11:16 pm, homework's done. Time for a good old fashioned throwdown covering everybody's favorite topic, what happened on 9/11 and what we should do about it. This is bound to be a long one, but that's alright. I have a fresh cup of coffee, I've done my pilates and my yoga. I'm loose, and I'm ready to pound at the keyboard mercilessly for a good long while. Don't expect this to be a pleasant ride, because it won't be. I expect I'll piss some people off, and that's certainly intentional. As Maya Angelou put it, "Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean." Consider this post a cure for bitterness and a call to anger.
But first, a little light entertainment. It's only 11 minutes long, and it's not safe for work. It's not actually safe for family, either. Watch this without the kiddies in the room, please, and prepare to be very, very angry. Don't worry, the voiceover is in English after the original prayer is done, and the prayer is mostly translated later on.
So, now that I've got your attention, it's time to talk a little bit about Islam, Christianity, and the dangers of mixing these two cultures that are hell-bent on submission to an utterly ineffable "higher power", and willing to sacrifice their deepest inner needs in order to express their devotion. Their servitude. Their "calling". My calling, for a brief and ever-so-slightly insane period in my life. Ya-Baha'ul-Abha!, I managed to break free!
Our goal of establishing freedom in the Middle East presumes that the freedom we establish will be one which allows for tolerance and social justice. It presumes that Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists, and every other brand of heathen out there will be allowed to live, work, and express their beliefs side by side with Muslims. It presumes both equal respect and equal rights. It presumes that the warring factions within the Ummah will be able to establish peace and agree to disagree, women will be educated, and society will enter a brighter day.
Very presumptious, really. It's like assuming that Republicans and Democrats can agree to non-partisan solutions, only exponentailly worse in a way that people who aren't really familiar with Islam can't even begin to imagine. There is no such thing as separation of Church and State in the Islamic faith. It's all one.
Factions are far more attractive to the humble masses than heretical leaders who challenge people to think new thoughts about very old and sacred ideas. Humble obedience to God's Word is not necessarily compatible with a spirit of inquiry and a willingness to accept that the other party may be right. People, by and large, simply do not want to be troubled with thoughts that disturb their view of right and wrong, good and evil. They are trained from birth to not ask questions, and such has been the way of life for the followers of the Prophet, Peace Be Unto Him, for roughly 1400 years. Are we going to undo that all in a single generation? Bloody unlikely. The ailment is common enough in our own culture, despite centuries of vigorous innoculations by the likes of Voltaire, Twain, Vonnegut, and many, many others
The idea of "Judeo-Christian" respect took several hundred years to develop in this nation, and only happened grudgingly in response to the horrors of the Holocaust, with the help of some very liberal Protestant theologians. The religious freedom that let those liberal Protestant theologians thrive in this country, founded by zealots in an attempt to create a City upon a Hill, and still overflowing in the twentieth century with puritanical Acres of Diamonds, is predicated upon the heretical impulse expressed by seventeenth century theists like Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, and continued by the likes of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. The concept of Ummah, or the entire Muslim community of believers, contains the foundation for this sort of pluralism between Sunni Muslims and Shi'a Muslims in theory, but practice in the streets is quite a different thing from the lofty ideals that look good on paper. Put mildly, the same heretical impulse that allowed us to develop a society that is at the very least nominally tolerant of diverse religious views is simply not sanctioned in the Qu'ran. Quite the opposite!
One of my favorite quotes from a religious leader comes from Gandhi, in his essay Experiments with Truth, "those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means." Pair that with one of my favorite quotes from Thus Spake Zarathustra:
"I know these Godlike people all too well: they want to be believed in, and doubt to be a sin. I also know all too well what it is they themselves most firmly believe in. Truly not in afterworlds and redeeming drops of blood: they believe most firmly in the body, and their own body is for them their thing-in-itself. But it is a sickly thing to them: and they would dearly like to get out of their skins. That is why they hearken to preachers of death and themselves preach afterworlds."
I trust, dear reader, that you now have some idea where I'm going with all of this. It's not a happy little place with flowers on the nightstand and a cool breeze coming in off the ocean. It's the nuclear wasteland of our future if these lunatics are allowed to continue this pissing contest of whose Sky-Daddy is the most powerful and most merciful Sky-Daddy.
So let's return to that video for a moment, and the very important messages contained in it. How many women and men have the courage (or the cause!) to do as this brave woman did? Or, for that matter, what the brave man who created this masterpiece did. It was certainly a risky topic to film, as evidenced by the fact that the director and co-author Theo van Gogh was stabbed to death a few short months after its release.
I chuckled at a cartoon that proposed a memorial to 9/11 in the form of a gravestone with Osama bin Laden's name on it, standing on a lonely hillside with a baren tree, presumedly with its occupant sleeping The Long Sleep from which we do not Wake below. But I think the gravestones of Salmon Rushdie and Theo van Gogh are more significant symbols in this war. The lesson they bring to us is profound, shocking, and highly relevant; any man (or woman) sufficiently skilled in the art of rhetoric can exploit a people who are yearning to submit. Kill Osama, and another glorious leader will rise up to lead the fearful and the devout, crying for the blood of the infidels and praising the holy martyr who has ascended to Paradise. Indeed, these sheep are programmed by centuries of selective breeding and environmental conditioning. All you need to do is convince them that God is on your side, and you have a following.
So what do we do?
We dismantle submission by holding a mirror up to the sheep and forcing them to see what they are. Pure and simple. We expose the impulse to "patiently endure hardship" for the toxic behavior that it is and demand that the global community stands up and thinks on its own two feet. Nothing else can save us from the impulse to fall to our knees and wait silently for the axe to fall, trusting in God to make sure that it is "one of our guys" who holds the handle in his hand. 1/3 of the world are Christians, 1/3 of the world are Muslims. Guess which 1/3 is more likely to pray devoutly five times a day? Guess which 1/3 is more likely to be in the majority fifty years from now. A hundred years? Both sides are on a mission to convert the other side, and this is something that those of us who consider ourselves "moderates" cannot afford to ignore. Those with heretical impulses are just as likely to be subjected to the witch hunts of the next century as every other brand of non-believer.
You cannot tame one brand of submission with another brand. There is no such thing as the "Judeo-Christo-Islamic" faith in the mind of the Muslim (or the Christian who believes in Christ and understands the Qu'ran, for that matter). One all-merciful and all-encompassing ocean of faith mixed with another all-merciful and all-encompassing ocean of a different brand of faith simply means that the tsunami that results when the next fascist preachers (or secular leaders) come around to exploit them will simply be more destructive. Civil War, religious tension, and economic instability are exactly the sorts of conditions that give rise to those sorts of leaders.
We need to dry this impulse up. We need to replace it with good solid stone that allows us to build a foundation for peace, resting not upon some notion of a "higher power" that demands us to turn to Him for guidance, but based instead upon the certain knowledge that human beings are fragile and error prone animals who will often resort to mean behavior and horde mentality. The Sky Daddy is not going to save us from ourselves, nor is he going to clean up after our collective messes left over by a few millenia of sloppy logic.
A couple of articles for quiet contemplation while that flood of rage washes away the bitterness, and I promise to quit overextending the metaphor now:
Feds Train Clergy To "Quell Dissent" During Martial Law
<snip>It was stressed that the Pastors needed to preach subservience to the authorities ahead of time in preparation for the round-ups and to make it clear to the congregation that "this is for their own good."</snip>
And, on a somewhat more encouraging note, a German campaign to put the focus where it needs to be:
Ex-Muslims Demand Right to Renounce Islamic Faith
<snip>Controversially, 9/11 was chosen as the date to sign the "European Declaration for Tolerance." It aims to draw attention to what the former Muslims see as the lack of freedom of religion within Islam."</snip>
Careful... admitting to being an apostate is essentially asking to be executed. Oh the joys of fundamentalist whackjobism.
On a more optimistic note I'd still argue that moderates (Christian or Muslim) are still a necessary compromise even though such moderates are essentially admitting that their religion is flawed and should realize that beyond philosophical lessons their religions are ultimately worthless. Submitting to the mad ravings of pre-dark age desert dwellers makes little sense... even in moderation. But realistically I know people will not abandon their socialized belief systems that supposedly explain the universe developed by flat-earther yahoos who couldn't even contemplate the flushing toilet. That said I'd rather be in a nation full of moderates than a nation full of fundamentalists.
One can only hope that some day any religion that includes such absurdities as Christianity and Islam can be thoroughly written off as easily as Greek mythology. Meanwhile let us "pray" that anyone who can recognize that literal interpretations of their "flawless" "words of god" are blatantly absurd will refuse to kill, oppress, and/or conquer in "his" name.
Polls showing that most Americans believe the Constitution established a "Christian nation" though are a bit disheartening. It makes me think twice about Turkey's military enforced secularism in conflict with my notions of liberty and religious freedom. I'd say I have hope that an educated society can evolve beyond such mythology but when I hear so many people argue that the deluge stories are plausible (among others) it makes me doubt the ability of people, even if educated, to escape from the bonds of religious mental oppression.
But then again, I'm weird. I don't think people like you should face death sentences for changing their mind on their religious views and I don't think that gov't teachers should be teaching the Bible as factual nor do I think the Constitution establishes a Christian nation. Which puts me at odds with the religious whackjob community in both the Islamic and American worlds.
The irony is that people will (figuratively) crucify me for saying so. :-) Not a piece of silver required for them to betray their allegience to liberty.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
<< Careful... admitting to being an apostate is essentially asking to be executed. Oh the joys of fundamentalist whackjobism.>>
Personally, I prefer the term "****wittery".
<< On a more optimistic note I'd still argue that moderates (Christian or Muslim) are still a necessary compromise even though such moderates are essentially admitting that their religion is flawed and should realize that beyond philosophical lessons their religions are ultimately worthless. >>
And I would argue that you're missing the point. The moderates are irrelevant. They hold no influence over the masses in the streets. They are just as bad as the apostates.
<< Submitting to the mad ravings of pre-dark age desert dwellers makes little sense... even in moderation. >>
Well, yes. You think so. I think so. We're, what, 11% of the population at best? Not exactly a powerful majority, and certainly not anyone that any Islamic state would accept as leaders. Hell, even the moderate Christians don't trust us. Our own president doesn't think we deserve to be called patriots.
More later... got to get back on the clock.
(EDITED by IP to remove profanity.)
Okay, lunch break now... I actually have time to do things like log in and edit out the profanity before I hit post. (Sorry bout that, IP).
<< But realistically I know people will not abandon their socialized belief systems that supposedly explain the universe developed by flat-earther yahoos who couldn't even contemplate the flushing toilet. >>
I have to ask, Glock... you're a terribly smart guy, and I'm curious about how you reconcile this. If you realistically know that there is no way that the socialized belief systems will be abandoned *and* you realistically know that the versions of Islam followed by the warring sects are mutually incompatible and irreconcileable at their core, then how can you realistically believe that the presence of a bunch of infidels in their midst telling them how to govern their affairs will do anything to bridge the gap between them? I find that to be charmingly idealistic, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the notion of being more cynical than you are.
Are there recovery programs available for that? Or am I missing something in your view on Iraq that will restore balance to the Force? What's the practical solution?
<< That said I'd rather be in a nation full of moderates than a nation full of fundamentalists. >>
There are moderates in Islam, but their voices are not authentic. They have turned their back on the true teachings of the Prophet, Peace Be Unto Him. The Qu'ran deals harshly with them, whether you believe in the occultation of Muhammad al-Mahdi and know in your heart that the Ummayad Dynasty and all of the years under the Caliphate were years of false leadership for the majority of the ummah, or whether you scorn those false Muslims who focus too much on the promotion of strife within the ummah and the conversion of those who already believe rightly instead of focusing on converting those who believe wrongly. In either case, there is *no place in leadership* for someone who claims that the teachings of the Qu'ran should be viewed in a modern context, and compromise is not an option if you want to maintain not just the respect of your base, but also your eternal place in Paradise!
The stakes are a little higher here. The difficulty of bridging the differences scales accordingly. Imagine the Ku Klux clan sitting down to a meeting with Malcom X and trying to negotiate an agreeable constitution, and you've got some idea of what I'm talking about here. Moderate Muslims are still waiting for their wake up call, and rocking the boat is dangerous. As you so rightly pointed out, it's tantamount to apostacy in most situations, and is essentially asking to be both executed and then condemned to God's eternal anger. Not something most fundamentalists "with doubts" are willing to risk.
<< One can only hope that some day any religion that includes such absurdities as Christianity and Islam can be thoroughly written off as easily as Greek mythology. >>
One can hope, but it doesn't seem too likely. Particularly not with the armies of evangelical ministers spurring our troops (at home and abroad) on to go preach the name of Christ, and widespread failure on the part of most Americans to understand just what it is they believe in, much less their heathen neighbors with the scary hijabs.
<< Meanwhile let us "pray" that anyone who can recognize that literal interpretations of their "flawless" "words of god" are blatantly absurd will refuse to kill, oppress, and/or conquer in "his" name. >>
More importantly, let's support the moderates by forcing them to be honest with themselves and hope that the disease of rational thought and opposition to fundamentalism is contagious. Unfortunately, propping ourselves up as a target for hatred with our legendary ignorance abroad doesn't seem like the best way to accomplish that goal. I'm looking for a solution here, and I don't see one. It's a bloody quagmire, no matter which way you look at it.
<< Polls showing that most Americans believe the Constitution established a "Christian nation" though are a bit disheartening. It makes me think twice about Turkey's military enforced secularism in conflict with my notions of liberty and religious freedom. I'd say I have hope that an educated society can evolve beyond such mythology but when I hear so many people argue that the deluge stories are plausible (among others) it makes me doubt the ability of people, even if educated, to escape from the bonds of religious mental oppression. >>
My sentiments exactly. The harder you push against the walls of irrationality from without, the more resistance you build. I always found it amusing how I could go onto discussion boards stuffed to the gills with Born-Again Christians as a Muslim and be taken very seriously and treated with great respect for the time and the care that I have put into my study of God and religion in general. But if I went on those same boards as an atheist? Argumentum ad Superiority Complex was generally all I got. Frustrating in the extreme.
I think you're right. I think we need the moderates. But I also strongly suspect that what we need specifically from the moderates is for them to come up with their own leadership that is seen as both indigenous and independent of any Evil Western Influence. As long as we are there, this will never happen.
<< But then again, I'm weird. I don't think people like you should face death sentences for changing their mind on their religious views and I don't think that gov't teachers should be teaching the Bible as factual nor do I think the Constitution establishes a Christian nation. Which puts me at odds with the religious whackjob community in both the Islamic and American worlds. >>
At least you're in good company. Thomas Jefferson was at odds with them, too.
<< The irony is that people will (figuratively) crucify me for saying so. :-) Not a piece of silver required for them to betray their allegience to liberty. >>
Their currency is not of this Earth, and their reward is in Heaven.
__
Kem
"If you realistically know that there is no way that the socialized belief systems will be abandoned *and* you realistically know that the versions of Islam followed by the warring sects are mutually incompatible and irreconcileable at their core, then how can you realistically believe that the presence of a bunch of infidels in their midst telling them how to govern their affairs will do anything to bridge the gap between them? I find that to be charmingly idealistic, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the notion of being more cynical than you are."
Actually I've resigned myself to the "hope" that the Iraq situation will settle into an equilibrium of a much lower level of the usual chaos, bloodshed, and religious strife. I'm sure the fundies and extremists will keep pushing for more death, but in a nation that used to be far more moderate (religiously anyways) I think the moderates there will eventually resist them enough that the "balance" will be a bit more manageable by Iraqi forces. I'm not really optimistic that we can tell Iraqis how to run their own country any better than we could tell communists how to run theirs. I'm more optimistic about the desire of moderates in Iraq to end the madness. Given the conditions however I don't see this being a quick process nor totally achievable but absolutely necessary.
"There are moderates in Islam, but their voices are not authentic. They have turned their back on the true teachings of the Prophet, Peace Be Unto Him. The Qu'ran deals harshly with them, whether you believe in the occultation of Muhammad al-Mahdi and know in your heart that the Ummayad Dynasty and all of the years under the Caliphate were years of false leadership for the majority of the ummah, or whether you scorn those false Muslims who focus too much on the promotion of strife within the ummah and the conversion of those who already believe rightly instead of focusing on converting those who believe wrongly. In either case, there is *no place in leadership* for someone who claims that the teachings of the Qu'ran should be viewed in a modern context, and compromise is not an option if you want to maintain not just the respect of your base, but also your eternal place in Paradise!"
Outside of the absurdity that any human being has ever captured the true words of a true god, the biggest problem is with the leadership. There's not much we can do to fix the inherent individual flaws with humanity, but with effective leadership you keep the sheep under at least some control and keep the wolves away. Some of the fundy leaders want to turn the sheep into the wolves and feed them the crack cocaine of extremism. It'd be much better if the inherent flaws in people didn't make it so easy for such leadership to come to and stay in power, but I don't have much hope for any evolution solution in our lifetimes.
"The stakes are a little higher here. The difficulty of bridging the differences scales accordingly. Imagine the Ku Klux clan sitting down to a meeting with Malcom X and trying to negotiate an agreeable constitution, and you've got some idea of what I'm talking about here. Moderate Muslims are still waiting for their wake up call, and rocking the boat is dangerous. As you so rightly pointed out, it's tantamount to apostacy in most situations, and is essentially asking to be both executed and then condemned to God's eternal anger. Not something most fundamentalists "with doubts" are willing to risk."
I don't expect them to bridge the differences. The extremists of either side will continue to wage their spiritual and physical wars against each other while the moderates attempt to survive them. The hope is that extremists analogous to the KKK or the Nation of Islam aren't running the government as that just becomes a nightmare (See Afghanistan under the Taliban, the current Iranian regime, etc). The particulars of Islam make a Church/State separation nearly impossible, with Turkey being the one major exception due to its place as a bridge to the Western world. Iraq used to be somewhat of an exception itself under the Ba'athist regime... but the fundamentalist movements of our age have made maintaining that a bit more difficult, but not entirely impossible. At this point a Kemailist-style movement wouldn't last a day. But something in between may very well be sustainable.
It'd be helpful if we could maintain a bit more control over the various areas of Iraq in order to allow that "in between" to be possible. Areas under the control of local fundamentalists make it impossible for the local moderates to support a more moderate central government without risking death for their quasi-apostacy. I still stand by my prior statements that about the only effective way to deal with fundamentalists willing to kill those that disagree with their interpretations is to kill them as quickly as possible to protect the innocent. If they're allowed to take power they will kill far more and oppress the rest.
"One can hope, but it doesn't seem too likely. Particularly not with the armies of evangelical ministers spurring our troops (at home and abroad) on to go preach the name of Christ, and widespread failure on the part of most Americans to understand just what it is they believe in, much less their heathen neighbors with the scary hijabs."
As far as I know the troops aren't allowed to act as missionaries in Iraq. It'd only enrage the locals and our allies there. I'm sure there are some who try to convince the troops to do so anyways (I can just hear the "lion's den" story being used to counter any concerns) but for those actually in the lion's den, I'm sure the reality of the situation helps their orders make a great deal of sense. The people who are afraid of the Muslims here in the U.S. who stand out seem a bit out of touch with the terror problem. It's the ones that blend in that are both the least and the most dangerous. And the ones who have assimilated and like it here far outnumber the sleeper-cell type extremists by a huge margin. The paranoia isn't unexpected or unusual, but it is a bit unfounded logically and misplaced. Their paranoia would be better served by worrying about those people with known extremist views or connections as opposed to strangers who are not doing anything suspicious.
"More importantly, let's support the moderates by forcing them to be honest with themselves and hope that the disease of rational thought and opposition to fundamentalism is contagious. Unfortunately, propping ourselves up as a target for hatred with our legendary ignorance abroad doesn't seem like the best way to accomplish that goal. I'm looking for a solution here, and I don't see one. It's a bloody quagmire, no matter which way you look at it."
I don't see how it is possible to "force" anyone to change their religious views. It's just not possible in a free society and it's pretty difficult in an authoritarian one due to the nature of mankind to resist such authorities, especially on strongly held beliefs of any kind. In our overwhelmingly Christian society I would not want the gov't to have any such authority as it could be far too easily abused by the majority. A situation that makes me wonder about those who want more democratic influence and fewer limits on government power... yet tend to be strongly supportive of secular government. They seem to be setting themselves up for a big fall. "Let's have a secular and totally democratic government... with an overwhelming majority Christian nation!" Just doesn't make any sense. Christian Coalition types seem to have the idea down better. They support limits on government except when it comes to many religious based agendas... then suddenly they are big on democratic control. Makes sense if you support them. Drives the liberty driven folks like myself up the wall.
As far as when nations are overwhelmed by religious power and begin to attempt to assert religious domination on other nations through violence, I like the Afghanistan approach. Hold the nation responsible for aiding, supporting and harboring those who take those actions just as responsible as if the nation had done so with their official military. The Iraq situation is a different problem. We are in the cross fire of a problem due to our invasion and want to ensure stability so Iraq doesn't end up like a mix between Iran and Somalia, not to mention the serious long term economic/energy issues that are critical to the industrialized world.
"The harder you push against the walls of irrationality from without, the more resistance you build. I always found it amusing how I could go onto discussion boards stuffed to the gills with Born-Again Christians as a Muslim and be taken very seriously and treated with great respect for the time and the care that I have put into my study of God and religion in general. But if I went on those same boards as an atheist? Argumentum ad Superiority Complex was generally all I got. Frustrating in the extreme."
I've seen the same thing happen with Muslims in the chat rooms. My god is better than your god crap. Plenty of the my god is better than your no god and vice versa crap as well. To me agnosticism and atheism make more sense... but I've seen people adhere to both for reasons just as absurd as being told how the universe works by desert dwellers from the dark ages. The belief in a god makes little sense to me but I've heard some compelling reasons why others believe there is one. I just have yet to hear how the Biblical, Koranic, Mormon, Jewish, etc (All the Abrahamic descriptions) make any sense whatsoever. This is where I think the moderates are on to something. They take the parts that make the most sense, apply the rest as metaphorical or somehow trumped by other portions, and other rationalizations. It allows them to be guided but a bit more evolved. It's still problematic but not as problematic as fundamentalism.
But try to convince someone that their strongly held and popular beliefs are somehow questionable and things get a bit scary. Especially since many or possibly most have either been raised with such religious views since they were children (making such beleifs a part of their mentality and almost impossible to doubt) or were come to in times of absolute desperation (and are now credited with "saving" their lives... equally difficult to question later). Religious leaders have had well over a thousand years to work on their sales pitches and defenses to ensure that even the most rational arguments that question their faith can be countered with a multitude of fallacies and a litany of half-truths resting upon unprovables. The deck is stacked against logical argument and especially so on such an emotional topic that will more often than not be abandoned even if one makes a little bit of headway. Usually with some righteous statement that begs the question, but results in the end of the discussion. Or in some cases it ends with screaming insults or even violence.
"I think you're right. I think we need the moderates. But I also strongly suspect that what we need specifically from the moderates is for them to come up with their own leadership that is seen as both indigenous and independent of any Evil Western Influence. As long as we are there, this will never happen."
That's pretty much the main idea in Iraq. We know the fundies will still have a great deal of influence but that is better than leaving allowing the fundies to take power. The suggestions by many politicians that we should make the Iraqis do this, that, or the other only helps the fundies "prove" that the new Iraq gov't is merely our puppet. The suggestion by some that the purpose of our invasion was to force our way of government upon them is also pretty skewed since the idea was pretty well supported by most of the population prior to our invasion and still supported to this day. The problem comes from the minority that supported the former authoritarian state and the fundamentalists who wanted to seize on the power vacuum. While its true the Shi'a majority wanted far more religious control than they had prior to the invasion, they overwhelmingly seemed to oppose instituting another Iranian-style regime.
"Their currency is not of this Earth, and their reward is in Heaven."
The frightening ramifications of such a perspective is overwhelming. When all actions on Earth are done for Heaven, what you end up with is Hell on Earth. Yet another irony... the Bible even says it'll happen. ;-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I disagree with you on the conclusions you draw, of course, but I have to say this is the first time I've had this discussion with someone that honestly engages my objections while still holding an opposing viewpoint on the Iraq issue. Not that I haven't tried, and not that I think this is impossible. I suspect Hitchens could hold his own in a debate with me on this issue, too, but so far he hasn't returned my calls. Jerk. ;)
In any case, I like it when depressing edifices of thought come crashing down. I hope it happens here, and I'm keeping an open mind.
The whole reason why I gave this monster of a rant such a God awful unwieldy title was to point out some of the research in the twentieth century that is not being applied to the psychological aspect of this war, by and large. (It's not politically correct to do so, unfortunately.) Milgram and Fromm (and Nietzsche, of course) had it right. We would rather follow orders, no matter how banal or evil, than think for ourselves.
Submission is a trait (albeit multifactorial and heavily influenced by the environment) that pops up more often in the human species than not. The will to actually do something constructive with freedom is rare, and the conditions that mask it are all over the place environmentally and psychologically. Islam, by and large, is hostile to the expression of that trait in the very worst ways. It breeds true for submissiveness, and codominance between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims is not an option. (I'm just waiting for someone to pipe up in defense of Islam and tell me it's not a religion of submission and that I don't understand it. Please, ye lurker who thinks I've got it all wrong, tell me how Reza Aslan thinks my words sound like Fox News talking points and explain to me why I'm completely wrong. No, seriously. It is Allah's will that you defend the faith from anyone who besmirches it. Do your duty and stand up for your Sky Daddy.)
I know my thesis is pretty darned hard to miss, but I'll spell it out just for the heck of it before tearing into your post. Cross-breeding Christianity or secular humanism with Islam is impossible. Any offspring (however rare) from that union are scheduled for execution both in the Qu'ran and in the hadiths. They cannot possibly lead the ummah, because they have rejected God. Allah is One, and only Muslims understand Him. There can be only One. See what happens when you run dihybrid crosses while watching Highlander?
It gets bloody, that's for sure.
*Cracks knuckles.*
<< Areas under the control of local fundamentalists make it impossible for the local moderates to support a more moderate central government without risking death for their quasi-apostacy. I still stand by my prior statements that about the only effective way to deal with fundamentalists willing to kill those that disagree with their interpretations is to kill them as quickly as possible to protect the innocent. If they're allowed to take power they will kill far more and oppress the rest. >>
This is the argument that I always want to challenge Hitchens on any time I listen to him go off on one of his lovely little tirades (which, despite my deep reservations about the ethical foundations of his arguments, I do enjoy quite a bit). I recognize in this particular statement the same sentence that is underlined with a big bold question mark in my copy of "End of Faith" (pg. 21), "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them."
We are speaking here of the mass murder of millions. Every Muslim who believes that Allah is One and the Faith must be defended, who lacks that recessive trait of sufficient rebellion and suffers from an insufficient demand of evidence for his beliefs (or, to crib Mendel's terminology, a Truebreeder) is potentially a target. They are sheep waiting to be converted into wolves, and all it takes is a relatively simple-minded game of "make them think they are under attack and then accuse the people who cry out against the extremists who are riling the people up of being traitors to their Faith"-- far more serious consequences than mere Nationalism alone, to be sure. Sound familiar?
If we take to killing their extremist leaders, we are simply giving them the jus ad bellum they require to launch jihad. Not good.
You've got some other really good points there that I want to return to, but since this really is the lynchpin on which the whole debate depends, I figured I might as well take the opening and throw some heavy coverage onto the center of the board. Debate imitates chess.
Your move.
__
Kem
"Milgram and Fromm (and Nietzsche, of course) had it right. We would rather follow orders, no matter how banal or evil, than think for ourselves."
Ahhhh, and what would an Islamic Over-Man be like?
When we deal with Islam as a whole, we are dealing with a people who have not yet had a humanistic revolution within their faith. They (and the rest of the world with them) would greatly benefit from a Nietzsche-type character within their movement. As a religion created by a traveling salesman and designed as an economic protectorate for its members, it's probably too much to hope for from them. Europe's rise was directly due to shaking economic control away from "the Church". Here in America, we've probably taken great steps backward, thanks to the carpet-bagging charlatans of the early-mid 1800s (Joseph Smith and Brigham Young included).
Glock, when you mention the previous tolerance in Iraq, you must remember the historical perspectives. Iraq went from a region dominated by the Ottomans (tolerance enforced with the lash), to a cartographic anomoly carved out by British Colonialism (tolerance enforced with the lash), to a small but insignificant monarchy with inadequate political penetration outside Baghdad, to Saddam Hussein (tolerance enforced with the lash). We currently find ourselves in the same position as the British 80 years ago: trying to get disparate elements to cooperate that have never done so willingly in all of modern history. Combine that with the vacuum created by the removal of all elements of internal stability and the failure to plan for that, and you get the mess we have now.
Kem, in regards to the two links you posted at the end of your "rant", the first is dubious at best and contains more supposition than substance.
prairie biker
<< Ahhhh, and what would an Islamic Over-Man be like? >>
0% probability. Doesn't exist. Islam is defined by perfect submission and the Overman does not submit to anyone's will but his own.
The second link in my original post is all about the formation of that humanist revolution within Islam that you were talking about at the beginning of your post, which is, in my mind, the only solution to the quagmire.
The first link was chosen deliberately not to suggest that the government is planning martal law with an army of preachers to pacify the massees, but to kindly point out that the roots of the same problem exist in our society as well. Submission is dangerous without a safe word, and "Thy Will be Done" is not a definition of safe in my book. Yaweh or Allah, the effects on the human capacity for rational thought are the same. Suppositions are important when we're talking about psychology, it's a theoretical science. In this particular case, the evidence that this sort of strategy works is scattered throughout all of recorded history. The more controlled University setting also suggests that people acting on faith alone can be inspired to commit atrocities with frightening ease. That's all that I was attempting to show there.
__
Kem
Oh, and as far as Hitchens' predilection toward genocide, is it really that much different (metaphorically) than excising a diseased organ or limb to save the whole? The only way to win a war of ideology is to kill your enemy and keep killing your enemy until they surrender unconditionally or all are dead.
<< The only way to win a war of ideology is to kill your enemy and keep killing your enemy until they surrender unconditionally or all are dead. >>
Malcom X said the same thing, with greater justification, and with more eloquence. I still think King had the better answer.
__
Kem
I'll start by admitting that I haven't bothered to read everything that has been linked and/or commented upon in this thread. Sorry, something about REALLY LONG comments and stuff that just makes me keep scrolling.
That said, I am really disturbed by the anti-religion emphasis in this thread. I won't bother going into any sort of apologetics here, but suffice it to say that the world would be a much, much darker and dangerous place without God. And yes, I say God because God is real. God exists. Without his/her/its existence this entire conversation would never happen because none of us would be here to start with. An interesting detail so many seem to pass over, this whole "existence" thing we are in the middle of. Where'd it come from anyway if not from God? From "life"? From darkness? Where? Good luck with that one.
Furthermore, the emphasis on the extreme elements of religions that are overwhelmingly peaceful in nature is disinegenuous at best. You want to point the finger at the folks who take it to the extreme, of course, because it serves the point. But it misses the BILLIONS of peaceful, joyful, loving people who faithfully worship and pray to their God every day. People like myself and my family who wonder exactly how fucked up our lives would be if we had not allowed Him to heal us.
If history teaches us anything it is that there is no progress where the human heart is concerned. As greedy, selfish, deadly, angry and disgusting as we currently are, we are exactly equal in those unfortunate quanties with our ancestors. We have nicer buildings, conveniences beyond belief, and we are likely to live a few years longer. Yet we are still exactly the same: completely wonderful and completely terrible often within the span of minutes. To believe that the abolition of religion would be a step to solving the world's problems is to ignore the history of the darkness of mankind. Indeed, it is to take such a narrow view of the situation as to believe that the institutions humans have created are an influence on the heart of mankind, instead of a reflection of that heart. As terrible as the Church has been, it is only that terrible because of the Evil that works in the hearts of those within it. As wonderful as the Church has been, it is only that wonderful because of the Grace that works in the heart of those within it.
At the end of this argument is a simple choice. To one who does not believe in God there really is nothing. No rallying of the humans for one final push to utopia. No salvation from the end, whether it be at the point of a gun, the heat of a bomb, or the peace of the morphine drip. We all gotta go. The difference between one who believes and who doesn't is that the believers expect more. More from a world that has been tragically broken from our births. More than occasional glimpses of joy and community. More than the ever present darkness. More life, more love, more joy than one could ever imagine. That is our hope.
Whereas the non-believer has little to hope for. It is not because of religion that we are not united and not able to overthrow the bad guys and implement Peace on Earth for happily ever after. It is because of the way things are. If you cannot understand that then my guess is you will never be at peace. Not because the rest of us simpletons "just don't get it". But because you fail to understand that nature of the world in which you exist.
It's a war on terror. And by that definition it can never be won.
<< Sorry, something about REALLY LONG comments and stuff that just makes me keep scrolling. >>
I'd try harder to make my long-winded comments more engaging, but I really don't think that's physically possible.
<< That said, I am really disturbed by the anti-religion emphasis in this thread. >>
Just think about how much more disturbed you would be if you'd actually read it all!
<< suffice it to say that the world would be a much, much darker and dangerous place without God. >>
Tell it to the Jews in Dachau, April of 1945.
<< And yes, I say God because God is real. God exists. >>
Can't resist. Which one? We have a lovely wood carving from India of Ganesh in our bedroom, and as gods go, I like him pretty well. I'm also a fan of Manjushri and Sarasvati. I liked them before I liked Allah, and I still like them now. Why? Because their followers don't kill people in their names. I have minor issues with the idea that people actually believe that these entities exist in the world of non-fiction, but those issues are just... well... peanuts (funny if you know who Ganesh is, and if not, may I suggest a World Religions class?) in comparison.
<< Without his/her/its existence this entire conversation would never happen because none of us would be here to start with. >>
If you're serious about having this debate, let me know. If you're just trying to enlighten me, please understand that I used to chant "God the All Glorious" in Arabic 95 times a day on prayer beads, abstain from alcohol, fast at the appointed times, and pray in very precise language with the appointed prayers to bring peace to my weary soul. I have explored this God hypothesis in detail, from a dizzying variety of angles, with a great deal of devotion. Myths make great bedtime stories for children, but the simple truth remains that anyone who claims to know what happened before the first measurable instances of time ~15 billion years ago is making it up.
<< If history teaches us anything it is that there is no progress where the human heart is concerned. >>
Odd, because I take a very different lesson from history. Go back in time not too long ago, and lynch mobs were a common way of dealing with racial tension. Go a little further back, and you'll find parents so obsessed with keeping their babies from the horrible and unnatural urge to creep on all fours that they swaddled them up tight and tied them to their cradles, day and night. A little time before that, and you're in the midst of the Salem witch hunts.
We've come a long way, baby.
<< As terrible as the Church has been, it is only that terrible because of the Evil that works in the hearts of those within it. As wonderful as the Church has been, it is only that wonderful because of the Grace that works in the heart of those within it. >>
So, what you're saying is that good comes from good and evil comes from evil, right? I remember reading something along those lines from the Zoroastrians. I wonder if there's a connection?
<< To one who does not believe in God there really is nothing. >>
How very presumptuous of you to assume this is so! As it happens, I do not believe in God, but I am profoundly and deeply moved by the power of the human mind to overcome hardship and adapt. I sincerely hope that we'll make it past this unfortunate leftover garbage from our superstitious past that separates us all from one another and prevents us from recognizing the inherent worth and dignity of every human being in a spirit of brotherhood and mutual respect.
<< If you cannot understand that then my guess is you will never be at peace. >>
What I find so funny about that is that the day I woke up and quit believing was the most profoundly peaceful day of my life. I am much happier and generally well adjusted as an atheist than I ever was as a believer. Something about that whole cognitive equilibrium thing... it's very pleasurable.
<< But because you fail to understand that nature of the world in which you exist. >>
Ah, so I take it you're a Manjushri man, then?
<< It's a war on terror. And by that definition it can never be won. >>
It's a war on ignorance, and that most certainly *can* be won. It's just taking longer than it should in a world that glorifies the holy "unknown" and leaves our future in the hands of the Sky Daddy.
Hope that wasn't too long for you.
Kem
Perhaps it's just me, but...
Considering the horrors and tragedies surrounding us in this world, I don't think any loving god would want us to "be at peace" about it. If the world existing only makes sense to you if some supreme being created it, so be it. That's not really my concern. It's when people use long-established religious teachings to hold the rest of society back in the name of that god. Simply believing or not believing isn't really all that dangerous. Devotion to the ravings of other men to the point of cutting oneself off from the realities of the world so they can pretend good people go to a happy place where you meet later and bad people get spanked all so one can feel "at peace" while thousands are thrown into the meat grinder... well.... that's a cancer upon society, imho.
I'm not sure if I appreciate the insinuation that without belief in god that people would somehow lack the capacity for good. On the contrary, it seems more often than not that belief in a god and adherence to the man-made rules surrounding it leads people down far darker paths, especially within themselves.
Afterall, who cares more... the atheist stranger helping out his fellow man for no better reason than he wants to help his fellow man... or the religious fanatic who does it because he fears death to the point he'll believe crazy stories that assure him that if he does as he's told he will find salvation. The idea is inherently dangerous as people will do almost anything to avoid death. As we've seen through history, what they might do varies a great deal in that good/evil spectrum.
I'd rather choose to do the right thing because I believe it is right than do so out of fear of death or the possibility of being burnt for eternity by various make-believe characters. Does that make me darker or more dangerous? Do I make the world a more dark and dangerous place? Opinions vary... but I'd say not. In fact I'd argue that any religious philosophy that allows its followers to "be at peace" in this world only helps the darker and more dangerous elements in it keep the world a dark and dangerous place.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
<< I'd rather choose to do the right thing because I believe it is right than do so out of fear of death or the possibility of being burnt for eternity by various make-believe characters. >>
And Thor is so going to spank you for that when you die.
<< If the world existing only makes sense to you if some supreme being created it, so be it. That's not really my concern. >>
These sorts of certainties coming from people who are not inclined to kill people in the name of their God(s) lend legitimacy to the certainties of those who are.
<< In fact I'd argue that any religious philosophy that allows its followers to "be at peace" in this world only helps the darker and more dangerous elements in it keep the world a dark and dangerous place. >>
Wait a second... did I just feel the winds of change wafting through your post? Did you seriously just say that "even the moderates are dangerous"?
Kem
Hmm. Well, these are interesting points. I am not sure if the person who used to be a Muslim also used to believe that God exists but now doesn't believe that, or if that person never believed God existed and was simply lying or "going through the motions" as a Muslim. If the former, I would wonder how someone who truly knows God exists can suddenly *not* know that. If the latter, I wonder why this person has much credibility to discuss Islam.
Furthermore, if you believe that the Salem Witch Trials are an indication of the depravity of humans in the past then you are making two fundamental mistakes. First, this particular incident was confined to a couple of hundred people in a small community in New England. Hardly a general take on the state of Christianity at that time. Secondly, far worse events than those trials are happening today in America and throughout the world. If you seriously believe that we have "moved past" any of the atrocities you listed you are sadly misinformed and mistaken.
I sincerely hope that we'll make it past this unfortunate leftover garbage from our superstitious past that separates us all from one another and prevents us from recognizing the inherent worth and dignity of every human being in a spirit of brotherhood and mutual respect.
No offense, but I find this brand of humanistic hope to be far less compelling than the idea that ... oh how did you put it? ... a "Sky Daddy" exists. Can you cite one example in human history in which a group larger than say 100 people managed to live in "brotherhood and mutual respect" for more than six months? You might try digging into the transcendatlist utopian movements of the mid 19th century. These folks are right up your alley and they managed to fail at your goals pretty miserably. Or try the utopian communities of the 1960s and 70s. Not exactly the booming success story you'd hope for. Meanwhile you have the Church, which almost singlehandedly brought down international legalized slavery and which was very much responsible for the civil rights triumphs of the middle 20th century. It is not difficult to make the case that women would not be able to vote or even read if it were not for those very Puritans you so easily dismiss as witch killers.
Again, the Church (or Islam for that matter) is not perfect. But to simply state that the world would be a better place without religion is to deny the fact that religion has played an important and positive role in the history of the world. Moreover, it is to continue to make the mistake that religion is to blame for the depravity of humankind. As if everything was perfectly utopian before some ... well ... member of the perfect utopia decided to make religion. Which would make the utopia less than perfect, I guess. Oh, I'm confused.
I'd rather choose to do the right thing because I believe it is right
This is an interesting idea. How do you know it is right? Furthermore, WHY is it right? Without God can there be Truth? If so, who defines what the truth is? You? Your feelings? The guy with the biggest gun? Sorry, but I'd rather believe in a truth from a higher authority than my whims as I walk down the street.
the ravings of other men to the point of cutting oneself off from the realities of the world so they can pretend good people go to a happy place where you meet later and bad people get spanked all so one can feel "at peace" while thousands are thrown into the meat grinder... well.... that's a cancer upon society, imho.
I agree completely with this statement. Unfortunately, I don't know any of these people. Oh, I've heard about them on the TV, usually from our political leaders who would like me to ignore the billions sent to defense contractors in the name of fighting these faceless hordes. And I've read on this blog that they are everywhere. Yet I don't know any of them. Why is that?
I guess it could be my ignorance, but are you so sure it isn't yours?
<< Hmm. Well, these are interesting points. >>
I think so, certainly. I'm glad you agree.
<< I am not sure if the person who used to be a Muslim also used to believe that God exists but now doesn't believe that, or if that person never believed God existed and was simply lying or "going through the motions" as a Muslim. >>
I found my peace with God as a believer in an infant faith, an offshoot of the Twelver Shi'a Islamic beliefs that got going in the 19th century, and I was quite sincere. Part of those beliefs involved the acknowledgement that Muhammad was a Manifestation of God, one in a cycle of divine revelations that is continuing throughout time, and included Jesus, Buddha, and Zoroaster as equivalent prophets. It also involved the acknowledgement that "There is no God but God." As such, I've said my shahadah with sincerity and devotion, which marks me for life as a Muslim. I even put it in writing (albeit Baha'is add an extra prophet or two in there and stress their importance). My card is on file, although I am certainly a Covenant Breaker. Baha'is don't kill people over that, and I might technically be exempt from the whole apostate label based on the fact that Muslims tend to look at Baha'is the same way that Evangelicals look at Mormons. Not really ever a "real" Muslim in their eyes, whatever "real" means.
Regardless, it makes not a bit of difference. The Qu'ran was a book that I studied with the full belief that the writings of God were revealed through Muhammad (in addition to the books of the later prophets), and I understand the finer points of both faiths pretty darned well after a great deal of study. For that matter, I've taken the same sort of academic interest in Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, paganism, and Native American beliefs and practices (to varying degrees, listed in order to reflect the amount of effort expended to educate myself).
I am, put simply, fascinated by beliefs and what human beings do with them.
<< If you seriously believe that we have "moved past" any of the atrocities you listed you are sadly misinformed and mistaken. >>
Read my original post. Do you really think I believe we have "moved past" that sort of behavior?
It's no longer socially acceptable to accuse your neighbor of being a witch and burn her in public in this country. That constitutes progress.
I'll hit your other points about "proving the non-existence of God" later, but the discussion will certainly discuss the Burden of Proof and who is making the extraordinary claims.
So are you a Manjushri man, or no? I'm curious. Why or why not? How do you know that belief in Manjushri doesn't hold the keys to happiness and enlightenment? Many people do. It works for them. Isn't this proof that they are right?
__
Kem
Justkem said: "Wait a second... did I just feel the winds of change wafting through your post? Did you seriously just say that "even the moderates are dangerous"?"
Close but not quite. I was mostly trying to restate my earlier claim that moderates are still problematic to society in many ways in simpler terms due to the dislike of longer posts by the person I was responding to. I'd still rather live in a nation run by moderates rather than a nation run by fundamentalists. But it's still an unnerving situation when the fundamentalists still wield a great deal of influence. I agree with you in many respects about the complacency of moderates helping to empower the dangerous side of fundamentalism... but I have yet to see a way that gov't can force the societal evolution required to throw off those bonds and still protect liberty.
D. Boon said: "But to simply state that the world would be a better place without religion is to deny the fact that religion has played an important and positive role in the history of the world. Moreover, it is to continue to make the mistake that religion is to blame for the depravity of humankind. As if everything was perfectly utopian before some ... well ... member of the perfect utopia decided to make religion. Which would make the utopia less than perfect, I guess. Oh, I'm confused."
Part of the reason I support the idea of religious freedom is the societal controls it provides over the behaviors of the masses. Indeed it is hardly perfect but there are many who just can't see the reason for being a decent human being without fear of some metaphysical reward or punishment. The down side is that religions are rarely perfect and can sometimes impede societal progress. This is why it helps to have an overwhelming number of moderates to essentially take the good, leave the bad, and keep the more dangerous fundamentalists out of power.
The idea that some organized group should have this kind of societal control due to the inherent flaws of the masses borders on religious fascism with one glaring difference: It's not the government instituting it. In our culture we even have competing religious groups and competition within the same groups that allow moderates to choose which interpretation makes the most sense to them. This religious freedom helps to take the good aspects of religious societal controls and avoid many of the dangers.
I don't think anyone was arguing that there was some sort of mythical utopia prior to religion except perhaps the religious folks themselves. Prior to organized religion the Bible argues that there was a utopia in the Garden of Eden and even that didn't last. Some people similarly argue that life was better prior to organized societies but one look at the animal kingdom let's us know that kind of unfair cruelty and deadly ignorance isn't something we'd want to revert back to.
"I am not sure if the person who used to be a Muslim also used to believe that God exists but now doesn't believe that, or if that person never believed God existed and was simply lying or "going through the motions" as a Muslim. If the former, I would wonder how someone who truly knows God exists can suddenly *not* know that. If the latter, I wonder why this person has much credibility to discuss Islam."
As a former Christian I think it is a bit disingenuous to attack the credibility of a former [insert religious group here] to discuss that religious group because you are unable to comprehend how one could believe once and later decide that belief was flawed. In such a way you would be limiting the discussion to only those who still support your basic premise. Hardly seems to be the best ways to tackle an issue.
When I was a kid I "knew" god existed. How did I know? The church I attended and most of my relatives assured me that it was true and had all sorts of interesting explanations as to why it was so undeniably true (many of those explanations mirrored some of your comments here). The problem, of course, wasn't that they "knew" either but rather they did not "know" how anything would make sense without that explanation. They didn't "know" god existed, they just knew that without the god explanation they were lost in understanding the world.
To tell you the truth I was scared ****less when I started having doubts. Reinforced by the years of threats of eternal punishment and the fear of being ostracized by my family I kept such doubts mostly to myself (in my family I think it would have been easier to come out as gay as opposed to coming out as an atheist). The more I thought about it and the more I argued about it later in life the more certain I became that most people who claim they "know" god exists almost always explain how by stating what they do not know or understand in the absence of the concept. While this doesn't make them necessarily wrong, it sure as heck does not prove them right in any way. I don't "know" that god doesn't exist, it's just what I believe based on my observations and experiences. Unlike an agnostic though I don't have any doubt on the subject any more, though I spent many years as an agnostic before I lost all doubt.
A religious person attempting to prove the atheist is wrong can spend all day telling them that their claim is backed by their need for filling in the gaps of their understanding, or that the atheist risks damnation, or that the atheist will someday "feel his presence" and get his proof later. But it doesn't really show the atheist anything other than the other guy is afraid of the unknown, afraid of post-mortem punishment, and must rely on his own god to prove that god exists later... which honestly sounds about as absurd as saying one "knows" elvis is alive and you'll all know it too when you run into him later.
"I'd rather choose to do the right thing because I believe it is right
This is an interesting idea. How do you know it is right? Furthermore, WHY is it right? Without God can there be Truth? If so, who defines what the truth is? You? Your feelings? The guy with the biggest gun? Sorry, but I'd rather believe in a truth from a higher authority than my whims as I walk down the street."
I'm a fairly empathetic person and my decisions are strongly influenced by that trait. The right thing to do isn't something you can really explain in general as each situation has too many variables to speak generally. If one says that it is right to help their fellow man, it sounds great on paper, but what if that fellow man happens to be your enemy? Should we love our enemy, and can we still love him if we kill him or he kills us? It just gets messy to apply broad rules to the infinite possibilities of what choices we may encounter. Guidelines are helpful, but hard and fast rules ignore the complexity of the world. The right thing isn't some constant. Using the prior writings of various religious and philosophical figures to help formulate an approach when a decision needs to made is hardly unreasonable. But to claim there is only one right or wrong way to go about something just seems a bit contrary to the world in which those decisions are made.
As far as your bit about "Truth" (capitalized), know it cannot exist without god because it is a god based concept. As far as "truth" (uncapitalized) goes, yes it can exist fine without a god. I also don't think an educated man (let alone anyone who had to survive the public school system) would come to the conclusion that "might makes right" though might is certainly relevant to consider when making decisions as it is hardly irrelevant to the equation. Additionally a man walking down the street has more than just his own whims to base his decisions on. The absence of religious socialization does not equate to lack of any socialization whatsoever. You can appeal to a higher authority all you want but unless god himself told you what the right thing is to do all you have are other men telling you what they think god said and/or meant for us to do. Dark-age desert dwellers may seem like a higher authority to you if they say god told them so, but to me they are just other men with no more authority than the next guy unless their arguments are compelling.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
<< No offense, but I find this brand of humanistic hope to be far less compelling than the idea that ... oh how did you put it? ... a "Sky Daddy" exists. >>
Yep. That's how I put it. Don't worry about offending me. I have three default responses to any given internet debate. I respect the person I am debating with and agree with their opinions in general (while probing to find out whether or not they have a take on a situation that I hadn't considered before, and modifying my own stance accordingly), I respect the person I am debating with and disagree with their opinions in general (while probing to find out whether or not they have a take on the situation that I hadn't considered before, and modifying my own stance accordingly), or I hold them in contempt and mock them for sport. I can count on one hand the number of people who have fallen into that third category for me. Generally, I can spot them a mile away by their complete and utter inability to string two sentences together without making me want to vomit. I don't generally repsond to people like that.
Occasionally, someone will cross the line between a Class II and a Class III poster (typically easy to spot with "snipe and run" tactics and a complete and utter inability to answer simple questions), and I will take a few shots at them just for fun, but that's just because I enjoy being an elitist smart*** sometimes.
In any case, as long as you're willing to put up a good fight, you can say pretty much whatever you want to me. Just be aware that I tend to serve back that sort of thing with interest, and don't complain if I hurt your feelings.
Have to get back on the clock, but I will return to the "imagine no religion" and the transcendentalist utopian theme later.
__
Kem
I am, put simply, fascinated by beliefs and what human beings do with them.
Yes, and I am fascinated with professional football. I even played a little when I was younger. That hardly makes me the starting free safety for the Chicago Bears. Believe me, there are millions of believers out there who don't believe. I have never met a person who really knew God existed and then stopped believing that to be true. But I have met many people who allowed themselves to be convinced that God existed by other humans only to later discover that they never actually believed it. My guess is that you would fall into that category.
Read my original post. Do you really think I believe we have "moved past" that sort of behavior?
In the post I was referring to you said, "We've come a long way, baby." in reference to the several atrocities of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. I didn't understand, nor was I discussing the legal systems. So sure, now we have less legalized murder. Unless you count the millions who were killed by the various governments of the world (including ours) during the 20th century. Remember, Nagasaki, napalm, and "shock and awe" were all perfectly legal. I'd trade a witch hunt for nuclear disarmament in a minute, personally.
They didn't "know" god existed, they just knew that without the god explanation they were lost in understanding the world.
You're losing me. Unless these folks told you this, I suspect you are projecting your own beliefs onto them. Believe it or not, there are people who know God exists because God has spoken to them, healed them, made them whole. His name is alive, as it were. I would contend that anyone who practiced a religion because their brain "knew" God existed (ie: they were convinced by worldly means) did not faithfully practice that religion. We all doubt, of course, but a believer who is able to walk away from the experience and claim that God does not exist at all is a special case. Yes, I question whether that person was truly a Muslim or a Christian. Furthermore, I question that person's testimony about the religion because, in my opinion, that person did not really experience the religion.
Consult the religious text of your choice. They all warn against believers who do not really believe. It is quite common, in fact MORE than common to be a person who follows a religion without really believing in God or those religious doctrines. Again, these people are not really Christians, Muslims, Hindu, etc. They are simple sheep following the herd and, frankly, in my opinion (and the opinion of Jesus) they are worse than non-believers.
I don't "know" that god doesn't exist, it's just what I believe based on my observations and experiences.
No doubt a keen observer of this world would have a hard time believing in a loving God. And yet my observations and experiences have proven to me beyond a doubt that God exists, that He loves us, and that He has the most perfect way of living.
... to claim there is only one right or wrong way to go about something just seems a bit contrary to the world in which those decisions are made.
Hardly. This statement could come right from the Liberal Professors that are so often besmirched on this site. Academia rests upon the idea that there is no truth, that truth must be weighed against other truths in order to find some common ground. This is the problem with the world today. It is this kind of thinking that leads us to rationalize the dropping of nuclear weapons on civilian populations. This kind of thinking led the Einsatzgruppen to slaughter thousands of children on the edge of ditches. There is always a right and a wrong way to act. The way to understand the choices is to allow oneself to become more like God. In the absence of that effort there is no doubt that confusion reigns, but that doesn't mean that confusion now equals truth. Quite the opposite, in my opinion.
You can appeal to a higher authority all you want but unless god himself told you what the right thing is to do all you have are other men telling you what they think god said and/or meant for us to do. Dark-age desert dwellers may seem like a higher authority to you if they say god told them so, but to me they are just other men with no more authority than the next guy unless their arguments are compelling.
These ideas rest solely on the idea that the intellect is supreme. I'm a pretty smart guy, and I reckon you are as well. My experience has not led me to believe that I am smart enough to be able to make moral decisions outside of the guidance of the Divine. I am a married man, and my heart might lead me to desire to have an affair. My intellect may convince me that I can probably get away with it. And who knows? Maybe I can. Maybe I can break my vow to God to love my wife alone forever and I can have all the free love in the world and never pay the cost. So what is to stop me?
If I rely on my mind, my heart, and my best judgement I am doomed to failure. It really is that simple. One must surrender one's will to allow oneself to really live. That is the problem most people have with religion, but it ceases to be a problem if you REALLY believe God exists. After all, why wouldn't you want to follow God's plan for your life if He does really exist?
But, again, that is my experience and I honestly do not judge you or the kem person for not believing. In many ways you have more integrity and honesty in your words than in the millions of Christian or Islamic teachers who spew forth hypocrisy and judgement on a daily or weekly basis. I hope and (sorry!) pray that you will not always believe so strongly in the human race and in your own capacities. At some point you will lose control, as we all do. I pray that in that surrender you will understand Him and allow Him to love you. But if you don't that is your choice to make.
Thanks be to God!
<< Yes, and I am fascinated with professional football. I even played a little when I was younger. That hardly makes me the starting free safety for the Chicago Bears. >>
So you're a professional theologian who also is somehow able to judge the depth, breadth, and intensity of my spiritual experiences? Pardon me while I remain skeptical about that.
<< Believe me, there are millions of believers out there who don't believe. >>
You're redefining the word belief to meet your narrow specifications of the word. (See also: No True Scotsman.)
My belief was that there was one source for the Universe that was watching out for everyone and would lead us to a golden era of peace and understanding, and that all approaches to that source were expressions of the same drive. I was as sincere in that belief as it is psychologically and emotionally possible to be, to the extent that I engaged in a long and emotional conversation with my gay mother explaining why it was okay that God condemns homosexuality.
So, no, I don't think it's accurate to say that I was not sincere in my beliefs, and I'm quite certain that I'm a better judge of this than you are.
<< I have never met a person who really knew God existed and then stopped believing that to be true. >>
Congratulations, you have now met someone who fits that description. I have friends who fit that description, too. One of them is an ex-nun, and she's actually the one who forced me to challenge my beliefs at a much deeper level than I would have otherwise. Another came from my own tradition (Lutheran Church Misourri Synod), and was a Mahayana Buddhist (something I also played around with as a teenager) when I met him. He's since dropped that title, too, and is simply an atheist now. Another friend of mine was an evangelical missionary who wrote a book about her experiences, and didn't really challenge her notions of God until she was in her 50's. She's one of the more militant ex-Christian scholars and atheists that I know, as well.
<< But I have met many people who allowed themselves to be convinced that God existed by other humans only to later discover that they never actually believed it. My guess is that you would fall into that category. >>
And my comment to that would be that you were not inside my head. If I had been hooked up to the appropriate medical technology, I am 110% positive that the God center in my brain was what I was playing with. The fact that "spiritual" experiences existed for me does not prove the existance of God any more than the obvious pleasure that I take from cutting apart posts like this proves the presence of Manjushri.
Read my original post. Do you really think I believe we have "moved past" that sort of behavior?
<< In the post I was referring to you said, "We've come a long way, baby." in reference to the several atrocities of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. I didn't understand, nor was I discussing the legal systems. So sure, now we have less legalized murder. Unless you count the millions who were killed by the various governments of the world (including ours) during the 20th century. Remember, Nagasaki, napalm, and "shock and awe" were all perfectly legal. I'd trade a witch hunt for nuclear disarmament in a minute, personally. >>
I wouldn't. The technology to rebuild the nuclear arsenals would still exist, and the type of mentality that leads to witch hunts is precisely the mentality that leads to stockpiling. Us against them, with a thick layer of fear on top, sanctified by belief that the fear and the division is the Will of the Lord. We are not safe as long as this sort of mentality is socially acceptable.
I was standing in the audience when Maya Angelou read to the (to be sure, primarily white) masses at President Clinton's inauguration. I'm familiar with her history as a child. We have come a long way. We still have a great deal of room to grow. Coming to terms with our theological uncertainty and exposing religious certitudes for the cancers that they are is the first step.
Kem
"They didn't "know" god existed, they just knew that without the god explanation they were lost in understanding the world.
"You're losing me. Unless these folks told you this, I suspect you are projecting your own beliefs onto them. Believe it or not, there are people who know God exists because God has spoken to them, healed them, made them whole. His name is alive, as it were. I would contend that anyone who practiced a religion because their brain "knew" God existed (ie: they were convinced by worldly means) did not faithfully practice that religion. We all doubt, of course, but a believer who is able to walk away from the experience and claim that God does not exist at all is a special case. Yes, I question whether that person was truly a Muslim or a Christian. Furthermore, I question that person's testimony about the religion because, in my opinion, that person did not really experience the religion.
Consult the religious text of your choice. They all warn against believers who do not really believe. It is quite common, in fact MORE than common to be a person who follows a religion without really believing in God or those religious doctrines. Again, these people are not really Christians, Muslims, Hindu, etc. They are simple sheep following the herd and, frankly, in my opinion (and the opinion of Jesus) they are worse than non-believers."
Oh boy, where to begin. Someone who argues they know god exists isn't going to tell you they don't know. That just doesn't make any sense. No wonder I'm losing you. The problem I was describing is that they "know" god exists but they can't tell anyone how they "know" except the few who claim that they have actually experienced god... which of course they can't show either so it remains pretty unconvincing to the rest of us. Especially if they can't describe how they experienced god or if they do describe it they sound more like they seized on religion in scenarios more indicative of psychological problems.
You seem to be arguing that unless someone claims to have had some sort of metaphysical experience they can't be true [insert religion here]. Strangely enough I'm in agreement given the lack of physical evidence to the contrary. As an agnostic or atheist it would have taken god himself intervening to convince me he existed given that all other signs pointed otherwise. That never happened though. You seem to be implying that until that happens people are perfectly justified in being agnostics or atheists. I'd agree completely. Meanwhile I'll continue to attempt to convince the doubters why their beliefs are based on absurdities and avoid the futile attempts to convince the "true believers" of anything... it'd be like trying to convince an untreated schizophrenic that the voices they hear aren't real.
"And yet my observations and experiences have proven to me beyond a doubt that God exists, that He loves us, and that He has the most perfect way of living."
I'm all for you believing the first bit about a loving god... doesn't make any sense to me, but I apparently haven't experienced what you have. The part that bothers me is that he has "the most perfect way of living." According to who? Other men? Did god tell you? If he told you should we base our lives on the whims of your conversations with god? Seems like the same problem you were complaining about before with the guy walking down the street.
"These ideas rest solely on the idea that the intellect is supreme. I'm a pretty smart guy, and I reckon you are as well. My experience has not led me to believe that I am smart enough to be able to make moral decisions outside of the guidance of the Divine. I am a married man, and my heart might lead me to desire to have an affair. My intellect may convince me that I can probably get away with it. And who knows? Maybe I can. Maybe I can break my vow to God to love my wife alone forever and I can have all the free love in the world and never pay the cost. So what is to stop me?"
Actually my argument is that intellect isn't supreme, hence why religious and other socialization is still useful in our modern society. I'm arguing that "the guidance of the Divine" isn't really supreme either since there are literally millions of different views on what that guidance says... with thousands having some sort of organized religion claiming that their's is the true guidance, often taking a multitude of positions on the same holy text or texts.
If you'd rather be with someone other than your wife or you believe that you'd be happier with a mistress perhaps you should seek counseling or a new wife. It seems a bit unfair to your wife if you believe that the only thing holding you back from cheating on her or leaving her is your religious devotion. Personally I'd rather be with someone because I personally want to be with them, not because they feel some sort of obligation to "the Divine." What is there to stop you? Well I suppose if you are actually a really awful husband.... nothing. If the only thing holding your marriage together is religious beliefs, then I don't see much hope for that marriage. Somehow I think you're leaving out the multitude of reasons in addition to your religious views as to why monogamy can be a wonderful thing in spite of the obvious drawbacks. I wouldn't argue that you're a bad husband, I don't know you well enough. But from your own arguments you seem to be arguing that yourself. Seemed like a very strange tangent.
"If I rely on my mind, my heart, and my best judgement I am doomed to failure. It really is that simple. One must surrender one's will to allow oneself to really live. That is the problem most people have with religion, but it ceases to be a problem if you REALLY believe God exists. After all, why wouldn't you want to follow God's plan for your life if He does really exist?"
We all fail sometimes. Even believers fall short of the glory of god even by their own religion's admission. As experience should show you, failure isn't entirely avoidable even when one is devout. The Garden of Eden story should reaffirm this for you. Failure, even in the direct presence of god, is still inevitable.
Who are we surrendering our will to? A god? Or followers of a god that argue relentlessly back and forth about what god really wants? Even if you "REALLY believe God exists" that doesn't really get around the problem of knowing what that god really wants and whose will you are actually surrendering yourself to. I'm assuming you can make the distinction between the will of god and the will of those men who believe they are preaching god's will. One could be hypothetically perfect. The other we all have agreed is flawed. Now in the odd scenario that a god is constantly telling you what to do and therefore you have the ultimate authority guiding you in all your decisions you are either a prophet or you need to get tested for schizophrenia or other hallucinatory diseases. Either way it might be a good idea to right down what the voice tells you so you can share with others who want god's guidance or the doctor's can help with you more effectively.
"I hope and (sorry!) pray that you will not always believe so strongly in the human race and in your own capacities. At some point you will lose control, as we all do. I pray that in that surrender you will understand Him and allow Him to love you."
Prayer on my behalf doesn't bug me. At least it is an indication of caring, even if misguided. I personally don't have any absolute faith in the human race either. I do have some hope for us generally speaking, but not as much as JustKem. We will never lose control because we can't lose what we do not have. Faith it seems takes far more self-control than being without faith. So, here I am without control, without understanding of "Him" and feeling no love from "Him"... just as I always have been, even when I believed in this stuff. Somehow I doubt I'm choosing what a supreme being will allow me to see or understand. But it makes a handy cop out and logical fallacy in argument to say one's opponent merely refuses to understand when one is unable to support their claims.
Would you be convinced if I told you that I hope that someday the obvious absence of god will awaken you from your strange submission to a non-entity?
Would you feel somehow inclined to consider that god does not exist if I say he doesn't but you just choose not to accept there's nothing there?
Of course not. You feel or have felt it so you think it's true. I have not felt it so I don't think it's true. There's no proof beyond our own anecdotals that we have or have not felt god or if any particular feeling or thought counts as "divine intervention" or not. It doesn't prove anything to the other. It's a futile argument. Now submitting to a god's will, that gets interesting since most people submit to men's will on the subject far more often than any direct and divine influence as they describe it. That's the problem. And it's a big one.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Glock,
<< Meanwhile I'll continue to attempt to convince the doubters why their beliefs are based on absurdities and avoid the futile attempts to convince the "true believers" of anything... it'd be like trying to convince an untreated schizophrenic that the voices they hear aren't real. >>
Not strictly true. I was a true believer, but my desire to understand myself and the world around me was greater than my desire to cling to my faith. It's a lot more fun to get into a debate with someone who is certain about what they believe in and knows what they are talking about than it is to try to pin down specifics with someone who cannot or will not take a stand.
Oh, and pass the A1, would you?
<set mode=interpreter>P.S. The wife thing was a metaphor, not a tangent. Idea being that there is only one true heart's desire, and that while the intellect might entertain the idea of a la carte religion when the going gets tough, that's not the way a relationship with God should work. You take the good with the bad, and remain faithful.</mode>
__
Kem
I put the "true believers" in quotes as more of a smart-alecky way to say the fanatics. I'll talk to them, but I don't really think they'll be open to being convincing until they eventually have some doubts. They might be able to engage in long logical debates over most topics, but as soon as god is questioned suddenly the answer is assumed and no amount of contradictory logic is relavant, considered, or desired. Lack of evidence is all the proof they need... and it should be all the proof you need except you're blind, liberal, intellectual, blah blah blah bad stuff.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
<< I put the "true believers" in quotes as more of a smart-alecky way to say the fanatics. >>
All true believers (which, to avoid confusion, I'll define as people who have made a strong commitment to their faith, put a great deal of effort into exploring their beliefs, and are eager to learn more about how to apply those beliefs to their every day lives) *are* fanatics about their faith. Certainly, I was.
<< I'll talk to them, but I don't really think they'll be open to being convincing until they eventually have some doubts. >>
I really ought to go digging for some of my deconversion posts one of these days.
The whole process of belief means you don't allow those doubts to penetrate. You remain faithful in a spirit of perfect love and perfect trust, understanding that if you fail in this sometimes, it is your own human imperfections that cause this. God himself is blameless and beyond reproach.
<< They might be able to engage in long logical debates over most topics, but as soon as god is questioned suddenly the answer is assumed and no amount of contradictory logic is relavant, considered, or desired. Lack of evidence is all the proof they need... and it should be all the proof you need except you're blind, liberal, intellectual, blah blah blah bad stuff. >>
Fairs fair. We did, after all, just call the center of their Universe into question. Most people get a little defensive when you do that, for the same reason that most people tend to respond with snarky ad homs when they are told they are lying, and for *precisely* the same reasons. Being told that you're lying to yourself is never pleasant. I expect a bit of a kneejerk reaction.
<< They might be able to engage in long logical debates over most topics, but as soon as god is questioned suddenly the answer is assumed and no amount of contradictory logic is relavant, considered, or desired. >>
Which is why I say they are dangerous, even the "false believers" who just think religion (any religion) is a good thing for society.
<< Lack of evidence is all the proof they need... and it should be all the proof you need except you're blind, liberal, intellectual, blah blah blah bad stuff. >>
Well, hopefully they've put a little more thought into it than blah blah blah. Certainly, I did when I was defending the faith.
<< I personally don't have any absolute faith in the human race either. I do have some hope for us generally speaking, but not as much as JustKem. >>
I'm still having a hard time seeing that. Your hopes for the development of a moderate, humanist streak in the Middle East are far, far, far more optimistic than mine. I don't think the heretics are strong enough to stand on their own even in the most ideal conditions imaginable (which aren't very), much less stand on their own while trying to support the weight of our continued threat to the sovereignty of the Islamic state.
I think we're headed for nuclear war within our lifetimes, and that every single "skirmish" out there brings us closer and closer. I'd like to do everything we can to avoid that possibility.
__
Kem
You seem to be arguing that unless someone claims to have had some sort of metaphysical experience they can't be true [insert religion here]. Strangely enough I'm in agreement given the lack of physical evidence to the contrary. As an agnostic or atheist it would have taken god himself intervening to convince me he existed given that all other signs pointed otherwise. That never happened though.
Not that anyone is taking me up on the idea to discuss the Puritans or the transcendentalists, but this is exactly what the Puritans required for admittance into the church. You had to prove to the elders that you had experienced an epiphany and had been born again. Some people never had the experience, but where still vital members of the community, but overall the religious experience was foremost, and for good reason. It is all too easy to be convinced of God's presence through human persuasion, book learning, or being brought up in a faith. The Puritans believed, and many still believe, that every Christian (at least) had to have a second life - the one before the experience of the Holy Spirit, and the one after.
You seem to be implying that until that happens people are perfectly justified in being agnostics or atheists. I'd agree completely.
Yeah, this is pretty much my belief.
Meanwhile I'll continue to attempt to convince the doubters why their beliefs are based on absurdities and avoid the futile attempts to convince the "true believers" of anything... it'd be like trying to convince an untreated schizophrenic that the voices they hear aren't real.
And this makes no sense to me. Who are you to judge? This was my original point and it is the point that keeps getting buried underneath everyone's desire to showcase their smarts and share their personal experiences (all of which, coupled with $1.50 will get you a coffee at Starbucks). Who are you to judge? The two of you keep declaring religious belief a "cancer", apparently because it is so toxic to the "brotherhood of man" or whatever. Yet it is perfectly acceptable for you to lambast believers as schizophrenics? Remind me whose religious teachings this hypocrisy is based upon again?
The part that bothers me is that he has "the most perfect way of living." According to who? Other men? Did god tell you? If he told you should we base our lives on the whims of your conversations with god? Seems like the same problem you were complaining about before with the guy walking down the street.
Not at all. Based on thousands of years of conversations with God that have been compiled in the Bible. The definition of a believer is someone who follows the teachings of God, not just someone who believes. As a believer I do not need to make it up as I go along. There is a higher authority I can submit to who teaches me the way to walk in righteousness.
So, here I am without control, without understanding of "Him" and feeling no love from "Him"... just as I always have been, even when I believed in this stuff. Somehow I doubt I'm choosing what a supreme being will allow me to see or understand.
Well, there are choices involved, but I commend you for your honesty.
There's no proof beyond our own anecdotals that we have or have not felt god or if any particular feeling or thought counts as "divine intervention" or not. It doesn't prove anything to the other. It's a futile argument.
I wouldn't say it is futile because the argument isn't really about you and your personal beliefs. The argument is about the toxicity of religion and how it needs to be abolished in order for the world to progress (whatever that means). I am not exactly sure why this argument has taught me so much about you and Kem personally, but I think we were discussing whether or not religion needs to be abolished. I don't think it does, and I think the arguments made against it here are specious at best. For example:
... the type of mentality that leads to witch hunts is precisely the mentality that leads to stockpiling. Us against them, with a thick layer of fear on top, sanctified by belief that the fear and the division is the Will of the Lord. We are not safe as long as this sort of mentality is socially acceptable.
As though nuclear proliferation would have never happened if the Church hadn't been involved. Forget about science, or the aetheists who built the bomb. It was the Christians who caused it to happen because they ... uh ... didn't protest enough at the time?
The rest of Kem's post is just personal in nature and doesn't really apply to the conversation at hand, so I have little left to go on except that we are supposed to believe human beings have "come a long way" and that things really are getting better. It doesn't matter that the 20th century saw the waning of the Church's influence around the world, and was the bloodiest century ever. It doesn't matter that the 21st century is looking to be even worse. Nope. People are improving morally! All we need to do now is completely abolish RELIGION and then Peace on Earth will reign again.
Sorry, I don't buy it. If you'd like to find the source of the conflicts in the world, try following the money and/or the property. That will do it every time.
<< Not that anyone is taking me up on the idea to discuss the Puritans or the transcendentalists, but this is exactly what the Puritans required for admittance into the church. >>
Hey, D, can we make a deal here? You seem like a fairly intelligent individual, and I'd like to have this discussion with you without the digs. I can absolutely guarantee you that I'm not going to let good points go unadressed, and I even threw down a comment earlier to let you know that this topic was stored for later discussion. I enjoy discussing the history of religious thought and the way it shaped our country, but right now I'm more concerned with the present and the future. This topic is tangential. If you still want to come back to it, I'm more than game, but for right now I'm trying to keep my posts in something approaching bite-sized chunks that don't wander around all over the place.
<< The rest of Kem's post is just personal in nature and doesn't really apply to the conversation at hand, >>
The tricky things about these discussions is that they are, by definition, personal. It's difficult (although not impossible) to have them without telling the other person what they've experienced or how to interpret that experience. I can tell you what I think about my experience, and it's easy enough to draw the conclusion that I am making a general statement about the nature of religious experience for everyone, but this simply isn't the same thing as me telling you directly what you've experienced or that your view of the world is flawed. It would be hypocritical of me in the extreme to do so, since a very short while ago in my life, I was still the same intellectually curious, passionate, and careful thinker. I just happened to believe so firmly in the tr