succinctly when he said that the failure of modern liberalism is the inability to appreciate religious ecstasy and its consequences.
I see your point (the rest of your post). I firmly believe the leaders and followers, though, are not coming from the same place. This is probably too simplified, but the leaders don't actually believe their own rhetoric, but use it to fire up their followers, the 'true believers'. Of course they aren't committing atrocities because of 'land'. This is an important point.
To me it seems that religion (in this context at least) is used like a tool to control and propel the masses.
My response was to @Chaz . . . who I'm still waiting to hear from, hopefully . Hint hint. The new atheists (Sam Harris is my 'favorite' btw) DO then have an actual premise 'against' religion, but with a complication. If the masses begin to question the cherished goals promised by the leaders, then the leadership loses it's authority.
@Frozen_Paratrooper said:
There are always charlatans in any religion, but to dismiss out of hand the motivations of tens of thousands of fanatics is silly. Religion has almost everything to do with it. People don't detonate themselves and busloads of children out of "greed" and desire for land. And they don't behead designated infidels and non-believers for land. "Strike the ubelievers at the neck" is a religious injunction being followed to the letter. So too with the imposition of dhimmitude and the jizya for conquered religious minorities.
>
ISIS is quite clear in its intent and motivations. They seek the conquest of secular or insufficiently Islamic regimes. The Caliph Al-Baghdadi has a doctorate in Islamic studies.
>
Sam Harris, one of the original Four Horsemen of New Atheism stated it succinctly when he said that the failure of modern liberalism is the inability to appreciate religious ecstasy and its consequences.> Sam Harris, one of the original Four Horsemen of New Atheism stated it succinctly when he said that the failure of modern liberalism is the inability to appreciate religious ecstasy and its consequences.
They do if the people in control of and/or inhabiting the land in question are Other.
By either dehumanizing them or viewing them as foreign, dangerous, corrupt, etc., they create the psychological means by which to do whatever it takes to punish and/or purge said Other.
It's not that different from what white Europeans did to native inhabitants. They were generally forced to convert to Christianity, as well as forcibly removed from their land under numerous pretexts (e.g., being savage, uncivilized, evolutionarily and/or culturally inferior, etc.). The main difference in those cases was the Europeans had superior arms.
In any event, even if religion is a primary motivation for violence, I don't think the political-economic motivations underlying religious ones should be ignored or downplayed as less significant, because they usually aren't.
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@Theswingisyellow said:
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
-Steven Weinberg
I've thought religion is a disease of the human condition. I know it's hyperbole, but too well backed up in actual events.
There is something particularly demonic about 'good people doing evil things'. Or is there? What's the difference between good people doing evil things, and evil people doing evil things? Is the difference in the end result or . . .? Honest question. Does hypocrisy make things worse than evil integrity?
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
I think the problem is when good people do evil things while mistaking them for good things. Then we really need to have a discussion about morality, but religion wants to claim whatever it states is moral because it was handed down by a divine lawgiver (some religion, anyway)... and so the debate goes nowhere on that front.
Take slavery for instance, and its Biblical roots. Contrary to popular belief, the Bible does not only condone a temporary form of indentured servitude of fellow Jews, but does in fact condone lifelong property ownership of other humans (even allowing beating, and passing them on to your heirs). We had to come to a point where our own empathy and understanding concerning the rights and dignity of other human beings outweighed our adherence to tradition or authority. Well done, us! This still is happening though. We're still progressing.
@Hamsaka said:
There is something particularly demonic about 'good people doing evil things'. Or is there? What's the difference between good people doing evil things, and evil people doing evil things? Is the difference in the end result or . . .? Honest question. Does hypocrisy make things worse than evil integrity?
Part of me wonders if the former assumes that "good people" are doing what they do with what they feel are noble intentions. I'm not sure, but I feel it's something along those lines. That said, there is that adage about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions.
@Hamsaka said:
Chaz; OK but when Dawkins goes off on the destructive nature of fundamentalism, are your eyes crossing?
I don't know about eyes crossing, but I tend to not be very impressed. I think a drunken child could see that. That means that Dawkins can too, but it's not quite as impressive as it may be presented by apologists.
I was invloved in the called "Jesus Movement" of the early 70s. we (Christians) saw, then, that fundamentalism was far from the ideal. We used to make jokes about them, like they were so fundamental, they belive the cover of their Bible was leather, because it said so on the inside cover.
Should mine be ?
Kinda up to you.
If religion is just an idea, and can't 'do' anything (has integrity with your eye rolling response) then atheists touting religion as a cause of social ills ought to provoke the same reaction. Well, in my mind they are practically the same thing. Using the eye crossing as a kind of shorthand.
For me it does.
For a group, even one as ill-defined as Atheists, to point to religion as a social ill, then they should, in all fairness, be prepared to takes it's place. Religion has a clear place in society, and then, by extension, in our culture. It is a support of sorts. Without that suupport, a cultre begins to collapse into what is called culture shock. To replace religion, an idea must play the same role in supporting the culture. Therefore is must be a religion of sorts. So to follow in the demise of religion, Atheism must become a religion itself. This, of course, is an idea that causes many modern Atheists to become apoplectic. However, it's very convenient to point out, and condemn an idea and it's role in society without taking the responsibility for a solution.
I'll admit that I'm seeing it that way, and it pulverizes the new atheist premise. They are missing the point. Instead, focus on the human deficiencies that give rise to power and wealth mongering, which are direct causes of social ills and suffering.
Quite right.
Yeah, but railing against religion sells more books . . . and it's not in vain, perhaps it's a step between ignorance and wisdom, to let go of religious ideals.
Why do that? Can we truly say that religious ideals are "bad". What's wrong with coompassion, love, charity, service and commuunity? Nothing.
Letting go of them asks people to let go of fantasies of self-importance, immunity against the troubles that befall the sinful, etc.
But in the Bible those things aren't pointed to as ideals. Religious people may act out that way, but chances are good they'd behave that way regardless of their religious affiliation, if any. Religion, can, be used as an excuse, for all sorts of aanti-social conduct. Look into the so-called Christian Idenity. Talk about a bunch of sociopaths, and they have loads of scripture to back it up, to. They'd probably be the same way, even if they were atheists, though. People gravitate towards communities that share their values.
An example I'd use is the Mthodist church I was raised in. While "conservative" by Minnesota standards, this congregation was pretty middle-of-the-road with a live-and-let-live attitude. They got together on Sundays to share a common faith and community. Politics were left for the VFW hall or wednsday night poker games. No preaching politics from the pulpit. Ever. The people who attend services there like it that way, which is why they belong to that church. This is, in my mind, the "real" religion in America. It's not these huge, mega-churches, or these prachers we see on TV all the time.
Our OP live in a city where the local flavor of religion is about as far from the true main stream as you can get. The mainstream is the local pharmacist, his wife and their 2.5 contributions to society, and a bunch of their neighbors. They get together on Sunday morning for services, watch the Twins on TV at granpa's house after lunch, and go to the stock car races at the fairgrounds after dinner.
The religion that many detractors condemn, barely exists in the big picture.
I was invloved in the called "Jesus Movement" of the early 70s. ... Look into the so-called Christian Idenity. Talk about a bunch of sociopaths, and they have loads of scripture to back it up, to.
I'm confused. You once self-identified as part of the "Jesus Movement", thus you had a "Christian Identity", and you say that such people are "a bunch of sociopaths".
@vinlyn said:
I'm confused. You once self-identified as part of the "Jesus Movement", thus you had a "Christian Identity", and you say that such people are "a bunch of sociopaths".
Interesting, Chaz, I was not aware of that particular movement. Thank you for the link.
Racism in various forms is a part of many religions. It has often been said that 11 a.m. Sunday mornings is the most racially segregated hour in America, and in Thailand there were a number of occasions when Thai Buddhists would say to me, "How can you be Buddhist? You are white." (On the other hand, I had a few Thais say, "You could be Thai", which actually makes far less sense.)
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
edited October 2014
@Chaz said: Why do that? Can we truly say that religious ideals are "bad". What's wrong with coompassion, love, charity, service and commuunity? Nothing.
Those were NOT the religious ideals I had on my list of things to get rid of. They aren't exclusively religious ideals anyway. I was thinking more about the hadron collider that was voted down in Texas in the early 90's because good Christians already know who created the universe. Another example is the insane religious reaction to harvesting stem cells for research. We're all going to have to go to Denmark or China if we need gene therapy :buck: . Bring on the love and compassion, we need more of that and in my experience it is no greater a thing due to any one religion.
It's a good point you made about people seeking groups who's values the people already agree with.
In America and Europe, Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, fundamental Christians and other indoctrinated groups are being radicalised by freedoms, ideas and choices that are changing their perspective. Some may leave their medieval superstitions and become integrated into the greater good.
It is the greater good that is always an opportunity when cultures, societies and ideas meet. America has a very competition based society. At its best this leads to innovation at its worst conflict. It is an education to find value in those we presently think of as 'the enemy'. It might be quite radical to 'love thy enemy' or feel that an enlightened society is possible . . .
I guess I am an extremist when it comes to hope . . .
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
I'd never heard of "Christian Identity", and I LISTEN for stuff like that. I consider that a very positive thing (that I've not heard of it) .
Has anyone here ever watched the TV series "Cosmos" (with Neil DeGrass Tyson)? It is in the spirit of Carl Sagan's old original series, by the same name.
Tyson (or rather, the script writers) very very gently (and persistently) engage the mind that's shut its doors thanks to religious doctrine that 'already knows it all'. Personally I'm not 'closed off' in that respect yet ignorance persists in me, so that the gentle challenges in this series open me up more, too.
Here and there in each episode are efforts to 'bring together' like @lobster says above:
It is the greater good that is always an opportunity when cultures, societies and ideas meet.
Incidentally, the religious movements currently 'blamed' for denying the light of knowledge also contain the members (monks, priests, mullahs) who protected books and transcriptions of the light of knowledge, often from their own sects. The irony is beyond belief (and very, very satisfying, somehow :buck: ).
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Hamsaka said:
I'd never heard of "Christian Identity", and I LISTEN for stuff like that. I consider that a very positive thing (that I've not heard of it) .
Has anyone here ever watched the TV series "Cosmos" (with Neil DeGrass Tyson)? It is in the spirit of Carl Sagan's old original series, by the same name.
Tyson (or rather, the script writers) very very gently (and persistently) engage the mind that's shut its doors thanks to religious doctrine that 'already knows it all'. Personally I'm not 'closed off' in that respect yet ignorance persists in me, so that the gentle challenges in this series open me up more, too.
Here and there in each episode are efforts to 'bring together' like @lobster says above:
Incidentally, the religious movements currently 'blamed' for denying the light of knowledge also contain the members (monks, priests, mullahs) who protected books and transcriptions of the light of knowledge, often from their own sects. The irony is beyond belief (and very, very satisfying, somehow :buck: ).
I loved Sagans show but haven't been able to catch Tysons yet. He's terrific so I'm sure I'll enjoy it.
It's funny you mentioned the protectors of books. I just started reading "The Bookseller of Kabul" by Asne Seierstad. The author lived with such a person and their family for a while. It's so far a great and eye opening read. A little blurb on the back goes to say:
"For more than twenty years, Sultan Khan defied authorities to supply books to the people of Kabul. He was arrested, interrogated and imprisoned, and watched illiterate soldiers burn piles of his books on the street."
@vinlyn said:
Wondering how people felt about the Bill Maher-Ben Affleck exchange 2 weeks ago.
Ben Affleck was articulate and quite expertly put Maher and Harris in their place. And he was right about most things, actually.
A strong critique of religion is one thing. But most 'critics' of Islam are racists in disguise, nothing more. Affleck made that very clear - he correctly outed them as racists and bigots.
@betaboy said:
Ben Affleck was articulate and quite expertly put Maher and Harris in their place. And he was right about most things, actually. A strong critique of religion is one thing. But most 'critics' of Islam are racists in disguise, nothing more. Affleck made that very clear - he correctly outed them as racists and bigots.
Translation -- Affleck agreed with your view.
2
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
I think they may just be more afraid than warranted while living in the US; the threat here isn't so great (9/11 only came around once so far). We need to move the conversation to one of human dignity and leave religion out of it. Religion may or may not be the primary motivating reason for these actions, and it shouldn't matter (because religion should be no excuse if it is).
We should call out those who commit atrocities against other human beings, but not group them all together with those who don't. Sloppy thinking and generalizations need cut out when possible, because that's where things (and people) get confused. Maher/Harris get it half right and Ben Affleck gets it half right. The religious doctrine of Islam is supportive of extremism, but only a small minority of Muslims are extremists. Some Muslim countries have a horrible track record when it comes to human dignity (e.g. Saudi Arabia), but others do not.
@betaboy said:
A strong critique of religion is one thing. But most 'critics' of Islam are racists in disguise, nothing more. Affleck made that very clear - he correctly outed them as racists and bigots.
I don't know if Harris or Maher are racists, but they certainly exhibit a bit of bigotry.
Neither like religion, generally, and tend to be intolerant of what they see as religion.
They tend to refuse any positive role of religion in society., ignoring over 100 years of social science. That's ok. I'd defend anyone's right to see things as they choose, but when the two of them (Maher and Harris) get on national TV and start running down Islam, to me it simply doesn't ring true. It occurs to me they'd run down any religion, regardless, with many of the same arguments they'd use against Islam. Perhaps disengenuous. Perhaps not. Just the same, I find that both Harris and Maher are pretty boring. I've never really cared for Harris' stuff and I used to watch Maher all the time.
@Toraldris said:
I think they may just be more afraid than warranted while living in the US; the threat here isn't so great (9/11 only came around once so far). We need to move the conversation to one of human dignity and leave religion out of it. Religion may or may not be the primary motivating reason for these actions, and it shouldn't matter (because religion should be no excuse if it is).
We should call out those who commit atrocities against other human beings, but not group them all together with those who don't. Sloppy thinking and generalizations need cut out when possible, because that's where things (and people) get confused. Maher/Harris get it half right and Ben Affleck gets it half right. The religious doctrine of Islam is supportive of extremism, but only a small minority of Muslims are extremists. Some Muslim countries have a horrible track record when it comes to human dignity (e.g. Saudi Arabia), but others do not.
A fairly good -- and balanced -- analysis. But, as repeated polls have indicated, the acceptance of some unacceptable behaviors is common to large percentages of Muslims. I think that is important.
@Chaz said:
They tend to refuse any positive role of religion in society., ignoring over 100 years of social science. That's ok. I'd defend anyone's right to see things as they choose, but when the two of them (Maher and Harris) get on national TV and start running down Islam, to me it simply doesn't ring true. It occurs to me they'd run down any religion, regardless, with many of the same arguments they'd use against Islam. Perhaps disengenuous. Perhaps not. Just the same, I find that both Harris and Maher are pretty boring. I've never really cared for Harris' stuff and I used to watch Maher all the time.
I can't say much about Harris' views since I have only become familiar with his general stance since this latest situation.
I have watched Maher fairly regularly for years. First and foremost, he's a comedian. It's his profession. I don't find his views about religion much more acidic than what is often expressed on this forum about Catholicism, Protestantism, and Evangelism. In fact, I would almost say his views are less acidic than what we often see on this forum, and more along the lines of isn't this religion stuff just silly fairy tales.
What parts of Maher's recent criticisms of Islam in the ISIL situation don't ring true? His criticisms of forced female circumcision? His criticisms of crucifixions? Murdering people who fail to convert or leave the religion? Beheadings? Stoning of women who commit adultery?
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@vinlyn Yeah it's a problem when polls show large percentages of people wanting harsh punishments for apostasy and blasphemy. We shouldn't restrain ourselves from criticizing bad ideas out of some misplaced respect for religion, but neither should we paint everyone with the same brush. It's a fine line and hard to pin down.
Here's the bottom line to me regarding the Maher show's recent discussion:
"We" are awfully quick to condemn statements of policy by the Catholic Church (for example) that may or may not really affect many people since even many Catholics ignore what the Church governing bodies proclaim.
"We" are awfully quick to condemn the statements made by Evangelicals about things like birth control or abortion or same sex marriage, etc.
But it seems like we are supposed to pussy foot around the beliefs of Islam, even when some of those actions include female circumcision, stoning, beheadings, crucifixions, etc.
In this recent case, but also in terms of religion in general, there must be some point when it is reasonable to say -- ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
2
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited October 2014
@vinlyn You're not wrong that we do exactly that in regards to Catholicism. Then again that's still largely "our" religious heritage and tradition. We're attacking it from the inside. We're not attacking Islam from the inside... it's foreign, alien. I think we do need to criticize, but mindfully. Reasonably so as not to deserve criticism ourselves. If people then criticize us for attacking those heinous ideas and behaviors, I say we're in the right and should try persuading them.
This Islamophobia/racism confusion we keep running into just gets in the way of getting to the bottom line. The bottom line is where the rubber hits the road, and it's hard for anyone who's arguing on the lines of Islamophobia/racism to deny what's happening right there. Pin them down... make them see, don't let them deflect or turn away. If they're human, they'll agree. Make them come face to face with their own humanity and reveal it!
For many people, like myself, most of what they know about Islam comes from media reports about bad behaviour by some of its adherents. Personally I don't give a damn about Islam any more than I do about Christianity.
I'm willing to accept that most Muslims are peace loving folks and I have seen it myself in southern Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia.
Beyond that I don't feel that I should have to educate myself about Islam in order to avoid feeling some hostility or anger about what some extremists are up to. Nor do I feel as though I should hold my tongue in expressing my disgust for it.
Why should Muslims be surprised when some islamaphobia comes their way? People are uneducated about that faith and why wouldn't they be?
@robot said:
For many people, like myself, most of what they know about Islam comes from media reports about bad behaviour by some of its adherents. Personally I don't give a damn about Islam any more than I do about Christianity.
I'm willing to accept that most Muslims are peace loving folks and I have seen it myself in southern Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia.
Beyond that I don't feel that I should have to educate myself about Islam in order to avoid feeling some hostility or anger about what some extremists are up to. Nor do I feel as though I should hold my tongue in expressing my disgust for it.
Why should Muslims be surprised when some islamaphobia comes their way? People are uneducated about that faith and why wouldn't they be?
Interesting post.
The summer I spent in Malaysia, the first thing I did the first day in Kuala Lumpur was to dress nicely (black dress pants, a white shirt, good shoes) and go down to visit the main historical mosque at the intersection of the two rivers in the city. No camera. Nothing touristy looking about me that day, other than that I was an American. On the front gate of the grounds of the mosque were two signs. One said "Visitors Welcome". The other sign said "Visitors Not Welcome". Hmmmm. So I decided to walk the grounds and see what the reaction was. The old saying "If looks could kill..." was certainly true, so I left. At a Muslim fishing village I went to the mosque, again dressed very conservatively. The sign on the front of the mosque said, "Non-Muslims may not enter. But you may donate money." Yeah, okay. Then one day I had a Muslim man in Penang strike up a conversation with me. He was obviously well-educated, and was more than happy to discuss religion. And the first words out of his mouth in that part of the conversation were: "Why don't you Americans try to understand Islam?" Well, duh!
More than once I have had similar experiences that boil down to "stay out" and "stay away", followed by "why don't you try to understand us". They can't have it both ways.
Now, in all fairness, I have been invited -- in this country -- to a number of Eid parties (following Ramadan), but the invitations were based on me being the principal of various children's schools.
On the other hand, I have talked at length with my adopted son about Islam (he is Muslim). And several times I suggested he invite me to the local mosque in northern Virginia. He thought it was a great idea...yet despite repeated proddings, the actual invitation never came. He suggested I read the Koran. I got through about the first third, but after it devolved into hating the Jews on virtually every page, I gave up. Meanwhile, he told me he was not allowed to read Buddhist scriptures. Ahem.
And to my main point here -- we are supposed to understand them (despite the blocks to doing so), but they don't seem to have any interest in understanding other world religions or viewpoints.
Comments
The problem here is when this escalates into a hate war that can make more victims than those regimes themselves left on their own. Worse is that dealing with them will probably not make them better either. According to the article below one third of the world lives under authoritarian regimes:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
For instance many Muslims are being radicalized in Europe to go and do bad things against other Muslims in Syria and Iraq. Why promote hate and discrimination against peaceful Muslims which are the majority of Western Muslims? So more can be radicalized?
Thank you for the history lesson @Chaz
In so far as dealing with the Germans or the Japanese in WW2, they brought war to us. The Japanese bombed us and three days later the Germans declared war on us. Should we have not gotten involved? Do I like the excesses of our bombing campaigns? No I don't. War is an atrocity but is the world a better place with people like Hitler in it? Do we just make nice with such as these? Let the camps keep functioning, or allow the Japanese to continue dropping plague on unsuspecting civilians in China, using these "logs" as they referred to the Chinese as test subjects to see the efficacy of their weapons or raping Nanking. We should just let it be, it is obviously the determination of the Japanese and German people that this is the kind of government they want no matter how intolerant and deadly it may be to them and the world. The Germans, on top of the extermination camps and its staggering death toll, killed 24 million Russians. They also lost 8 million of their own. If you were a POW of the Japanese you had a greater chance of dying than if you actually fought them. The people in Iraq and Syria, maybe they desire this type of intolerant fascism, where you as a Buddhist would be made short work of, as you don't even qualify for any type of consideration, the people over there and their children as well as the rest of the world will suffer from such stilted, 7th century ideals. Remember the Arabs, they named most of the stars, discovered algebra, without them we wouldn't know of people like Socrates, Plato or Aristotle, because in the west the religious fundamentalist there were burning their works in the dark ages, and what happened to this bright yearning for knowledge and learning? Religious fundamentalism took hold, even declaring math the work of the devil. They have not recovered, from the 12th century onward. Does it matter? It sure the hell does matter. Hundreds of years, the ability to reason, to think, to advance humanity was denied and continues so. Its thinking continues to water the seeds of hatred and intolerance.
Some ideas are just bad and people are welcome to their stupidity, one may think blacks or Jews or Buddhist are beneath them and worthy of death but I don't want them in charge. I want their stupidity to be relegated back to where it belongs, under a rock. ISIS wants to use force of arms to push its pernicious ideas, we could let their ideas take hold and flourish or answer them in kind.
I should be tolerant of such stupidity and harm?
Again it is tolerating what is intolerable.
Thank you for highlighting that.
We could make the situation worse!
So lets do nothing!
It's not checkers its chess.
I was questioning trying to put down a fire with gasoline, not putting down the fire.
I still like that saying: It's not checkers its chess.
It's not putting a fire down with gas, it's recognizing this for what it is and dealing with it appropriately.
Well have to agree to disagree (I hate that saying!)
Absolutely not. The military is filled with stereotypical flag-waving Americans who otherwise don't believe in God let alone Christianity. Myself included.
We both agree in recognizing this for what it is and dealing appropriately with. What, maybe, we diverge in is in what it is and what appropriate dealing is. I like that saying too by the way.
No truth, only implication. That's bad enough. The implication strikes me as un-American, not to mention un-Constitutional when the Pledge and National Motto have religion mixed into them... oops I just mentioned it! There's a stigma against any non-Christians, but especially against atheists and Muslims. The government at least is supposed to be neutral, but it's still run by people, the majority of which are Christians. You won't find many atheists in Congress; certainly not "out" atheists. And so it's a constant fight against corruption of an otherwise secular government by people who want their religious beliefs imposed on everyone, and think that's how America is supposed to be.
Yes, as long as 'they' are homogenous in their preference, which 'they' aren't. Malala Yousofzai is a good icon for 'they aren't'
.
I hope we as a species learn there are better responses to our felt intolerance than extermination. Intolerance doesn't have to result in extermination, but something else, which we are obviously struggling to find out. Your above argument presumes a level of intrusion that is not . . . necessary or inevitable.
I doubt very highly there has been too many oppressed people rallying for more fascism.
Unless they've been programmed to do so, of course. Banning the written word for the poor is an important first step.
'Gone girl' is really good. I don't see many movies, but I liked it! Very graphic though.
Well, no people is ever "homogenous", with regards to matters of governance.
In the current state of affairs, I'd like to know what you'd suggest for demonstrating our "intolerance". That would actually be effective. I'd also be interested in knowing how you'd manage without further interferance in their cultural and national development - a condition that actually put us in the mess in the first place. Our intrusion is at the heart of this "problem" - intrusion that goes back to the days following WW1.
Probably the best thing we can do is to leave them alone, and quit playing the world's cop, especially when we don't have moral leg to stand on or even an invitation.
What's going on in Iraq right now was, sadly, unavoidable due to our involvement. Further involvement will only make things worse.
The pendulum will eventuall swing back in the other direction, but only if we allow to. We can't force it.
I guess it's to those like Yousofzai that we can extend our direct, practical concern (which we did), but what about the silent ones? I can assume they are there. The organized protests against Israel's bombing in Gaza are one way to demonstrate intolerance in a nonintrusive way -- but effective? Depends on what you mean by effective.
I'm not as well read as you perhaps on 'what went down' between the US and the Middle East, but enough that I agree that what we are experiencing NOW are the consequences. Not to justify the means they go to at all, just acknowledging the connection.
I can participate in debate without having the foggiest idea of what would be effective -- again, effective for exactly what. In a way, all of us participating in such debates are just flapping our gums about ourselves, passing the time, making no measurable headway in the great scheme of things a la @Vinlyn's previous comment. That we are going to do it anyway implies there is some resonance, maybe? with the greater field. We are discussing human affairs, and we are humans.
I think leading by example is a good thing. Many people in those countries would rather live in more open societies governed by the rule of law. With time probably the majority of people including politicians will want a more liberal society, if not for other reason to improve their economies. I once remember reading an article of how Iranians were constantly shifting their satelite plates in order to watch a Venezuelan soap opera which the regime was constantly jamming the signal.
Of course not, but lets be fair. Your suggestions could also be viewed as stupidity, because what you seem to be advocating - deepening a conflict we have no business being involved with in the first place - could be viewed as stupidity in and of itself. It's stupid because we've tried what you seem to advocate - interference in a culture and nation's evolution - and it has caused the problems we are discussing. So it would most likely cause more problems than it will solve. Some would call that stupid.
Desperate people often look to religion to support their desire for a better life. If a situation is desperate enough, they will use their religion to support violent resistence to what they blame for their deperation. We are dealing with desperate people.
It's one reason we can't prevail through force of arms.
I think what I get from this, from a Buddhist prespective, is that as a group people are people everywhere and alike in spite of different languages and religions. It would be nice to think that there is something inherently evil and different in a group like this ISIS who slaughters entire villages and brags to the world about beheading someone. It's shocking to us, this naked in-your-face violence. Such deeds are supposed to happen at night and in secret, I suppose.
Yet for our entire human history, this was normal warfare. Crowds in civilized London used to cheer as people were drawn and quartered or beheaded. Our US Army slaughtered entire villages of Native Americans before, during and after we fought a war to free the slaves.
It can drive you crazy trying to make sense of it all. And religion? Nothing to drive people into a killing frenzy like being one of the chosen people, is there?
I can be frustrating, to be sure.
Sometimes I think religion has little or nothing to do with world events that are often asociated with religious movements.
I doubt that the Crusades were intended to wrest control of the Holy Land from the Muslims for the greater glory of God. It was land, power and wealth. There were people who died believeing they were dying for that glory, but it was a dupe. It was easier to get buy in from the unsuspecting population if they threw in God. After all, who would willing die to make someone else wealthy?
In the US manifest destiny was often given a religious slant, but the attrocities that occured as a result were for wealth and power and not some sense of greater purpose. They killed the Native Americans for the resources of the lands those people lived on.
With ISIS, I think we have something similar. This isn't some great Jihad they're on, regardless of the rhetoric. The people behind this movement are after land and power, and are cynical enough to leverage Islam to get it.
So when I here about those daamned Muslin terrorists my eyes start classing over. Come on, guys, this is the work of a bunch of greedy bastards. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Ahhh, this makes perfect sense @Chaz. I agree with how you put it. No doubt there are some excessively romantic types who really DO believe, but they are not the leaders of a movement, they are the fodder. I see how important this distinction is, especially because I reflexively blame religion for a lot of ills.
So what do you make of the 'new atheists' like Dawkins and Hutchins? Are they barking up the wrong tree? Honest question, it popped into my head considering your point.
"Religon" is just an idea. An abstraction. Religion can't really "do" anything. People can, though.
Dawkins is the real deal, or so it seems. Hitchens was more of a rabble rouser in my estimation. Seeing as he was a "professional atheist" he had plenty of time to develop his ideas which translated into book sales. Nothing wrong with selling books. Everyone has to make a living and shit, I wish I could sell as many books as Hichens sold. Plus, he didn't even have to truly believe in what he was saying and that's where my skepticism comes in. He walked and talked like an atheist, but I never got the sense he was sincere. There have been many religious figures who were in it soley for the money. I'm sure there have been and continue to be "atheists" who are just milking a movement they helped to create. One thing for sure is that he was a capitalist.
@Chaz; OK but when Dawkins goes off on the destructive nature of fundamentalism, are your eyes crossing? Should mine be
? If religion is just an idea, and can't 'do' anything (has integrity with your eye rolling response) then atheists touting religion as a cause of social ills ought to provoke the same reaction. Well, in my mind they are practically the same thing. Using the eye crossing as a kind of shorthand.
I'll admit that I'm seeing it that way, and it pulverizes the new atheist premise. They are missing the point. Instead, focus on the human deficiencies that give rise to power and wealth mongering, which are direct causes of social ills and suffering. Yeah, but railing against religion sells more books . . . and it's not in vain, perhaps it's a step between ignorance and wisdom, to let go of religious ideals. Letting go of them asks people to let go of fantasies of self-importance, immunity against the troubles that befall the sinful, etc.
There are always charlatans in any religion, but to dismiss out of hand the motivations of tens of thousands of fanatics is silly. Religion has almost everything to do with it. People don't detonate themselves and busloads of children out of "greed" and desire for land. And they don't behead designated infidels and non-believers for land. "Strike the ubelievers at the neck" is a religious injunction being followed to the letter. So too with the imposition of dhimmitude and the jizya for conquered religious minorities.
ISIS is quite clear in its intent and motivations. They seek the conquest of secular or insufficiently Islamic regimes. The Caliph Al-Baghdadi has a doctorate in Islamic studies.
Sam Harris, one of the original Four Horsemen of New Atheism stated it succinctly when he said that the failure of modern liberalism is the inability to appreciate religious ecstasy and its consequences.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
-Steven Weinberg
Not sure I agree with the first sentence, but the rest makes sense.
I see your point (the rest of your post). I firmly believe the leaders and followers, though, are not coming from the same place. This is probably too simplified, but the leaders don't actually believe their own rhetoric, but use it to fire up their followers, the 'true believers'. Of course they aren't committing atrocities because of 'land'. This is an important point.
To me it seems that religion (in this context at least) is used like a tool to control and propel the masses.
My response was to @Chaz . . . who I'm still waiting to hear from, hopefully
. Hint hint. The new atheists (Sam Harris is my 'favorite' btw) DO then have an actual premise 'against' religion, but with a complication. If the masses begin to question the cherished goals promised by the leaders, then the leadership loses it's authority.
>
>
They do if the people in control of and/or inhabiting the land in question are Other.
By either dehumanizing them or viewing them as foreign, dangerous, corrupt, etc., they create the psychological means by which to do whatever it takes to punish and/or purge said Other.
It's not that different from what white Europeans did to native inhabitants. They were generally forced to convert to Christianity, as well as forcibly removed from their land under numerous pretexts (e.g., being savage, uncivilized, evolutionarily and/or culturally inferior, etc.). The main difference in those cases was the Europeans had superior arms.
In any event, even if religion is a primary motivation for violence, I don't think the political-economic motivations underlying religious ones should be ignored or downplayed as less significant, because they usually aren't.
Things have never been the same in the Middle East since WWI and the spill-over effects from WWII.
I've thought religion is a disease of the human condition. I know it's hyperbole, but too well backed up in actual events.
There is something particularly demonic about 'good people doing evil things'. Or is there? What's the difference between good people doing evil things, and evil people doing evil things? Is the difference in the end result or . . .? Honest question. Does hypocrisy make things worse than evil integrity?
I think the problem is when good people do evil things while mistaking them for good things. Then we really need to have a discussion about morality, but religion wants to claim whatever it states is moral because it was handed down by a divine lawgiver (some religion, anyway)... and so the debate goes nowhere on that front.
Take slavery for instance, and its Biblical roots. Contrary to popular belief, the Bible does not only condone a temporary form of indentured servitude of fellow Jews, but does in fact condone lifelong property ownership of other humans (even allowing beating, and passing them on to your heirs). We had to come to a point where our own empathy and understanding concerning the rights and dignity of other human beings outweighed our adherence to tradition or authority. Well done, us! This still is happening though. We're still progressing.
Part of me wonders if the former assumes that "good people" are doing what they do with what they feel are noble intentions. I'm not sure, but I feel it's something along those lines. That said, there is that adage about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions.
I don't know about eyes crossing, but I tend to not be very impressed. I think a drunken child could see that. That means that Dawkins can too, but it's not quite as impressive as it may be presented by apologists.
I was invloved in the called "Jesus Movement" of the early 70s. we (Christians) saw, then, that fundamentalism was far from the ideal. We used to make jokes about them, like they were so fundamental, they belive the cover of their Bible was leather, because it said so on the inside cover.
Kinda up to you.
For me it does.
For a group, even one as ill-defined as Atheists, to point to religion as a social ill, then they should, in all fairness, be prepared to takes it's place. Religion has a clear place in society, and then, by extension, in our culture. It is a support of sorts. Without that suupport, a cultre begins to collapse into what is called culture shock. To replace religion, an idea must play the same role in supporting the culture. Therefore is must be a religion of sorts. So to follow in the demise of religion, Atheism must become a religion itself. This, of course, is an idea that causes many modern Atheists to become apoplectic. However, it's very convenient to point out, and condemn an idea and it's role in society without taking the responsibility for a solution.
Quite right.
Why do that? Can we truly say that religious ideals are "bad". What's wrong with coompassion, love, charity, service and commuunity? Nothing.
But in the Bible those things aren't pointed to as ideals. Religious people may act out that way, but chances are good they'd behave that way regardless of their religious affiliation, if any. Religion, can, be used as an excuse, for all sorts of aanti-social conduct. Look into the so-called Christian Idenity. Talk about a bunch of sociopaths, and they have loads of scripture to back it up, to. They'd probably be the same way, even if they were atheists, though. People gravitate towards communities that share their values.
An example I'd use is the Mthodist church I was raised in. While "conservative" by Minnesota standards, this congregation was pretty middle-of-the-road with a live-and-let-live attitude. They got together on Sundays to share a common faith and community. Politics were left for the VFW hall or wednsday night poker games. No preaching politics from the pulpit. Ever. The people who attend services there like it that way, which is why they belong to that church. This is, in my mind, the "real" religion in America. It's not these huge, mega-churches, or these prachers we see on TV all the time.
Our OP live in a city where the local flavor of religion is about as far from the true main stream as you can get. The mainstream is the local pharmacist, his wife and their 2.5 contributions to society, and a bunch of their neighbors. They get together on Sunday morning for services, watch the Twins on TV at granpa's house after lunch, and go to the stock car races at the fairgrounds after dinner.
The religion that many detractors condemn, barely exists in the big picture.
I'm confused. You once self-identified as part of the "Jesus Movement", thus you had a "Christian Identity", and you say that such people are "a bunch of sociopaths".
No Vinnie .....
"Chritian Identity" is a movement.
Here's a link for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
Interesting, Chaz, I was not aware of that particular movement. Thank you for the link.
Racism in various forms is a part of many religions. It has often been said that 11 a.m. Sunday mornings is the most racially segregated hour in America, and in Thailand there were a number of occasions when Thai Buddhists would say to me, "How can you be Buddhist? You are white." (On the other hand, I had a few Thais say, "You could be Thai", which actually makes far less sense.)
Those were NOT the religious ideals I had on my list of things to get rid of. They aren't exclusively religious ideals anyway. I was thinking more about the hadron collider that was voted down in Texas in the early 90's because good Christians already know who created the universe. Another example is the insane religious reaction to harvesting stem cells for research. We're all going to have to go to Denmark or China if we need gene therapy :buck: . Bring on the love and compassion, we need more of that and in my experience it is no greater a thing due to any one religion.
It's a good point you made about people seeking groups who's values the people already agree with.
There is hope.
In America and Europe, Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, fundamental Christians and other indoctrinated groups are being radicalised by freedoms, ideas and choices that are changing their perspective. Some may leave their medieval superstitions and become integrated into the greater good.
It is the greater good that is always an opportunity when cultures, societies and ideas meet. America has a very competition based society. At its best this leads to innovation at its worst conflict. It is an education to find value in those we presently think of as 'the enemy'. It might be quite radical to 'love thy enemy' or feel that an enlightened society is possible . . .
I guess I am an extremist when it comes to hope . . .
Here's a link for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
Scary stuff. :eek2: .
I'd never heard of "Christian Identity", and I LISTEN for stuff like that. I consider that a very positive thing (that I've not heard of it)
.
Has anyone here ever watched the TV series "Cosmos" (with Neil DeGrass Tyson)? It is in the spirit of Carl Sagan's old original series, by the same name.
Tyson (or rather, the script writers) very very gently (and persistently) engage the mind that's shut its doors thanks to religious doctrine that 'already knows it all'. Personally I'm not 'closed off' in that respect yet ignorance persists in me, so that the gentle challenges in this series open me up more, too.
Here and there in each episode are efforts to 'bring together' like @lobster says above:
Incidentally, the religious movements currently 'blamed' for denying the light of knowledge also contain the members (monks, priests, mullahs) who protected books and transcriptions of the light of knowledge, often from their own sects. The irony is beyond belief (and very, very satisfying, somehow :buck: ).
I loved Sagans show but haven't been able to catch Tysons yet. He's terrific so I'm sure I'll enjoy it.
It's funny you mentioned the protectors of books. I just started reading "The Bookseller of Kabul" by Asne Seierstad. The author lived with such a person and their family for a while. It's so far a great and eye opening read. A little blurb on the back goes to say:
"For more than twenty years, Sultan Khan defied authorities to supply books to the people of Kabul. He was arrested, interrogated and imprisoned, and watched illiterate soldiers burn piles of his books on the street."
Ben Affleck was articulate and quite expertly put Maher and Harris in their place. And he was right about most things, actually.
A strong critique of religion is one thing. But most 'critics' of Islam are racists in disguise, nothing more. Affleck made that very clear - he correctly outed them as racists and bigots.
Translation -- Affleck agreed with your view.
I think they may just be more afraid than warranted while living in the US; the threat here isn't so great (9/11 only came around once so far). We need to move the conversation to one of human dignity and leave religion out of it. Religion may or may not be the primary motivating reason for these actions, and it shouldn't matter (because religion should be no excuse if it is).
We should call out those who commit atrocities against other human beings, but not group them all together with those who don't. Sloppy thinking and generalizations need cut out when possible, because that's where things (and people) get confused. Maher/Harris get it half right and Ben Affleck gets it half right. The religious doctrine of Islam is supportive of extremism, but only a small minority of Muslims are extremists. Some Muslim countries have a horrible track record when it comes to human dignity (e.g. Saudi Arabia), but others do not.
I don't know if Harris or Maher are racists, but they certainly exhibit a bit of bigotry.
Neither like religion, generally, and tend to be intolerant of what they see as religion.
They tend to refuse any positive role of religion in society., ignoring over 100 years of social science. That's ok. I'd defend anyone's right to see things as they choose, but when the two of them (Maher and Harris) get on national TV and start running down Islam, to me it simply doesn't ring true. It occurs to me they'd run down any religion, regardless, with many of the same arguments they'd use against Islam. Perhaps disengenuous. Perhaps not. Just the same, I find that both Harris and Maher are pretty boring. I've never really cared for Harris' stuff and I used to watch Maher all the time.
A fairly good -- and balanced -- analysis. But, as repeated polls have indicated, the acceptance of some unacceptable behaviors is common to large percentages of Muslims. I think that is important.
I can't say much about Harris' views since I have only become familiar with his general stance since this latest situation.
I have watched Maher fairly regularly for years. First and foremost, he's a comedian. It's his profession. I don't find his views about religion much more acidic than what is often expressed on this forum about Catholicism, Protestantism, and Evangelism. In fact, I would almost say his views are less acidic than what we often see on this forum, and more along the lines of isn't this religion stuff just silly fairy tales.
What parts of Maher's recent criticisms of Islam in the ISIL situation don't ring true? His criticisms of forced female circumcision? His criticisms of crucifixions? Murdering people who fail to convert or leave the religion? Beheadings? Stoning of women who commit adultery?
@vinlyn Yeah it's a problem when polls show large percentages of people wanting harsh punishments for apostasy and blasphemy. We shouldn't restrain ourselves from criticizing bad ideas out of some misplaced respect for religion, but neither should we paint everyone with the same brush. It's a fine line and hard to pin down.
Here's the bottom line to me regarding the Maher show's recent discussion:
"We" are awfully quick to condemn statements of policy by the Catholic Church (for example) that may or may not really affect many people since even many Catholics ignore what the Church governing bodies proclaim.
"We" are awfully quick to condemn the statements made by Evangelicals about things like birth control or abortion or same sex marriage, etc.
But it seems like we are supposed to pussy foot around the beliefs of Islam, even when some of those actions include female circumcision, stoning, beheadings, crucifixions, etc.
In this recent case, but also in terms of religion in general, there must be some point when it is reasonable to say -- ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
@vinlyn You're not wrong that we do exactly that in regards to Catholicism. Then again that's still largely "our" religious heritage and tradition. We're attacking it from the inside. We're not attacking Islam from the inside... it's foreign, alien. I think we do need to criticize, but mindfully. Reasonably so as not to deserve criticism ourselves. If people then criticize us for attacking those heinous ideas and behaviors, I say we're in the right and should try persuading them.
This Islamophobia/racism confusion we keep running into just gets in the way of getting to the bottom line. The bottom line is where the rubber hits the road, and it's hard for anyone who's arguing on the lines of Islamophobia/racism to deny what's happening right there. Pin them down... make them see, don't let them deflect or turn away. If they're human, they'll agree. Make them come face to face with their own humanity and reveal it!
And in fact, that's what Maher kept saying.
For many people, like myself, most of what they know about Islam comes from media reports about bad behaviour by some of its adherents. Personally I don't give a damn about Islam any more than I do about Christianity.
I'm willing to accept that most Muslims are peace loving folks and I have seen it myself in southern Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia.
Beyond that I don't feel that I should have to educate myself about Islam in order to avoid feeling some hostility or anger about what some extremists are up to. Nor do I feel as though I should hold my tongue in expressing my disgust for it.
Why should Muslims be surprised when some islamaphobia comes their way? People are uneducated about that faith and why wouldn't they be?
Interesting post.
The summer I spent in Malaysia, the first thing I did the first day in Kuala Lumpur was to dress nicely (black dress pants, a white shirt, good shoes) and go down to visit the main historical mosque at the intersection of the two rivers in the city. No camera. Nothing touristy looking about me that day, other than that I was an American. On the front gate of the grounds of the mosque were two signs. One said "Visitors Welcome". The other sign said "Visitors Not Welcome". Hmmmm. So I decided to walk the grounds and see what the reaction was. The old saying "If looks could kill..." was certainly true, so I left. At a Muslim fishing village I went to the mosque, again dressed very conservatively. The sign on the front of the mosque said, "Non-Muslims may not enter. But you may donate money." Yeah, okay. Then one day I had a Muslim man in Penang strike up a conversation with me. He was obviously well-educated, and was more than happy to discuss religion. And the first words out of his mouth in that part of the conversation were: "Why don't you Americans try to understand Islam?" Well, duh!
More than once I have had similar experiences that boil down to "stay out" and "stay away", followed by "why don't you try to understand us". They can't have it both ways.
Now, in all fairness, I have been invited -- in this country -- to a number of Eid parties (following Ramadan), but the invitations were based on me being the principal of various children's schools.
On the other hand, I have talked at length with my adopted son about Islam (he is Muslim). And several times I suggested he invite me to the local mosque in northern Virginia. He thought it was a great idea...yet despite repeated proddings, the actual invitation never came. He suggested I read the Koran. I got through about the first third, but after it devolved into hating the Jews on virtually every page, I gave up. Meanwhile, he told me he was not allowed to read Buddhist scriptures. Ahem.
And to my main point here -- we are supposed to understand them (despite the blocks to doing so), but they don't seem to have any interest in understanding other world religions or viewpoints.