Skip to comments.
The "This isn't a war about religion" line.
aruanan
| October 8, 2001
| aruanan
Posted on 10/08/2001 5:14:52 AM PDT by aruanan
The assumption that 'religion' can't be at the heart of things in the present conflict is itself an unexamined article of faith. It comes from the tradition of naturalism which had defined religion as something dealing with the unreal, the merely believed, beyond the grave, pie in the sky by and by, and had defined politics as the manner of dealing with real things in this present physical universe.
Two main attitudes flow from this worldview:
1. The harder leftist view: Since there's no reality behind any religious view (defined as a belief in the "supernatural" or a god or spirits), then anyone claiming to be doing anything for religious reasons is
a) ignorant, in which case he should be enlightened,
b) a fool and impervious to enlightenment, in which case he should either be eliminated or marginalized so as not to impede the real work in making this a fit world for humanity,
c) merely using religious imagery to promote some non-religious goal, in which case he should be stopped unless he happens to be weakening overall religious belief by what he's doing and so indirectly fulfilling the goal of a).
2. The softer, friendlier-sounding, Western political liberal view (the demythologized hard-left view--kindergarten communism) : Since we know that there is no reality behind any religious view, but since we know that such views can give comfort to those who believe in them and that misunderstanding about these views can cause conflict, then
a) people should be allowed to freely believe in (emphasis on 'believe' as opposed to 'act on the basis of') whatever they choose to believe in because diversity can enrich our society (for instance, Johnny here likes plaid shirts and Petyr likes those charming European blouses and Kishandra likes the vibrant colors of African dashikis and Wan-soo, bless his hardworking little heart, likes the button down collars of the corporate world, but they're all just shirts and none is better than the others--the only thing different is who likes what and how much he/she likes it),
b) people should not question the religious views of anyone else (because ultimately they have no actual supernatural referent ANYWAY) and that's a PRIVATE, personal thing (see b above about marginalization), and to do so is not being respectful of their beliefs,
c) squabbling about things that are ultimately meaningless is just not a polite thing to do in our enlightened society because then we're not being respectful and getting along,
d) people who persist in acting as though their religion is true should be tolerated unless they do something annoying to other people in which case they should not only be tolerated but DEEPLY UNDERSTOOD and when they are deeply understood they will finally realize that what they believe in is just as true as (or no more true than) what everyone else believes in and will settle down and be happy with Johnny and Petyr and Kashindra (or is it Kishandra? Oh well, names are diverse, too!) and little Wan-soo in our big happy classroom of humanity so we can all lie down together on the nap rugs of international peace and harmony, and,
e) if people should do something REALLY bad, like kill someone else, for what they call their religion, then we know that they are really doing it for political and not truly religious purposes because any true religion wouldn't do such a thing, in which case we should be very careful about doing anything at all because it would just provoke them and cause other ignorant people to join their cause for the wrong (ie, religious) reasons. Besides, since no one would have done anything really bad for religious reasons, then it must have been for some other reason, so we should try to understand their grievances and see what it was that WE did to make them feel this way (since there's no other reality but this present world and since we are the only other people in it and they have a disagreement with us, then we must have caused them to do this terrible thing) and try to help them so that we can join Johnny and Petyr and Kishandra and little Wan-soo on the nap rugs of international peace and harmony and do the most important thing in life--just get along.
No matter what.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-112 next last
To: aruanan
Another shocker:
Did you know it's actually within people to be evil without them being "crazy"?
Selah!
Nice job, aru...
21
posted on
10/09/2001 7:27:12 PM PDT
by
Mercuria
To: aruanan
22
posted on
10/09/2001 7:27:59 PM PDT
by
Quix
To: aruanan
Strongly AGREE.
23
posted on
10/09/2001 7:30:00 PM PDT
by
Quix
To: willyboyishere
QUITE SO.
I strongly support our troops and President.
I happen to also believe that no human coalition or amount of troops or firepower is going to do Islam in.
I believe God has HIS own plan and timing for that and it may well be a lot sooner than most think. I believe God is determined to have the glory; the "air time;" the impact of that "message." Certainly HE does all things well and His timing is perfect. From my ignorant standpoint, sooner is better.
24
posted on
10/09/2001 7:34:49 PM PDT
by
Quix
To: willyboyishere
because this is going to be a bloodbath of historical proportions, Your are right....
Americans are going to have to make a decision.....our children alive and free or their children. This killing innocents PC crap is going to cost alot of American children their lives (as well as moms and dads). We have to go against the countries that support terrorism in such a violent and horrible way that they tremble at the thought of America.
These people cannot be made to hate us more.....but they can be made afraid.....VERY AFRAID.....
25
posted on
10/09/2001 7:41:11 PM PDT
by
is_is
To: aruanan
Thanks for the post. Pretty much sums up what I'd been thinking about this. Now I don't have to write it.
Notably absent are theories relating to Kyoto, my favorite of all.
I'm heartbroken. :p
To: aruanan
27
posted on
10/09/2001 7:59:16 PM PDT
by
ppaul
Comment #28 Removed by Moderator
To: LLAN-DDEUSANT
Muddled rationalism. The one thing in this world that is entirely more false than any half-baked religious notions in rationalism. Atheism is just an excuse to hide from morality, and there is no greater mistruth than to say that religion has ever been the cause of any deaths. The thing you lack is any real understanding of religion.
Ha ha ha ha ha. Do you know the meaning of "sarcasm"? Besides, atheism is a manifestation of religion. "Religion" is not a synonym of "the true thing Jesus taught" or Christianity or theism or deism or pantheism or animism. If you're using religion to mean "the real thing", as it appears you are doing, and "the real thing" to mean "what I understand the real thing to be" or "what I've been told is the real thing", then you're restricting the word to a personal meaning. To do this is on the level of someone mentally referring to Ford every time he uses the word "car" and claiming that all cars are Fords because all those other things aren't true Fords and, therefore, can't be true cars.
29
posted on
10/09/2001 8:48:29 PM PDT
by
aruanan
To: Mercuria
Thanks.
Did you know it's actually within people to be evil without them being "crazy"?
You mean like, or unlike, whichever the case may be, I'm tired of thinking right now--thesis writing--the people who say that anyone who murders must be insane because only someone insane would murder?
30
posted on
10/09/2001 8:51:40 PM PDT
by
aruanan
To: willyboyishere
They seem to truly want and expect to be exterminated, and they believe that even if all of them are killed in the process of trying to defeat the West and re-establish their brand of Islam as a dominant force on the world stage, then new generations will follow them and successfully complete the struggle.
Well, they're certainly exemplifying tribalism at its most extreme: considering their own group to be true humanity and good, everything not them to be false humanity and wicked. The proof of the wickedness is our failure to accept their judgment about our wickedness, because if we were righteous we'd agree with them that we are wicked. This mentality is something that in the past existed almost everywhere in the world. I think it's the default condition of the human experience and, were it not for the grace of G-d, we'd never have seen anything like the Western tradition of law that, in its best moments, puts all men of all tribes into the same context.
31
posted on
10/09/2001 9:02:30 PM PDT
by
aruanan
To: RnMomof7;diotima; Mercuria; Pray4USA; Luis Gonzalez; Mr. Bungle; Manny Festo;
Thanks, Mom. Sure. I hope others understand it to be sarcasm. I still haven't heard back from my friend. Wait a second--oh, crap! I knew I was forgetting something.
Let me give the context of this. A friend of mine who teaches high school physics was telling me that he got in trouble with his family (his wife is a school administrator) because in a classroom discussion he said that the current trouble stemming from the WTC was, indeed, a war about religion. I wrote this to cheer him up with some sarcasm. I told him that you can have a conflict and that it can be entirely from the standpoint of religion from one side and not necessarily so from the other.
As I said above in #7, an important consideration that many appear to miss is that while one side can declare a war for purely religious reasons (as Usama already has), the ones against whom they have declared it can resist and counter-attack for reasons having to do with personal security and not directly related to their own religion at all. Both sides don't have to be doing things for the same reason for the war to have been one caused for religious reasons. For instance, when you are robbed at gunpoint and resist by icing the gunman before he can ice you, you're not engaging in the same action for the same reason. You both want your money, but the robber doesn't have a legitimate right to it or to your life or to threaten your life. His attempt to take it for "selfish", criminal reasons, doesn't make your defense of your money and life equally "selfish" and criminal.
And in #13: Someone asked me if we should declare a war on Islam. No, we don't declare a war on Islam just because some Muslims declare a war on us and say that they are doing it for religious reasons. We declare a war on them because of the actual things they've done and still threaten to do to us regardless of the reason that they use to justify their actions to themselves. However, it nevertheless is true that bin Ladin et al., are describing their actions as a holy war of Islam against the infidels. It does NO ONE any good at all to say that this isn't true and that they aren't really doing what they do for the reasons they themselves offer.
All we have to do is tell the rest of the world's Muslims (and everyone else)
1. that how we treat them, or anyone else, won't be based on what they believe but on how they act on the basis of that belief,
2. that they can practice their Islam to their heart's contentment as long as they don't attack us,
3. that the best way they can keep themselves safe (from us) is to disavow the actions of bin Ladin and associates and to help us help them shuffle off these mortal coils and
4. if they do choose to attack us for religious or other reasons, we will be crawling down their throats strictly from a practical standpoint.
32
posted on
10/09/2001 9:16:46 PM PDT
by
aruanan
To: Ronin
Mind if I send it to one of the English language Japanese newspapers?
No, go ahead. Just remember, 1. aruanan is spelled with a lowercase 'a', and 2. cite FreeRepublic.
33
posted on
10/09/2001 9:18:52 PM PDT
by
aruanan
To: aruanan
BUMP!!! Excellent!!
Bookmarked!!
To: aruanan
All we have to do is tell the rest of the world's Muslims (and everyone else) 1. that how we treat them, or anyone else, won't be based on what they believe but on how they act on the basis of that belief, 2. that they can practice their Islam to their heart's contentment as long as they don't attack us, 3. that the best way they can keep themselves safe (from us) is to disavow the actions of bin Ladin and associates and to help us help them shuffle off these mortal coils and 4. if they do choose to attack us for religious or other reasons, we will be crawling down their throats strictly from a practical standpoint. This attitude will take as long to impose on Muslims as it will to make peasants order their lives by the clock, especially since they will always find reasons for doubting our resolve. Lord, look at our intellectuals!
35
posted on
10/09/2001 9:42:19 PM PDT
by
RobbyS
Comment #36 Removed by Moderator
To: wjeanw
Namely, if we openly agree with Bin Laden that this is a RELIGIOUS war, then all Muslims, regardless of their sympathies will be forced by Islamic law to come to the aid of their fellow believers.Give all these Muslims 6 months to a year, and they will. I hope I am wrong, but watch them.
37
posted on
10/09/2001 9:46:22 PM PDT
by
Mark17
To: aruanan
This clock is EVIL!!!!
Its the NEW, IMPROVED, IsBoz "Dome of the Rock" Edition - Wave Radio
With built in Jihad Alert Technology!
Not only does it call you to pray before Mecca 5-times a day and sport a handsome gold-anodized finish w/ spacious Stereo Sound, but
Yes! With the new "Dome of the Rock" Edition Radio you can tune directly to the special "Jihad Alert" frequency that will inform you, the faithful to allah of the latest fatwah information and orders from your local terrorist network!
So DONT DELAY! Help destroy the infidel and
Order the IsBoz "Dome of the Rock" Edition - Wave Radio
With built in Jihad Alert Technology! TODAY!!
38
posted on
10/09/2001 9:49:58 PM PDT
by
Gasshog
To: willyboyishere
Well thought out, Willie. Keep your powder dry. It's possible that the balloon may be about to go up.
39
posted on
10/09/2001 9:51:03 PM PDT
by
Mark17
To: Gasshog
So DONT DELAY! Help destroy the infidel and Order the IsBoz "Dome of the Rock" Edition - Wave Radio With built in Jihad Alert Technology! TODAY!!
Ha ha ha. But does it come with a proximity-fused warning to duck and cover?
40
posted on
10/09/2001 9:53:19 PM PDT
by
aruanan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-112 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson