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.
>Astounding. How's that whole Constitution-as-toiletpaper bit working out for you?
I apologize. I was being a bit sarcastic, but forgot to make it obvious. :)
What I meant was that even if Christianity was the only religion allowed, we'd still have problems. Every sect has its militant fringe.
In answer to your questions, yes, I have traveled to the Middle East. Israel and Egypt.
Yes, I have talked extensively with an American who worked in Saudi Arabia. My husband. He worked In Saudi for 2 1/2 yrs.
On the other hand, if our real strength lies in the depths and quality of our spirituality--meaning our RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD AND DEVOTION TO HIM--how strong are we?
Thankfully, there still seem to be numbers of folk fairly well squared away on that score. And this experience seems to be increasing that number and the quality as well.
On the other hand, there's still enormous amounts of playing church and winking at Christian obligations about forgiveness of one another; making relationships right before offering things to God; clearing anger before sleep etc.
I think we have a ways to go before I'd consider our nation strong. There's still too much endemic rot too deeply in too many place.
How would you rewrite the constitution to minimize the problems given to Christianity in our era while preserving suitable diversity?
I'm just glad Christ will be the overt and resident Boss sooner than later. What a day that will be!
The Feds have no place in local schools, in my opinion. Yet, how to insure minimal solid standards? Sigh.
But what do we mean "more right?"
I try to teach my students to ask:
1) WHAT IS THE GOAL concerned?
2) WHAT IS THE CRITERIA FOR MEASURING WHETHER THE GOAL HAS BEEN REACHED OR NOT? WHAT IS THE STANDARD concerned?
3) WHAT IS THE CONTEXT?
Only knowing these issues can provide a solid, functional answer to what is "MORE RIGHT" or "MORE WRONG."
If the goal is more freedom, choice, options, safety etc, eventually some compromises have to be made between freedom and safety, for example. Some compromises are better than others.
And, as Viktor Frankel (sp?) said. THERE IS NO FREEDOM WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY. That is ALWAYS true sooner or later. Avoiding responsibilities ALWAYS results sooner or later in forfeiting freedoms.
But satan has convinced so many youth and childISH adults of our last 50-75 years that one can have one's rebellion and safety too. As the Chinese taxi driver might say: "Bu Canun" Impossible--No can do GI. NO WAY.
He's been so clever--erodes the vigor and fierce passions for healthy Love and Right living--then causes enormous angst that there's nothing meaningful or exciting any more--fostering a whole generation addicted to flirting with every form of real and virtual reality death imaginable.
A plausible result when suffering parents try too hard to protect their children from every discomfort and blame more or less all discomforts on OTHER terrible people--especially authority figures.
Of course it doesn't help when authority figures are behaving so destructively to begin with. Can you imagine building a stable culture on Bill C's model?
Compromising with cancer and fanatics is suicidal.
As I understand it from single American men working in Saudi Arabia--it was common to walk down the highway toward town and be approached persistently by Saudi men wanting the use their rears for sex.
Would your husband say that the moderates were firmly entrenched in their moderation? Or could he imagine them siding with more agitated folk given certain contingencies?
As I understand it, the men approaching the westerners by the highways were quite average, normal men--deprived given the culture and their unmarried state--but quite average. It takes a certain kind of cheek to do that so routinely. That's not exacctly a "moderate" behavior regardless of the cultural sanction for it.
Great idea. But I once asked him how he was going to maintain peace and harmony with a satanist on the otherside of a Pentecostal Christian. He never answered.
Some things don't fit very well together. Trying to have peace and harmony with folk who want you dead; want your property, your territory and your political and religious influence--well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that's not a great plan for success. , . . especially when such folk want you dead so intensely they are wiling to die themselves for it. . . . as millions are reportedly willing to do. Rolling over and playing dead is not a functional solution. . . . making the job of the suicidal terrorists easier is dumb. . . . suicidally dumb.
Though I am fiercely against one tribe (Muslim) destroying another tribe because the 2nd tribe is Christian.
Muslims--in addition to avoiding following so slavishly essentially what is evidently a demonically generated religion--ought also to avoid being so insecure about their masculinity, security etc.
Are these "defectors" by any chance the people forcibly drafted by the Taliban last week?
This is an interesting phenomenon. It seems to be more present in our era than any I'm aware of. Other than the enemy's work, what is the origin? Poor parenting? Easy target and probably true. But what aspect?
My best guess is . . . what . . . hmmmm . . . uuuhhhh . . . welllll . . . . I think parents who give kids things, toys--and not themselves--especially if there's some authoritarianism, some emotional/physical/sexual abuse; some perfectionism but a real lack of caring, bonding etc. . . where the parents are not very loyal to their kids--especially at a heart level. . . with some genetic personalities, that might do it.
Certainly I feel the individual is still responsible for their choices. But these people don't grow up in a vacuum.
This may be related to God's promise to cause the hearts of the children and the hearts of the fathers to return to one another. . . else He'd smite the whole earth with a curse.
I expect Medina and particularly the key shrine to undergo a very interesting devastation--possibly a supernatural one. Likewise, something interesting is probably with the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosque.
No, I don't have a set of Scripture references to support all this--it's kind of gestalt feeling--somewhat related to Scriptures and somewhat to the law of reaping and sowing.
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.