Why is America still so prone to wars of religion?

The Economist ^ | 26 may 2005 | Lexington

[hosepipe]

Theres only ONE word not found anywhere in "The Economist"..

"Socialism..", for it brings to light the very agenda behind every article..

[bluepistolero]

As if only stupid people believe in such an absurd thing as "God". Cathedrals and churches are visited from a historical perspective. It’s like visiting a museum, but it’s not about warship anymore. Religion is studied in schools. But it’s not practiced.

Good points. Which is why the Muslims are colonizing them.

[NooGeye]

That was the conventional formal way of dating documents then. Why was there no other mention of religion in the document except where government involvement in it is prohibited?

[DoctorMichael]

Nonsense, it will not keep you better informed than "domestic rags," it is just another point of view.

Hogwash.

Pick up a copy sometime since it appears that you haven't ever read one.

1) US mags spend a lot of the total paper in a magazine on advertisements.

2) The length and breadth of subjects and areas covered in one issue of THE ECONOMIST dwarfs and equivlaent TIME or NEWSWEAK.

[Bluchers Elephant]

You don't have to be religious to appreciate the arguments against abortion.

Actually, you do have to be religious, and have some specific beliefs, to appreciate some arguments. Well thats not true either. You can appreciate that the argument "my religion says that conception/implantation is the significant beginning of life" affects some people's thinking. If that point is taken, if the zygote is a fully valued and independent life at that point, then all abortion is murder. If a person does not have this belief they may or may not be able to appreciate the believer's perspective but they almost definitely won't hold it themselves.
There are, of cause, other arguments against abortion, but all too often the statement "Abortion is murder" is presented as a fait accompli. If the anti-abortion position is argued this poorly, not only can it fail to have the slightest ability in convincing a non believer, but it can convince them that the anti abortion basis is entirely religious with some extra arguments tacked in an attempt to get up the numbers.

[CasearianDaoist]

Spare me.

[DoctorMichael]

Okay.

You may consider the conversation ended.

[Savage Beast]

Yes, that's what I mean by "a peculiar form of materialism". Among other failures, the Left--the Secularists--are stuck in the maya; their religion teaches that nothing else exists.

[Savage Beast]

That the views expressed in The Economist are not necessarily or peculiarly British.

[Lloyd227]

"To them I say: wake up, people, wake up!

Intimidated as you are by the fear of going against the main stream, that is to appear racist (a word inappropriate here because we are not discussing race, but religion), you do not understand or don’t want to understand that what is underway here is a reversed Crusade.

As used as you are to the double play, blinded as you are by your myopia, you don't understand or don’t want to understand that what is in motion here is a religious war. A war that they call Jihad. Holy War. A war that is not after the conquest of our territory, perhaps, but certainly aims to conquer our souls.

• To the disappearance of our freedom and our civilization.
• To the annihilation of our way of living and of dying, our way of praying or not praying, of our way of eating and drinking and dressing and enjoying ourselves, and informing ourselves…

You don’t understand or don’t want to understand that if it is not opposed now, if we don’t defend ourselves, if we don’t fight, the Jihad will win. It will destroy the world that good or bad we have managed to create, change, make better and render it a little more intelligent, that is less bigoted or not bigoted at all. With that it will destroy our culture, our art, our science, our morality, values, pleasures… Christ! Don’t you realize that the Osama Bin Laden consider themselves authorized to kill you and your children because you drink wine or beer, because you don’t wear a long beard or wear a chador, because you go to the theater and the cinema, because you listen to music and sing some songs, because you dance in the discothèques or in your house, because you watch TV, because you wear mini skirts or short pants, because at the beach or pool you’re naked or almost naked, because you make it with whom you want, when you want, where you want?

Don’t you care not even about this, idiots? I am an atheist, thank God. I don’t have any intention to let someone kill me because of it."

Oriana Fallaci - The Rage and The Pride

[liberallarry]

I would say that all ideologies have their failings. It's not easy to be wise.

[Polybius]

Historically, Europe has been fertile ground for religious wars and religious intolerance.

For example:

Can Prince William marry a Catholic?

[A.J.Armitage]

So how do you explain morality?

People have to live with each other. They try to find the best ways to do it.

Best by what measure? Best for whom?

[A.J.Armitage]

That was the conventional formal way of dating documents then.

Am I to believe that the Founders, who had made a revolution, were such slaves of convention they couldn't possibly use the simple expedient of writing "1787" and thus were forced into calling Jesus Lord?

Why was there no other mention of religion in the document except where government involvement in it is prohibited?

Where else would you expect it?

[liberallarry]

Best by what measure? Best for whom?

Those are the eternal questions, aren't they? Every culture has come up with different answers. Every individual must answer to his own conscience. But there are some universals...probably because behavior has a genetic base. All animal species exhibit common traits throughout their range - even if that range is very, very large.

[Savage Beast]

I would say that you're right.

[A.J.Armitage]

Best by what measure? Best for whom?

Those are the eternal questions, aren't they? Every culture has come up with different answers. Every individual must answer to his own conscience. But there are some universals...probably because behavior has a genetic base. All animal species exhibit common traits throughout their range - even if that range is very, very large.

The problem is that if you try to leave the answers to cultures and individual consciences, instead of trying to discover the answers which are simply right, there are individuals who believe the answer is, "Best for me, according to my pleasures." These people exist in all cultures. (Not to mention various cultural practices.) Are they wrong? If so, how do you know? If not, how can you claim to have explained morality in any sense, with or without the supernatural?

[liberallarry]

The problem is that if you try to leave the answers to cultures and individual consciences, instead of trying to discover the answers which are simply right...

I don't know how to do that - except by refering to personal experience, history, law, and science - and I don't believe anyone else does either. That's where you and I part company.

there are individuals who believe the answer is, "Best for me, according to my pleasures." These people exist in all cultures.

That's right. And they cause trouble is all cultures...because their short-sighted selfishness undermines community, law, family, continuity; things which are valued in all cultures.

Are they wrong? If so, how do you know? If not, how can you claim to have explained morality in any sense, with or without the supernatural?

I can act in accord with my conscience. A culture act in accord with its norms. That's the best that can be done. Here again you and I part company.

[A.J.Armitage]

It seems we do part company. But I do have one request. If you cannot believe, let alone defend based on your worldview, that some things are simply right and others wrong, for all individuals and cultures, at least stop claiming you can explain morality without the supernatural.

[liberallarry]

You know that scientific proof is always conditional, never absolute, and that mathematical proofs depend on axioms - assumptions. In my view morality is no different.

As for those moral precepts which are common to all cultures, if there are any, they are determined by observation and comparison...and there origin is most likely to be found in genetics.

To me your claims of morality originating in the supernatural are just so much superstition.