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.
Religion of Peace?
I know I havn't been around here lately. I have been doing a lot of reading mostly in regards to some of the New Atheist writers. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and others. It has given me a bit of a different perspective on religion in general. One that is far less 'respectful' and much more honest and critical.
My following words are a critcism of relgion, all religion. But I have put it here because Islam is such a controversial force in this clash of cultures.
Over the past 3 years or so, I have gone from near fundamentalist Catholic to outspoken atheist and Libertarian. At first, I was quite the apologetic for all religions. I tried earnestly to follow the doctrine of tolerance and blind respect, but sadly, I just couldn't do it anymore.
Of most recently, I have come to the rather not so comforting conclusion that religion, at it's core, for the most part, is utter nonsense. Delusional attempts to understand a complicated world in the ancient times. Dogmatic, unquestionable, tyrannical, life denying, and oppressive just to name a few.
For thousands of years, the greatest of all swindlers, religion has convinced people of an imaginary friend, who does not want you to have fun, who hates gays, who doesn't seem to mind slavery and suffering, and who thinks martyrdom is a legitimate enterprise, epsecially if you kill people who worship a different invisible man.
By far, the most tyrannical of any fictional character we as human have ever conjured, God/gods and his/their many religions continue to plague society with everything from sexual oppresion, mental and physical abuse, mass genocide, and religious wars to any other form of intellectual bankruptcy.
We as a society cannot afford to sit idly by in respect to such iron age stupidity. In any other form of discourse be it political or scientific, we can criticize and challenge. But for whatever reason be it fear of the truth or what have you, religion remains immune to any form testing and challenge.
How sad would it be for the entire human civilization, some 4 billion years in the making, to suddenly be snuffed out along with other mamallian bystanders because of a dispute over our ancient holy books? As I write this here, there are undoubtably those who would love to see this happen and who would truly believe that paradise would await them afterward for such actions.
It would be an injustice not to recognize Islam at this point. Can we seriously say without any degree of doubt that Islam is truly a religion peace? To say the rampant militarism and terrorism in the Middle-East is somehow a perversion of the peaceful religion seems sadly to be ignorance of its texts.
In light of the Koran and the Hadith, Osama bin-Laden and the terrorists were legitimate in what they did just as 19th century Americans were legitimate in keeping slaves in light of the Bible. Terrorists aren't somehow straying away from the 'true message.' They in light of the Koran, seem to be following it to the tee. I have read much of the Koran and the Bible and I have to be honest. It really isn't that hard to justify martyrdom, slavery, and murder of the right people.
Crusades, Jihads, ethnic cleansings, slavery, holy wars, inquisitions, medieval torture, 9/11, and many other unnamed atrocities. All the result of religious certainty and irrational beliefs about the afterlife.
Democracy, medical advances, political equality, and the likes. We don't get such progressive advances by paying more attention to our holy books. We do so by discarding such outdated superstitions and embracing reason in the place of dogma.
One might argue that religion gives people hope and makes us better people. But the hope it does give is empty. False promises about some far off Wonderland. 72 virgins. Religion is not necessary for happiness. Just like belief in Santa, the Easter Bunny, or the tooth fairy. We could be happy still even when we found out those were lies.
We don't need religion to be good people. Any religion! If anything, it serves as only a hindrance to good ethics. We can be happy, decent, considerate human beings in the abscence of any religion, superstition, or dogma. Without consideration of the afterlife, or the next life for that matter.
My following words are a critcism of relgion, all religion. But I have put it here because Islam is such a controversial force in this clash of cultures.
Over the past 3 years or so, I have gone from near fundamentalist Catholic to outspoken atheist and Libertarian. At first, I was quite the apologetic for all religions. I tried earnestly to follow the doctrine of tolerance and blind respect, but sadly, I just couldn't do it anymore.
Of most recently, I have come to the rather not so comforting conclusion that religion, at it's core, for the most part, is utter nonsense. Delusional attempts to understand a complicated world in the ancient times. Dogmatic, unquestionable, tyrannical, life denying, and oppressive just to name a few.
For thousands of years, the greatest of all swindlers, religion has convinced people of an imaginary friend, who does not want you to have fun, who hates gays, who doesn't seem to mind slavery and suffering, and who thinks martyrdom is a legitimate enterprise, epsecially if you kill people who worship a different invisible man.
By far, the most tyrannical of any fictional character we as human have ever conjured, God/gods and his/their many religions continue to plague society with everything from sexual oppresion, mental and physical abuse, mass genocide, and religious wars to any other form of intellectual bankruptcy.
We as a society cannot afford to sit idly by in respect to such iron age stupidity. In any other form of discourse be it political or scientific, we can criticize and challenge. But for whatever reason be it fear of the truth or what have you, religion remains immune to any form testing and challenge.
How sad would it be for the entire human civilization, some 4 billion years in the making, to suddenly be snuffed out along with other mamallian bystanders because of a dispute over our ancient holy books? As I write this here, there are undoubtably those who would love to see this happen and who would truly believe that paradise would await them afterward for such actions.
It would be an injustice not to recognize Islam at this point. Can we seriously say without any degree of doubt that Islam is truly a religion peace? To say the rampant militarism and terrorism in the Middle-East is somehow a perversion of the peaceful religion seems sadly to be ignorance of its texts.
In light of the Koran and the Hadith, Osama bin-Laden and the terrorists were legitimate in what they did just as 19th century Americans were legitimate in keeping slaves in light of the Bible. Terrorists aren't somehow straying away from the 'true message.' They in light of the Koran, seem to be following it to the tee. I have read much of the Koran and the Bible and I have to be honest. It really isn't that hard to justify martyrdom, slavery, and murder of the right people.
Crusades, Jihads, ethnic cleansings, slavery, holy wars, inquisitions, medieval torture, 9/11, and many other unnamed atrocities. All the result of religious certainty and irrational beliefs about the afterlife.
Democracy, medical advances, political equality, and the likes. We don't get such progressive advances by paying more attention to our holy books. We do so by discarding such outdated superstitions and embracing reason in the place of dogma.
One might argue that religion gives people hope and makes us better people. But the hope it does give is empty. False promises about some far off Wonderland. 72 virgins. Religion is not necessary for happiness. Just like belief in Santa, the Easter Bunny, or the tooth fairy. We could be happy still even when we found out those were lies.
We don't need religion to be good people. Any religion! If anything, it serves as only a hindrance to good ethics. We can be happy, decent, considerate human beings in the abscence of any religion, superstition, or dogma. Without consideration of the afterlife, or the next life for that matter.
0
Comments
You will never hear me condemn 'extremism' itself. I find it to be a very subjective idea. After all, abolitionists and blacks' sympathizers were considered extremists only 150 years ago. Anyone can be viewed as an extremist through a different time period. Even the staunchest, modern conservatives would be seen as pandering, spineless liberals in the 1800s.
So basically, religion acts as a kind of placebo. A sugar pill. It has evoked the best and worst in humanity. From the arts to a culture of martyrdom. My point is that while religion may have served a purpose in the ancient times and even been necessary, it remains only a hindrance to the advancement of society today.
Is it really worth people having such high hopes and irrational, comforting ideas about the afterlife if it only leads to a surplus of misery for others? Is a pacifier for our inevitable mortality really worth that much trouble?
No matter how respectful we try to be or how ecumenical and noble our intentions, we can't escape the fact that certain religious doctrines and beliefs are completely incompatible with each other and the world (and reason as well.)
The progression of society has come by doing away with certain tenets of belief. We know now that society just doesn't function as well when we execute our business clients for heresy, blasphemy, or some other absurd, meaningless crime. Or when we blow up children in the hopes of a twisted, global caliphate. Or a ridiculous, violent idea that God has promised physical land ownership to a 'chosen people' in the Holy Land. The Jews could not have picked a worse spot to restart the kingdom of Israel.
When we do away with such wacky superstitions, things have a least a chance of being better.
I will concede the fact that the deist God is not the one causing all the trouble. The idea of a 'first mover' and uninvolved creator is not responsible for the religious quagmire of today. Or the Jain deities for that matter. (Historically, the least violent, no contest)
The God causing the trouble is the God that thinks martyrdom is a good idea, that condoms are sinful, that suicide and large scale genocide warrant eternal paradise (with a sick, sexual, sadistic twist).
When critics of religion point out things like mass suicide and Holy Wars, it is almost inevitable that they will be confronted about the atheist regimes of Hitler, Stalin, and North Korea.
Hitler's religious convictions will most likely be forever enshrined in mystery. Some of his speeches talk about how 'Providence' had guided him (saved his life in WWI) and that he was fighting for his savior Jesus Christ. While still at other times he ridiculed the Church and religion itself.
Which ever you prefer, it is really irrelevant. The true question is whether or not such atrocities were commited in the name of atheism itself. Hitler created a hysteric culture of super-nationalism and a quasi-religious cult of misguided racial supremacy. His hatred towards the Jews and many of his actions were inspired by nationalism and the deep rooted hatred of Jews in Europe. (Residue of medieval propoganda against Jews propogated by the Holy Church no less)
Stalin was an atheist. I concede that. There is little doubt. But his paranoia and again super-nationalism (a common thread here?) were very much responsible for the plight of his people in those horrible years. He saw religion as a disorder. * And he implemented whatever means possible to cure it.
The problem with using such leaders as examples of the horrors awaiting a faithless humanity is that these men were not champions of reason. They were anything but. Hitler burned books and Stalin burned everyone. Quasi-religions and cults, death squads, and human deification are not the results of a rational and enlightened society. They are exactly the things that happen when people close off reason.
*I shy away from this idea. I see religion simply as a 'meme'. A cultural or social idea much like any other abstract notion we hold in our minds. But like nationalism, it can be very dangerous in the wrong minds.
So Richard Dawkins is an aetheist writer now .. :scratch: .. when I went to school he was a just scientist an evolutionary biologist. Maybe it's good marketing to be an aetheist writer these days.
My education was in science ... it was during that education I stumbled upon Joseph Cambel's work about the same time my "scientist" chemistry teacher walked into lab one day dressed as a catholic priest. No it was not halloween. This guy was my definition of a scientist... my bubble bust that day.
My view of religion and science changed and was never the same again. A vast new frontier openned in front of me .. an experience with insights beyond that which logic and emperical science alone could provide.
Religion is grossly misunderstood these days and often it is religous practicioners that are the most uninformed along with those that have had a bad experience with religion and have developed an allergic reaction to anything religous and so a closed mind.
I remember a physics teacher that use to say .. "It is not what we don't know that causes us trouble it is what we are certain we know that makes all the trouble".
Good Day ..
I believe he has been an atheist since he was 12. But even if you read his famous Blind Watchmaker, he criticizes the provincial ideas of creationsim and IDism.
And yes, atheist books have sold extremely well in the past several years. It's not marketing really. If anything, atheists are not well thought of in this so called 'secular republic.'
I have no qualms with introspection, meditation practices, or any other forms of mental disciplines. The problem is that too often such things are tied down with ancient superstitions and unreason. There does not have to be anything irrational about mind experimentations.
How is it misunderstood? Do you mean to say perverted? It's true message lost perhaps? I would agree that there is an ironic, peculiar tendency for the more religiously informed to be some of the least religious people.
I have never had a bad experience with religion personally. I was never abused or even indoctrinated all that fiercely. I was left to read all the heretical books that I wanted so long as I attended church on the weekends. A few squabbles here and there, but nothing serious.
My aversion to religion comes because it has been such a malignant, devestating force on humanity. I realized this when I was in my early teens. The African AIDS crisis. Theocracy. Fanatical terrorism. And most importantly to me, my adamant stance on gay rights.
Michel de Montaigne said something similar. In his time of religious strife he was quoted as saying that, "Religious certainty is the true heresy."
Right .. the true message lost .. or more accurately hidden or altered to serve some less then noble cause. So what a religion has to offer is not reachable to those that practice it or evaluate it. The path has been obscured and so the real insight or value of the religion is not obtainable. The result is the religion gets tossed into a box of outdated ideas.
A great loss.
Science is a means of getting back to the religous experience not a replacement for it.
Good Day ...
It is however a replacement of superstition. Genuine spiritual experiences do play a role in the human ecology and are worthy candidates for scientific study.
I am perplexed still though. What 'true' message is lost? It seems that as religion has decliend in its grand influence, oddly enough, the standards of living have improved greatly. It would seem that the more we do away with facets of our religions in society, the better things have gotten.
Has the world really missed Thor? Or Poseidon? Witch burnings or Inquisitions? Fortunately for everyone, these less appealing aspects of faith have indeed gone into the outdated box. Hopefully, never to be opened again.
Attempt to remove yourself from the market and you will be punished, starved into submission just as the excommunicates were in the Middle Ages.
Joseph Campbell glimpsed this truth. He understood that humans will inevitably create a mythology and then live within it, noticing it as little as fish notice water. It becomes "self-evident" and self-perpetuating.
It's an imperfect system. But no better one has come to replace it as of yet. I'm not dismissing the possibility that such a system might come into being some day either.
Palzang
What would be the basic economic outline of such a system? Would it be practical for such a global soceity? Free trade and the marketplace are a vital part of humanity. What would a system like "liberation" entail?
That's what you need to experience. As I said before it is good to be perplexed. When you really think you know what is going on your screwed. So it's better to Don't Know .. then to know.
I only post here because I admire your crispness of thought and energy .. still logic and emperical fact are not the only way to know oneself and the universe. What we know blinds us .. science and religion are not distant bed fellows.
Stay well ... "Live long and prosperous"
Good Day ...
I got an idea, why don't you get liberated and find out?! Then you can cut the chatter in your mind.
Palzang
Yes .. well put. This is a buddhism site afterall ...:winkc:
Soon you will have to free yourself knight .. and the more you know the harder it is ..
Good Day ...
The truth indeed does set us free. and that is what I am concerned with. Turth. But for my own purposes here, I will use 'knowledge' instead.
Perhaps my western mind just can't tackle this one well. :scratch: The more you know, the harder it is to free yourself?
But knowledge is what frees people. Knowledge for millenia, has freed people from the shackles of unreason and superstition and lead to a better society on the whole (eventually). *
My original question about 'liberation' had more to do with economics than philosophical speculation. Capitalism was cited as a cult of its own creating untold misery for its subjects. While I wouldn't say it is so much a cult or religion of its own, I acknowledge its many downfalls. But how does liberation fit into that?
*Then of course it was the thirst of knowledge that sent so many people to their own graves (err...burning stakes).
A scientist trains in school for a decade and a half aquiring answers to other peoples questions and then another two or three decades finding answers to his own questions .. and if he is lucky he will die before someone proves his work obsolete. Ha Ha Ha Ha ... a terrible world.
There is a difference between knowledge and knowing.
Knowledge taints our ability to just percieve .. to simply know.
Knowledge without knowing is a dangerous combination.
Good Day ...
I agree. For example the 'knowledge' and power of nuclear weaponry but without knowing how to use it. (or hopefully not use it.
Good Day ...
I was quite careful not to write about capitalism. I was writing about the elevation of commerce, the Marketplace, as an invisible, law-giving deity. They are not the same thing. Both Capitalism (your capital letter, why?) and communism are based on economic theories as driving forces.
Turth?
Anyway, trying to solve problems of samsara with samsaric means is doomed to failure. There is no "system" of government that we can figure out that will ever solve the problems of samsara - or even close. If our system is so great, why do we have the highest murder rate in the world? Why do we have the most gun deaths in the world? Why are we despised by most of the world as an imperialist bully (thanks to GW)? You claim to be looking for truth, yet there is only one truth that matters, the truth taught by the Buddha, because this truth does not arise from ordinary, samsaric mind, it arises from the mind of enlightenment.
If that's too "religious" for you, then godspeed!
Palzang
I think because each time I used the word, it was the start of a new sentence. That and I usually consider a philosophy or religion to be a proper noun. Also as I study in German, all nouns are capitalized.
This seems to be somewhat defeatist in nature and suggesting complacency. 'Well, we will never be able to completely rid the human body of disease or save it from death, so why even bother with the futility of medical advancement and trying to save people from life's ills if they are inevitably 'doomed to failure'?
No, but I think we should at the very least try. Absolute imperial theocracies are definitely bad for its citizenry. It cannot come close to even begin dealing with human problems.
Secular (free market) republics are definately a giant leap ahead of the evils of a theocracy. Does it solve all the problems? No. But I think we must as a society be always improving upon the old and updating. That includes free-market societies as well.
Does it make it futile? I dont think so.
I agree. But governement is at the very least necessary. Mankind is just not sophisticated enough as a species without some kind of check to behavior.
Because America is probably one of the most impoverished, industrial nation in the world. And poverty inevitably leads to higher crime rate.
I'm not sure how that fits into capitalism or economics, but the answer is obvious. *Guns are easily available to people.
Because we have an incompetent administration more concerned with national defense, cultural imperialism, and fundamentalist pandering than real, social concerns.
So I have heard from my Christian friends about Jesus and the Bible. Or Muslims about the Koran and Allah. The list would go on and on favoring this or that relgion's proposition of the 'only' necessary truth.
*Consider in Japan, when it was forbidden for the century long custom of Samurai to be in public with their swords. They found all sorts of interesting ways to kill each other. I mean if you really want to, you'll find a way, gun or not.
Palzang
I hear your weariness, Palzang-la, and deeply sympathise. As Tex Williams sang, Life gets tedious, don't it.
As a decades-long sufferer from depression, I know the feeling every morning, despite the relief that my regular practice brings. Of course there are more and more moments when the "silence" breaks through.
Sometimes, the best that I can do to hang on when a tsunami of pessimism and misery threaten to overwhelm me, I remember that my two teachers, the Buddha and Jesus, both chose to act and teach here, in samsara, for the sake of all beings. If they, with their clear sight of its suffering and transience, made that decision out of their love, who am I, so far from their clarity and certainty, to despair? So it's Hay Foot, Straw Foot through another day towards heaven.
God or No God: Pilgrim, We Love You. You are the most humane, most eloquent, most heavenly-awed, and most down-to-earth person I have ever encountered.
Well, I would rather be notorious for thinking too much (though I have my doubts as to the possibility of this) than not thinking at all.
It's not the first time I have been accused of thinking too much. Or if you believe me, being too much of a gentlemen, too nice, not agressive enough. I find all these traits to be invaluable.
So to answer your question, I would say no.
You should read Chogyam Trungpa's book on Shambhala Training, which is about being a spiritual warrior. Yes, it is possible!
Palzang
Palzang
That's unfortunate. Because essentially if I really became desperate, I could call myself a Quaker/Mennonite (or one of the 'approved' religions) and be off the hook for fighting. On the other hand, I could write a long thesis on the futility of war, cite countless 'secular' reasons to oppose it, and pledge pacifism; and yet this would not be enough.
Palzang
http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm
Apparently, religious motives are not necessary for CO status. But geeze, it sure would seem a hell of a lot easier.
For myself, I just don't see how one can truly be a conscientious objector to war and be in favor of people arming themselves while going around in their own communities. To me, it's like saying, "I object to any war I didn't have a hand in agreeing to beforehand."
To my mind, genuine conscientious objections would need be sincere, not contrived. In other words, if I am truly incapable of killing another human being, or kept from doing so on moral grounds, it has to be for all time, not just for a season (say, of warfare). If I believe that I can shoot an armed person threatening my life or those I love, then I should also be able to defend my comrades-in-arms in battle by the same means.
Otherwise, I am just putting my own personal agenda ahead of everything else.
Ah, now I see what you mean. Yes, it must be rather strange looking when I support the arming of citizens, but at the same time I detest war. I'll try and explain how and then I will let you all decide whether I am indeed incosistent.
Over the years, I have grappled with the necesseties of force. And I have come to draw a clear line of difference between the wars of nations and the individual struggle for survival.
The former is always based on deception. The feud is not between the people of a nation, but rather the kings and politicians of nations. It is always fuled by greed, hatred, and delusion (familiar no?) Like Odysseus said in Troy, "War is nought but old men talking and young men dying."
If indeed a dispute arises between these old men politicians, it should be settled by those politicians alone. Of course it never is. It is far easier to send the young and idealistic to die for you. I think "All Quiet on the Western Front" had the best idea....
Whenever politicians, emperors, and kings want to go to war, I say we rope off a big muddy field and put them in it with nothing but their underpants and a club. Whoever is the last man standing wins the war.
I am against nearly all wars (including the current) not just because I disagree with the politics surrounding a particular skirmish of nations, but because I believe there is something fundamentally askew with the philosophy of war. If I were to be sent to war, what would my motives be to kill the enemy? I hold no personal grudge with anyone. I am certainly not offended by some wrong commited against my nation. I'd rather live with these people than have to kill them. What has an individual enemy soldier done to wrong me?
The only time I would personally find the use of force in war permissable (just talking about myself here) would be in the last defense of my home and civilization. Any other unnecessary conflict receives only the 1 digit salute from me.
And that leads me to my position on firearms. I believe it to be authoritarian for a goverment to deny a people's right to protect themselves. Though it be unlikely that I would ever carry or use a firearm myself, I believe individuals have a fundamental right to insure their own survival. This type of force though is not based on deception like war. This stems from the primal human urge to persist in existence.
I use the example of a burglar in the home. A parent should certainly have the right to protect their children if a burglar were in the home. This may indeed entail the use of force (firearms or what have you). I find this to be a legitimate idea though, unlike war.
Soldiers must use force to meet the political needs of his superiors, while an armed parent uses force to insure the survival of himself and his family. The former is servile while the latter is an act of compassion.
I hope that has cleared up my stance on war and force. I'd be happy to answer more questions.
You expressed yourself well. Of course I disagree!
Seriously though, I find it interesting that that you leave the question of use of force to the masses. Granted, the government, on the whole, has major issues with truth when it comes to war, which is ONE reason why I am a pacifist. (I am a bona fide Quaker.)
But I wonder about your trust of the common person when it comes to use of force. The same deception our leaders use is at work in individual decisionmaking as well. (This item is worth the life of another person.)
The fact is, most people who are killed, are killed by people who know them. A large number (and the stats escape now, so I will hesitate to say it is a majority) of people are killed with their own guns.
When it comes to gun control, I am hardly a bleeding heart liberal. I live in alaska, and have hunted for food. When I took kids on week long bicycle trips, I took a gun with me. I taught my kids to shoot when they were little, mostly to get them over the mystery of guns.)
But the GSW I tend to see in the hospital often make less sense than the war in Iraq.
Prehaps use of force can be justified; that is a discussion for another day. But frankly the popluace at large does no better job at it than the military. If you dont believe me, just hang around a hospital for a while, and get a good look at how use of force plays out in the real world.
Question: what would you have done to oppose Hitler and the Japanese agression in the East in the 1930s?
Anyway, although my interest in the gun debate is somewhat lacking, I will focus on your question in regards to the world conflicts of the 30s and 40s.
Of all the wars throughout human history, I find WWII to be the most permissable and justifiable. But I hardly see America as the shining, angelic, innocent victors of the war. I for one am glad the Reich was destroyed and glad that the brutal Japanese Empire was halted.
Unfortunately, the peace talks prior to the war involving Hitler and Chamberlain were nothing but appeasement talks. I understand why they did it. The leaders (not including Hitler) were all trying to avoid another horrible tragedy like the first Great War.
The fighting that occured in Europe throughout the later 30s and 40s was "in the last defense of civilization." * The war was devestating and anything but an Axis victory was favorable.
My problem with the war came at the end. I'm sure you could guess it. As horrible as Americans view the attack on Pearl Harbor, and as horrible as we view the cases of POW torture by Japanese officers, no crime so vicious came than with the use of atomic weaponry against the Japanese populace.
Perhaps it did end the war earlier or even save some American lives. But to massacre an entire civilian population (effects extending some decades later) is nothing short of a war crime in my opinion. I am no lone wolf in this position. Eisenhower, McCarthy, Oppenheimer, Einstein, are just a few voices that concurr with the lack of necessity in regards to the bombings.
*The Catholic Church maintains that the only legitimate case for the use of force is in "the last defense of civilization." I for once, have come to adopt a Church position.
The place for this may appear to be more appropriately on a history board but I would maintain that Buddhism is much more than a collection of texts. It is a matter of a View and, as such, there is no problem that cannot be discussed within it. Few topics can be more pertinent to our lives on the Noble Eightfold Path than that of warfare and peace.
The 20th Century War continues to have effects on us today. In its first phase (1914-1918) the great Islamic Empire of the Ottomans was destroyed by the Allies. The dividing up and distribution of the spoils to the victors are among the roots of current conflict. The interregnum during which Germany rearmed was marked by ineffective peace-making. We have much to learn from those years. We criticise the peace-makers as 'appeasers': what would we, from a Buddhist perspective, have done?
The results of the second phase in which European Jewry was nearly wiped out and our Russian allies lost millions of people continue to resonate. The establishment of the State of Israel is used by our Islamic neighbours (I speak as a Europen) as an excuse to target us. Russia continues to suffer from the post-war dictatorship. The West has lost any belief in international law. How do we, from our Buddhist perspective, act now to create the conditions within which peace can grow, within ourselves, between individuals and among all people?
These are entirely valid matters for debate on a Buddhist (or Christian or Islamic) board imo.
I think Simon has pretty much answered it. But here's a quote from the writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali, one of my personal heroes....
If we all agreed, what would be the point of discussing anything here?
:-D First of all, thank you both for stating what I believe are very strong opinions clearly and calmly! For some odd reason, I find it flattering that, even though I think you might have mistook what I meant, nobody flipped. Woo!
And the point... I didn't mean to say this is not the correct forum on which to discuss these idea(l)s. In fact, I don't even think that's what I actually said. I am sincerely interested in what you are after, KoB. And while I thoroughly agree with your statement...
"If we all agreed, what would be the point of discussing anything here?"
(Sorry, haven't figured out how to quote in response yet.) ... your arguments seem to have an insistence or assurance that you have found answers. It also strikes me that you seem angry about a lot of things that you notice in the world, and I wondered if you are trying to assuage your feelings or re-test notions that you believe tried and true. Or something else...?
Ha! I hope anyone can understand this post! Anyway, I feel like I've been where you are before, although you have a much better brain for facts and timelines than I, and wanted to know what you were thinking about your own thought process and why you brought it here. Perhaps I am trying to learn a little more about myself...!
Perhaps to see who could put it most succinctly or most elegantly?
Hey, what's the point of life, but to live and enjoy the experience as much as you can? You talk about the point.
People need to sound out their ideas on other people. I suspect that in most things we all agree more than we know.
For my part, I'm trying my best only to chime in once or twice a month on threads. I'm trying to listen more, and push points less. Indeed, finding myself laughing at the absurdity of reducing or distilling life processes or ideas down to mere points on a scorecard. The Hindu spiritualists point out the value of seeing ourselves as witnesses rather than as actors on the stage making the most of their own stances.
However, there are some themes that I just wanna go all the way with. IT MAKES ME SO MAD THAT PEOPLE CAN'T LISTEN (as if I were any different).
Welcome to this forum, mouthfulofclay! What's your nickname? May I suggest "Clay of Full Mouth?"