Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reason vs. Religion
The Stranger [Seattle] ^ | 10/24/02 | Sean Nelson

Posted on 10/25/2002 12:14:19 AM PDT by jennyp

The Recent Nightclub Bombings in Bali Illustrate Just What the "War on Terror" Is Really About

On the night of Saturday, October 12--the second anniversary of the suicide bombing of the USS Cole, a year, month, and day after the destruction of the World Trade Center, and mere days after terrorist attacks in Yemen, Kuwait, and the Philippines--two car bombs detonated outside neighboring nightclubs on the island of Bali, triggering a third explosive planted inside, and killing nearly 200 people (the majority of whom were Australian tourists), injuring several others, and redirecting the focus of the war against terror to Indonesia.

Also on the night of Saturday, October 12, the following bands and DJs were playing and spinning at several of Seattle's rock and dance clubs from Re-bar to Rock Bottom: FCS North, Sing-Sing, DJ Greasy, Michiko, Super Furry Animals, Bill Frisell Quintet, the Vells, the Capillaries, the Swains, DJ Che, Redneck Girlfriend, Grunge, Violent Femmes, the Bangs, Better Than Ezra, the Briefs, Tami Hart, the Spitfires, Tullycraft, B-Mello, Cobra High, Randy Schlager, Bobby O, Venus Hum, MC Queen Lucky, Evan Blackstone, and the RC5, among many, many others.

This short list, taken semi-randomly from the pages of The Stranger's music calendar, is designed to illustrate a point that is both facile and essential to reckoning the effects of the Bali bombings. Many of you were at these shows, dancing, smoking, drinking, talking, flirting, kissing, groping, and presumably enjoying yourselves, much like the 180-plus tourists and revelers killed at the Sari Club and Paddy's Irish Pub in Bali. Though no group has come forward to claim responsibility for the bombings, they were almost certainly the work of Muslim radicals launching the latest volley in the war against apostasy.

Whether the attacks turn out to have been the work of al Qaeda or one of the like-purposed, loosely connected, multicellular organizations that function in the region--groups like the Jemaah Islamiyah (an umbrella network that seeks a single Islamic state comprising Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore), the Indonesian Mujahedeen Council (led by the nefarious Abu Bakar Bashir), Laskar Jihad (which waged holy war on Christians in the Spice Islands before mysteriously disbanding two weeks ago), or the Islam Defenders Front (which makes frequent "sweeps" of bars and nightclubs, attacking non-Muslims, and violently guarding against "prostitution and other bad things")--will ultimately prove to be of little consequence. What matters is that the forces of Islamic fascism have struck again, in a characteristically cowardly, murderous, and yes, blasphemous fashion that must register as an affront to every living human with even a passing interest in freedom.

The facile part: It could have happened here, at any club in Seattle. It's a ludicrous thought, of course--at least as ludicrous as the thought of shutting the Space Needle down on New Year's Eve because some crazy terrorist was arrested at the Canadian border--but that doesn't make it any less true. That doesn't mean we should be looking over our shoulders and under our chairs every time we go to a show. It simply means that it could happen anywhere, because anywhere is exactly where rabid Islamists can find evidence of blasphemy against their precious, imaginary god.

Which brings us to the essential part: The Bali bombings were not an attack against Bali; they were an attack against humankind. In all the jawflap about the whys and wherefores of the multiple conflicts currently dotting our collective radar screen--the war against terror, the war on Iraq, the coming holy war, et al.--it seems worth restating (at the risk of sounding pious) that the war against basic human liberty, waged not by us but on us, is at the heart of the matter. Discourse has justifiably, necessarily turned to complexities of strategy, diplomacy, and consequences. The moral truth, however, remains agonizingly basic. We are still dealing with a small but indefatigable contingent of radicalized, militant absolutists who believe that every living being is accountable to the stricture of Shari'a, under penalty of death. As Salman Rushdie wrote, in an oft-cited Washington Post editorial, the fundamentalist faction is against, "to offer a brief list, freedom of speech, a multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex." If these were fictional villains, you'd call them hyperbolic, not believable. But they aren't fictional. Their code would be laughable if it weren't so aggressively despicable.

As headlines about Bali cross-fade into news of North Korean nukes, and there are further debates about the finer points of Iraqi de- and restabilization, it's crucial to remember that there is, in fact, a very real enemy, with a very real will, and the very real power of delusional self-righteousness. How to remember? Consider the scene of the attacks (as reported by various Australian and European news sources):

It's a typical hot, sweaty, drunken, lascivious Saturday night. People, primarily young Aussie tourists from Melbourne, Geelong, Perth, and Adelaide, are crammed into the clubs, mixing it up, spilling out into the street. Rock band noises mix with techno music and innumerable voices as latecomers clamor to squeeze inside. Just after 11:00 p.m., a car bomb explodes outside of Paddy's, followed a few seconds later by a second blast that smashes the façade of the Sari Club and leaves a hole in the street a meter deep and 10 meters across. The second bomb is strong enough to damage buildings miles away. All at once, everything's on fire. People are incinerated. Cars go up in flames. Televisions explode. Ceilings collapse, trapping those still inside. Screams. Blistered, charred flesh. Disembodied limbs. Mangled bodies. Victims covered in blood. Inferno.

Now transpose this horrible, fiery mass murder from the seedy, alien lushness of Bali to, say, Pioneer Square, where clubs and bars are lined up in the same teeming proximity as the Sari and Paddy's in the "raunchy" Jalan Legian district, the busiest strip of nightlife in Kuta Beach. Imagine a car blowing up outside the Central Saloon and another, across the street at the New Orleans. Again, it seems too simple an equation, but the fact remains that the victims were not targeted at random, or for merely political purposes. They were doing exactly what any of us might be doing on any night of the week: exercising a liberty so deeply offensive to religious believers as to constitute blasphemy. And the punishment for blasphemy is death.

There is an ongoing lie in the official governmental position on the war against terror, which bends over backwards to assure us that, in the words of our president, "we don't view this as a war of religion in any way, shape, or form." Clearly, in every sense, this is a war of religion, whether it's declared as such or not. And if it isn't, then it certainly should be. Not a war of one religion against another, but of reason against religion--against any belief system that takes its mandate from an invisible spiritual entity and endows its followers with the right to murder or subjugate anyone who fails to come to the same conclusion. This is the war our enemies are fighting. To pretend we're fighting any other--or worse, that this war is somehow not worth fighting, on all fronts--is to dishonor the innocent dead.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crevolist; islam; religion; terrorism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,541-1,550 next last
To: AppyPappy
Ahh, you're just jerking my chain, aren't you? ;)

Reason - "The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence."

What is "faith"? ;)

41 posted on 10/25/2002 10:06:19 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
I don't recall any massive withcraft trials in
Appalachia. I am referring to the large scale witchcraft trials in midaeval Europe. These were well documented. the charges had nothing to do with "real" witchcraft (wicca). The charges were uniformly absurd and the trials were almost always a sham to cover up a land grab. Countries where land grabbing was not legal (England) had far fewer trials. Wherever land grabbing was outlawed, witchcraft trials dropped to nearly zero.
42 posted on 10/25/2002 10:07:42 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Faith - Belief in something

I noticed you are PH came up with two different definitions. Oddly both seem to conclude that religion is based in reason. We use our logical thought and intelligence to find God.

43 posted on 10/25/2002 10:09:21 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I thought you referring to the killing of witches, not trials. My bad.
44 posted on 10/25/2002 10:10:07 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Not surprising that there are several related definitions - I just reached for the dictionary...

We use our logical thought and intelligence to find God.

Can you logically prove the existence of God using reason? Lots of people have tried - nobody's pulled it off yet ;)

45 posted on 10/25/2002 10:12:27 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Of course I can. Why else would I believe in Him?
46 posted on 10/25/2002 10:15:30 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
I'm interested in seeing your proof, but I'll start by asking this - if you can prove God's existence, what's the point of faith?
47 posted on 10/25/2002 10:18:45 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: strider44
You must have a good "reason" to burn witches.

If there were in fact such a thing as a witch, being one would be enough.

48 posted on 10/25/2002 10:20:34 AM PDT by ASA Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: general_re
I can prove it as long as you are willing to believe everything I say. I cannot prove something to you that only happened to me. See what I mean?

I know God and have faith in His Will. I have faith He will do what is best in the future. It's called "Walking in Faith".

49 posted on 10/25/2002 10:20:49 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
How are things that are perpendicular to each other considered compatible? I don't understand.
50 posted on 10/25/2002 10:23:47 AM PDT by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
I can prove it as long as you are willing to believe everything I say.

With that kind of 'reasoning', I can prove that the Muslims are right and I can also prove that you owe me $1000. Pay up.
51 posted on 10/25/2002 10:24:51 AM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Why is there a need to prove God's existence?
52 posted on 10/25/2002 10:27:31 AM PDT by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
If you truly believe that because you have evidence, what is wrong with that?
53 posted on 10/25/2002 10:29:33 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Explain how atheists like Mao Pol Pot and Stalin murdered tens of millions of their own people if atheism = reason. Or am I doing something illogical by lumping all atheists together?
54 posted on 10/25/2002 10:29:44 AM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
I can prove it as long as you are willing to believe everything I say. I cannot prove something to you that only happened to me. See what I mean?

I see what you mean, but technically speaking, a true proof should be objectively verifiable, and not dependent on subjective inferences - I would certainly accept that the existence of God has been proven to your satisfaction. IOW, the inductive case you can assemble from your own experiences is enough to constitute proof for you, but that's not quite the same as a deductive case that God must exist, where nobody can quibble with the conclusion - for that, each of the premises in your argument must also be objectively shown to be true also. Which is the major problem in proving that God must logically exist - Aquinas tried his hand at logical proofs of God's existence, but the results were somewhat unsatisfying from a logical standpoint. ;)

I know God and have faith in His Will. I have faith He will do what is best in the future. It's called "Walking in Faith".

As it should be, it seems to me. Some things have to be accepted or rejected as a matter of faith, ultimately - the person who demands absolute proof or disproof of God before taking a position is demanding something that, objectively speaking, doesn't exist, and, IMO, is not likely to ever exist...

55 posted on 10/25/2002 10:33:35 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
Why is there a need to prove God's existence?

It's not a question of whether there's a need for it - I'm suggesting that it can't be done, regardless of whether someone "needs" proof or not...

56 posted on 10/25/2002 10:37:35 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: general_re
a true proof should be objectively verifiable

Nonsense. If this thread gets deleted, did it ever exist? If I say "Hello" to you but no one else hears it, did it happen?

Truth is truth. Stuff happens.

57 posted on 10/25/2002 10:38:03 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: general_re
a true proof should be objectively verifiable

Nonsense. If this thread gets deleted, did it ever exist? If I say "Hello" to you but no one else hears it, did it happen?

Truth is truth. Stuff happens.

58 posted on 10/25/2002 10:38:54 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: general_re
I agree it can't be done, people have been trying since the beginning. I would like to understand a persons need for proof, I can't understand that either.
59 posted on 10/25/2002 10:41:28 AM PDT by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: general_re
So for me, that's the bottom line - faith and reason don't have to be incompatible at all, and I tend to get a bit peevish when I see people who appear to be going out of their way to intentionally set them at odds with one another...

Indeed. I'll go a step farther, and say that to claim they are incompatible is unreasonable, for it assumes a level of knowlege and understanding that reason itself will tell you we haven't yet attained, and probably never will.

60 posted on 10/25/2002 10:47:03 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,541-1,550 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson