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,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
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).
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.
I respect other religions, I really do. I just don't think they can co-exist and intermingle in the long term. Someone always has to be on top. The U.S. needs to make Christianity its official religion and marginalize the rest. Now as for what *type* of Christianity, that's up for debate, hm?
Very well done!
The next task is to determine the best way to change their views.
I think God has chosen to use His hammer for this project.
Here's a simpler and more realistic idea. Let's retaliate against the Bin Laden gang and then totatlly withdraw from the hopelessly screwed up Islamic world
Am reminded of THE ROCK on Whom all will either fall on and be broken
or fall under
and be CRUSHED.
Good answer. But I'm looking for instant gratification ;-)
"Fanatic" is a loaded and misleading word. Is an American soldier sacrificing his life in defence of his country a fanatic? Or is a person devoting his whole life to help the poor a fanatic?
If you believe that Islam represent the ultimate truth and the God/Allah wants you to fight for the submission of infidels with a sword and you act on it are you a fanatic?
Or if you believe that you should give away everything what you have to the poor and follow Christ are you fanatic?
Or if you believe that getting rich is the ultimate goal and you work 80 hours weeks to achieve this are you a fanatic?
Or if you are zealous physician who works even harder the businessman for little money, are you a fanatic?
I thing that problem is not with the degree of zeal and commitment but with the CONTENT of your beliefs. If you believe in something good and beautiful and you live according to it your life will be good and beautiful. But if your belief in something not so good that of course it is better if you are not a "fanatic".
The most commited Christians try to emulate their Teacher to become meek, compassionate and loving, even to their enemies, to turn their second cheek and return good for evil. They can become monks, nuns or even hermits.
On the other hand the most pious Muslims will try to emulate Muhammad who was waging wars, capturing people, robbing and slaughtering his enemies.
But majority of the people will be lukewarm and "moderate" so the "average" Muslim and Christian will not differ that much.
---max
But the social climate in which the people love is much "warmer" and "immoderate" than the one to which the average Christian conforms. Do we even ring church bells to sound the hours anymore(they were originally calls to prayer), do most places even observe closing hours on Sunday. Even in "secular" places like Istanbul, Muslims are constantly reminded of their religious duties. Furthermore, I think the consensus is that fundamentalism is stronger today than it was fifty years ago, because Islam--unlike the Judaism-- has never gone through an "Enlightenment." Thus Arab nationalism, ewhich was supposed to supplant Islam as a unifying force Arabs, has had to give way to a resurgent Islam. You can see this in the PLO: its radicalism has become more and more religious in tone.
I'd bet the paper cuts in combination with the bacteria led to various cephalic infections long, long ago.
But I thought perhaps that higher birth rate part had some inherent "instant gratification" involved in it.
grin
. . . but only if it's done correctly.
Bin Laden represents a sect of Islam which cannot be allowed to survive, because if it survives it will eventually attain the technological ability to destroy all life on this planet. It already has the will to do so.
We should destroy the mullahs, the schools, the families, and every living trace of "Ladenism". We should not accept their "defectors" because they are liars and will simply wait to stab us in the back when they recover their offensive capability. This should be a war of utter and complete annihilation.
But it will not be. There will be no cleansing of militant Islam because we are bound to find some "good" Islamic militants who are willing to turn on Bin Laden. And so, when Osama is laid to rest and the Taliban is rendered harmless, we will turn over that corner of the world to "friendly" Islamic "ex"-militants. And we will ride off into the sunset convinced that Virtue has conquered, and firm in our belief in the essential goodness of mankind.
And then in a decade or so, we get to do the whole thing all over again.
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.