|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
posted September 25, 2002 08:51 AM |
|
|
quote
"Is the US willing to do what it takes to win the Peace after it wins the war? That means STAYING there for a LONG period of time and providing absolutely immense amounts of aid."
Are you saying that we are obligated to stay or that we should help our for other reasons? I think we should help out but there should be limits. If a husband murders another person and we imprion him...are we therefore obligated to provide for his wife if he was the bread winner? IMO there is some reasons for self interest and charity that should motivate us assisting a reasonable amount...but I don't think we are obligated.
You guys bring up good issues....1. do we have the moral right to attack 2. Is it the smart thing to do. IMO the answer to #1 is yes and the answer to #2 is less clear. I will have to give that more thought.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted September 25, 2002 01:58 PM |
|
|
Well, I suppose technically we aren't obligated to stay for reasons other than standard help your fellow man sort of obligations. I'd liken the Iraqi citizens more to a murderer's children than to his wife, but I admit that, by the strictest definition of the word, we are not obligated to provide aid to Iraq following an attack.
Strategically, I think we definitely have to. If you go in, wack the leader and then leave, you create a power vacuum and an every faction for itself situation. Essentially what happens is that you leave behind a civil war that will inevitably end with a new dictator in place who would most likely be on the same generalized snow level that Saddam Hussein is on. You also leave behind a rather unpleasant viewpoint of the US. Think about Afghanistan the first time-- we aided those who fought against the Soviets (before somebody else points this out and then gets really smug, yes, that includes Osama Bin Laden. Before you get all high and mighty, though, remember that Afghanistan was being invaded, so I'm not sure that the US could really just sit by and watch.). After the Soviet invasion was repelled, the US left. The mistake the US made wasn't helping the forces that eventually became Al Qaeda, it was stopping to help. When the US pulled aid to the Afghanistan region, it created a power vacuum. Said power vacuum led to a very prolonged civil war and the rise of the Taliban. Now, we all know what the long term consequences of that were... In defense of the leaders at the time, it could be argued that that was not foreseeable at the time. Perhaps, but this time it's very forseeable what happens if you win a war and then pull out before you win the peace.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 25, 2002 04:59 PM |
|
|
LOL you know something Dargon I really enjoy these little discussions It's nice to see you and bort so able to discuss things without actually taking it personal!
Of course the results of communist dictatorships are terrible, that was not really what I was driving at. So is Democractic Dictatorships. My main point is that whilst the basic rhetoric of communism is sound and justifiable, it is easy to pervert into what we can now see as Russian communism, which is as close to marx as South Africa under white rule was to a democracy. Communism ends in dictatorships so often because of it's nature, but that does not mean communism itself supports or promotes dictatorships.
I find it interesting the way people can define between democracy and facism (the latter usually springs from the former) and yet can at the same time never tell the difference between communism under Stalin and the ideals of Marx and engels. I geuss like you admit freely it's a lack of knowledge of communism. People see the evils of Stalin and Mao and not look to the orignal doctrine and actually read it. I cannot profess to having read the entire text myself, but studied post WWII history at A' Level so as part of that had to do research into communism in it's many forms.
I'd like if I can to just kind of give my opinion on why communism became popular. Imagine the scene when it was written in the 19th Century. Lords and Kings dominated europe's lands, ruling by parliment in some cases, but in others in something akin to a dictatorship. Factory workers work 10 or 12 hours a day, for breadline money and have little or no rights to vote or influence their country. Farmowners see small numbers of people owning vast estates and driving them off their land (as happened in Ireland). suddenly 2 men write a book about this political idea where the state and through the state they own the land, the industry, the services. Suddenly they have a utopia where they can get their wages risen, their hours lowered. Is it that hard to understand why these people, downtrodden by the evils (I'll come back to this one) of capitalism and the old systems of government would rise in support of the new system?
Of course the system of communism is then taken and warped into say stalinism where rule is on behalf of and not by the people and wages are still low, and there is still an upper class, albeit not the same people. Nothing really changed for the people of russia in terms of quality of life for generations so they sure didn't profit from the change, but you could see why they would support the revolution. What did they have to loose after all?
And for good things brought about since communism was "invented". They promoted and supported the ideals of trade unions, which whilst often millitant did at least gain more rights for individuals over the rich. It is highly doubtfull that under a czarist or democratic government that Russia could have stopped hitler, therefore the fate of WWII relied on them being in power. I could think of more, but the WWII one is pretty important!
And also you should remember countries like Russia, Cuba and China have always been the way they were under communist rule. The Czars of russia and the Emporers of china were no-ones ideas of saints. This of course does not excuse Mao, Stalin and others, but puts it into context. the actions of Stalin and others are made possible by human nature and not solely down to communism as I'm sure you know
Now to Capitalism and Democracy 
Well no offense intended, but neither of these systems are without their many faults. Capitalism for example often exploits workers as much as it can, has widespread corruption and seems to care little for issues such as environment and animals. Democracy can sometimes enforce issues on people - An example being in England fox hunting is due to be banned, now I happen to want the ban, but a percentage of people will have their rights curbed by the majority, which is both good and bad. there have also been numerous dictators that have been democratically elected.
Don't get me wrong btw I am not either a communist or a Anti capitalist/anti Democracy person. I believe in taking the best parts of both systems and creating a new sort of middle road if you like, removing the bad things about both systems.
Oh and on christianity, I wasn't comparing their misdeeds, all relgions and political ideals have created massacres and wars in the past. My point was that some of jesus' teachings are remarkably similiar to communist principles as laid down my Marx and Engels. And whilst we are on the subject, in terms of control and lack of free will........ until the 1500's Britian was a catholic nation, no-one but the priests knew the bible and no-one questioned the priests. Truly just lambs following shepards. Even to modern periods still it has been seen as a sign of devilry if you did not go to church on sundays! Religion is very constricitive if you follow the church on some matters.
Oh and now I geuss me better get back on topic right?
I'm with Bort on that issue sorry Dargon I think that if we bomb iraq as is being suggested then the resultant damage will simply turn their population against us if we do not help them. Besides this we SHOULD help them. What's the point in making them suffer for the actions of Hussain when it is clear a signigant proportion of the country does not truly support him?
Anyway nice chatting m8 look forward to your next viewpoint! (does that give you enough to argue with me on?  )
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2002 07:14 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 26 Sep 2002
|
Is it wise????
I was reflecting on the question “is it wise/smart/prudent to remove Saddam?” One interesting conclusion I have come to is that that question cuts both ways. A related question “is it wise/smart/prudent to NOT remove Saddam?” What will be the possible consequences of inaction?
Well worse case scenario he develops nuclear weapons which even his former head of nuclear weapon development admitted he may be months away from. So then we have a man with a proven track record of killing a million people….a person who has slain innocents without a grimace with the most powerful weapon on earth. Do we really want a man who shows absolute contempt for freedom….has demonstrated total disrespect for other nation’s sovereignty…and no remorse for slaying humans to have the most powerful weapon in the world.
One critic has quite pointedly remarked that the only time we will have absolute proof that Saddam has nuclear weapon capability is when the bomb is landing on our head. Do we want to wait for that level of evidence given the obvious consequences?
Addressing other posts
Bort thanks for the clarification. I think we agree on the point. The thing that really gets me is when the world becomes so whinny and demanding. Instead of being thankful for support the USA gives…they believe it is their right to receive our aid.
This attitude of ingratitude isn't just a problem in the world but the USA also. For example…tipping….somehow it has become customary to tip 15%.....no longer to waiters/waitresses receive the tip with thankfulness….they consider it a stiff it they don’t get at least 15% (BTW I tip as I like to…it is just the expectation that you HAVE to tip that bugs me). Whereas today I was in a restaurant where it was not a typical tipping institution due to the differences in roles compared to the typical restaurant. Well the servers did provide me some services so I left a tip which others don’t typically do…the facial expression of the servers was remarkable in that they were appreciative and thankful.
What a refreshing change from the general society
Too much of the world expects handouts and resents you if you don’t provide it. The spirit of charity has become near nonexistent as now it is considered an obligation.
Quote
“if there was any credible evidence that has Saddam in bed with Al Qaeda, Bush would be bringing it up over and over again and stressing that point rather than using the weapons inspectors argument. However, the supporting terrorism point seems to have fallen by the wayside, presumably due to a lack of evidence.”
I was thinking/wondering the same thing….interesting how today Rice, Rumsfield, and Bush all made statements about the ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Rice stated:
“We clearly know that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time," Rice said in an interview on PBS' "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" program.
She said several detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, "have said that Iraq provided some training to al-Qaeda in chemical weapons development. So yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda."
Quote
“LOL you know something Dargon I really enjoy these little discussions It's nice to see you and bort so able to discuss things without actually taking it personal!”
Yeah I got to say I enjoy the dialogue between Privatehudson, Bort and myself...it is reasoned…often different….but respectful
Quote
“It is highly doubtful that under a czarist or democratic government that Russia could have stopped hitler, therefore the fate of WWII relied on them being in power. I could think of more, but the WWII one is pretty important!”
Possibly…but remember that Russia seemed pretty happy to sit that one out…. 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact - Germany and the Soviet Union pledged not to attack each other. Secret clauses provided for the division of Poland and other parts of Germany.
Quote
“Is it that hard to understand why these people, downtrodden by the evils (I'll come back to this one) of capitalism and the old systems of government would rise in support of the new system? “
Lets not confuse capitalism with feudalism
Good post otherwise PH
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2002 07:30 AM |
|
|
Unilateral????
We all know that words shape reality.
So lets be honest in the debate. The anti-regime change for Saddam crowd have created a mythological situation that does not exist in reality.
Lets see…..the definition of unilateral is “occurring on, affecting or involving ONE side only”. One side…that is where the great propaganda lies. The opponents to regime change are trying to perpetuate a hoax comparable to 1+1=3. Since when does USA, Britain, and Israel constitute 1? That is 3 by my humble math skills….and by definition.. multi-lateral support.
So please lets realize the awesome distortions and keep the debate logical! The only purpose of people to intentionally mislabel something that is multilateral as unilateral is to reduce overall support and try to create the image of tyranny. Lets just be honest.
PS. Today Italy joined the effort at regime change…but I guess it is still unilateral…lol
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2002 07:44 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 26 Sep 2002
|
UN authority?
It has previously been reasonably stated that Iraq surrendered to the UN therefore USA and Britain have no legal authority to hold Saddam accountable for the terms of surrender.
Some reflections upon that sentiment…..
The UN is really a non-entity…they have no substance…at best they are an empty figurehead. They have no real power…they are but a collection of nations that have real individual power. The UN is but an image of “real” nations…the UN has only fictional power. The UN has no citizens…they have no military…they have no country.
Did the UN have their generals leading the gulf war? Did the UN supply tanks, weapons, aircraft? Did the UN risk their own children in the war? Did the UN have their sons and daughters die in the gulf war? Who actually defeated Saddam in the gulf war…it wasn’t the bureaucrats in the UN? How does one surrender to somebody (UN) who was not even fighting the actual/real war?
While there was a representation of many countries….the USA and Britain were the big players.
Who were the leaders in the gulf war? Primarily USA and Britain
Who were financing the gulf war? Primarily USA and Britain.
Who spent the military time/money to monitor Iraq after the gulf war? Primarily USA and Britain
Not to diminsh other countries contributions….but lets face it…the USA and Britain were the central brains and brawn behind the victory in the gulf war…it is their right to clam a violation of the terms of surrender.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 26, 2002 11:27 AM |
|
|
Just a quick post to be edited later
Point taken on the hitler-Stalin pact, it may have been clear that hitler at 1st at least did not want a war, but Hitler did write continously in Mein Kampf about Lebensraum in the east, hinting at future expansion prior to the war. Whether Stalin wished to or not stay out of the war we would have had a more difficult time without stalin's Russia.
Oh and I did put capitalism and the old system of government (ie feudalism) as to a small extent ie the factories and oil industry, capitalism had taken hold in czarist russia.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted September 26, 2002 03:19 PM |
|
|
As well as I can remember (it's been about 5 years since I read the Communist Manifesto) Marx didn't view the work so much as a call to arms as much as a description of something that was going to inevitably happen. It was sort of supposed to be a combination of increased production and poorer working conditions leading the workers to realize that 1. they were being mistreated and 2. the world's production capabilites were now at the point where everybody could be provided for happily if only they took control of the means of production (at the simplest, this meant taking over factories, but it also included things like distribution systems.). In the end, the state was actually supposed to whither away, not grow bigger. It was also meant to be applicable to industrial societies (with Communism being his vision of what post industrial life would be like). So interestingly enough, his work was irrelevant to the countries that ended up having communist revolutions -- none of which were, at the time of their revolution, industrialized nations. (Remember, Russia didn't really industrialize until Stalin's 5 year plan or whatever he called it). The industrialized nations, on the other hand, took deliberate steps to avoid communist revolution, many of which would be construed as socialism -- the first social security program was in Germany and its purpose was to prevent a worker's revolution. (Logic being that if the workers are secure in their future, their much less likely to risk it in a revolt).
With regard to property rights being a prerequisite for morality, I'm not so sure that's true. Personally, I believe in property rights, but it's really hard to justify them a priori. While most argue that you are entitled to the fruits of your labor, sometimes questions arise about the materials used in the labor or stuff like that. I'd say that the least controversial ownership scenario is probably a man or woman coming upon a piece of completely unused land - no human has ever been there before in the entire history of the universe. They farm the land. The food is then theirs. A large number of people, myself included would probably then argue that they also have a claim to the land itself. It's a bit tricky, though to try to justify how someone can own something like land. What does that mean? Do you own the soil? If it washes away in a rainstorm can you go to your neighbor's plot of land and reclaim it then? Do you own the air above it? Does your ownership go all the way through to the earth's core?
Those issues aside, what if somebody else was already on that land? Can true property rights be gained by force? You can probably see already that this is eventually going to lead to the Native Americans, but this isn't a "the white man is a bastard" speech. There probably isn't a single person alive for whom every single thing that they own can be traced a clean, unbroken line to something that was produced completely from land that was unclaimed when the owner got there. People have been stealing land from eachother all around the world since the time they figured out that pointy sticks could be used to hurt other people. Now, while the investment of labor is one of the least controversial modes to ownership, what if that labor was on land that the person had no right to be working on? This extends down generational lines -- if your father or great grandfather didn't have a valid claim to land, how can he pass a valid claim to the land down to you? If I go and rob a bank, everybody would say that the money is not rightfully mine. If I got away with it, though, and left the money to my great grandchildren, would it be rightfully theirs? (especially since they provided no labor to earn the money?)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating any sort of drastic redistribution of wealth or saying that everything should be given back to the original natives in every place on earth and we should all go live on rafts in the middle of the ocean. I'm not that simplistic by any stretch of the imagination. I do believe that there is such a thing as property rights, but I have real trouble justifying it to myelf why and I don't think there is anything inherently moral about the concept of property.
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
posted September 27, 2002 04:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I do believe that there is such a thing as property rights, but I have real trouble justifying it to myelf why and I don't think there is anything inherently moral about the concept of property.
I do not mean to be rude but I am almost glad to hear that! Sorry to get off-topic here but this is really very interesting. I would expect that you are probably one of the last persons here who would believe in something (other than emotion?) before being able to justify it completely! Why (How?) do you believe in property rights? Why do you think that we can sometimes believe in something before being able to fully justifying it? I would be real glad if you or anyone could tell me what he/she thinks. But since it is off-topic, maybe it would be better to do it through E-mails or IM.
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2002 06:11 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 27 Sep 2002
|
Property rights
I don't think that property rights are a "prerequisite" for morality....I think they are a moral issue/stance.
Bort your bring up an interesting points. As I reflected on your post I found it difficult to sum up exactly why I believe property rights has a moral connotation. Specifically are property rights moral….or is denying one from property/ownership immoral. Some random thoughts as I stumble through this.....
1. As far as "a priori"...well there may not be or there may be...I am too tired to think it all the way through...but whether it is a priori or "a posteriori" makes little difference. You can arrive at moral judgments either way. I think that establishing things "a priori" is difficult for any given moral belief. And even if you can find "a priori" arguments...that doesn’t mean that they are beyond reproach as most philosophical materialist will disagree with "a priori" arguments anyway.
2. So much of life can not be reduced to a rational explanation at its core...there is much in life that is well just faith. Take even idealism vs. materialism.....idealism states that our senses are not reality they have no true substance....thus there are no trees there is only “treeness”…trees are only a poor representation that strives to conform to the ideal. So even the basis of “how we know” has always been up for debate.
The closest I can come to in my brief reflection is that property has to do with morality for a few reasons
1. Selfhood and boundaries-The bases of much morality is the nature of personhood or selfhood. Our sense of self (what is self? where does it end? where does it begin? , etc.) Along those lines I think one can see that ownership or possession is an extension of self. The most basic form of property rights is ones right over our mind….thus losing ones mind is such a horrible experience and being brainwashed is thought to be the end of true life. Next step up is the physical body…thus rape or assaults tend to be thought of as a horrible action. When someone loses a hand…a part of their property there is a corresponding grief and great sense of loss. From there humans tend to extend their self….into clothes, computers, houses, etc. From our cars to our hair style to the color we paint our houses...they are all property that expresses the individual to a degree. One of the very first moral demand of a child is “mine”….there is an almost innate sense of me/mine vs. not me/not mine. Granted a lot of parenting is to shape this natural desire….but a sense of proper/moderate possession continues (or doesn’t continue for that matter and leads to a narcissistic world view).
2. Moral impact- Property provides for the greatest sins and greatest good. Most wars, fights, etc. are based in a violation of property rights. Most charity is based upon the FREELY CHOSEN surrender of property rights (I.e. giving money, food to the poor)
3. Psychological component-There is a psychological realm to Property. Property can provide a sense of belonging…. a sense of security…. a sense of connectedness….a sense of creativity. Property of ideas…property of creation of music, etc. Property can provide a legacy for ones life.
4. Innate/conscience- Property rights have been something found to be natural for most of human history (before one objects to this reasoning I think it only fair to note that in many peoples opinions morality is but an expression of something natural or at worst an expression of preference)...there is something innate about property rights....it strikes us as right...call it conscience call it whatever...but if someone takes something from another there is a natural revulsion and a corresponding response of anger.
Now the reasons I have given are of course very debatable and not fully thought through... I am sure they are full of holes…but I do think they start to give shape for me to a reasoned morality of property.
Well thanks for the interesting and perplexing issue….It was fun to struggle with it and I am sure I will continue to reflect upon it…I now think I have a headache
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2002 04:51 AM |
|
|
I didn´t have enough time to write during the last days, so I mainly take reference to one of Dargon´s earlier posts.
Quote:
... that at least in the USA it seems most political analyst from both parties think the support from Germany will change...
I agree that different words will be (and are) used after the elections. Like the offer to have a part in holding the peace after a possible regime-change. But the old and new gouvernment will stay against a military intervention.
Quote:
I think the evil alleged by Chritianity has almost risen to mythological stature.
Here I have two objections:
1. The Nazis were strongly supported by the church, and they can hardly be called mythological. Italy´s fascist party was founded with the Vatikan´s money. Pope Pius XII did approve of Hitler´s expansion to the east, and even when the genocide was at its worst, there was not a cross word from him. In Germany, the curch also was a strong supporter of Hitler, while communists were hunted down and murdered by the GESTAPO.
2. Even if I would accept your argument, without its extreme violence against unbelievers, who were enslaved, put before the choice between death and baptism, or murdered right away, you and I most probably wouldn´t live in a "Christian culture" now. If your god is what its preachers claim it to be, wouldn´t it choose a different way to make itself believed in?
Quote:
By pure numbers of death there really isn't much comparison between communism and alleged believers in Christianity. Also I think most people who perpetrated these evils (inquisition, etc.) rarely believed in the tenants of Christianity they were using it as a vehicle of their own vanity, power, and domination.
This argument is very often used by religious people: Christians who do bad things are only "so-called" or "alleged" ones, who misused the good belief for evil purpose. I find that to be completely arbitrary, with at least the same right I could state that the relatively few Christian good-doers in 1950 years of history are humanists who have misused a bad belief to good purpose. Looking at the teachings of the bible, I find the second one even much more likely. In the books of Moses genocide against other peoples is glorified, i.e. after he wins the war against the Mid'ianites, Moses explicitly orders all of their women and their masculine children to be executed. Think of how the Psalms are full of self-righteos and paranoic hatred. And Jesus himself not only preached "love your enemies", but also threatened the ones who did not follow him with eternal torture.
From the beginning to the end, the teachings of the bible are extremely ethnocentric, outgroups (by race or by deviant behaviour) are always despised, and quite often killed without any mercy. When a Canaan woman comes to Jesus and begs him for help, he at first denies her, calling her a dog because she´s not an Israelite.
As far as I, as a non-believer, am concerned, it´s just a myth book full of old archaic morals from a time long past, so why do I care? I think that the bible is a perfect explanation for the atrocities that were done during almost 2000 years in the name of the Christian god. I admit that my above quotations of the bible are highly selective, but the same applies to the priests and preachers´ teachings, who want it believed to be a holy book.
Quote:
I think as of late there has been a lot of intellectual writings, especially among the psychological and philosophical thinkers, that thinking in terms of morality (discerning right from wrong, "good and evil", ethical and unethical, etc) is not antiquated and actually needed in today's relativistic society.
In this regard, it seems to me that America is very different from Europe. It´s hard to imagine an intellectual in Germany seriously using the words "good" and "evil". I think there´s a large consensus here that these two absolutes always further self-righteousness, hinder self-criticism, and never truly apply to a person or an idea. I don´t know enough about Reagon´s politics towards the Soviet Union, its influence on the downfall of communism (to be honest I´m doubtful that the words of the "evil empire" have been helpful there). But I think that the cases of Saddam Hussein and OBL are good recent examples in history of how dangerous it can be to call out a war against evil.
I agree with you that we need ethics, for example based on the terms of human rights.
Today I´ve read an article that said that in:
1983 Ronald Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld to meet Saddam Hussein, the beginning of the alliance between USA and Iraq.
1986 the US gouvernment delivered 4 strains of Anthrax and Bolutinas to Iraq.
1988 they kept on trading weapon technology to Iraq, after Saddam had killed 5000 kurds with gas attacks.
And now, in 2002, Bush wants to attack Iraq because it has weapons of mass destruction ...
Even if you believe in the necessesity of a regime-change, the argument "he´s a mass murderer and has weapons of mass destruction!" seems at least 14 years late ...
I hope most of the above is readable , it´s been very difficult this time, trying to translate those thoughts of mine into a different language.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2002 09:31 AM |
|
|
Quote
“The Nazis were strongly supported by the church”
Church is such an incredibly broad term. It is almost as easy to pin down what the church is as it is to say what an American is (americans of course range from anarchists to communists…..from black to white…..from secular to relgious, etc.). There is incredible diversity. Just look at all the different denominations just in the Protestant religion. It is so varied and wide.
Now to an nonbeliever I can understand why the “church” is typically so complex and often misunderstood. It might seem like a cop-out to say that “this or that church is not a true Christian church”. A basic understanding of the basic tenants of Christianity typically can clear this up for the non-Christian or the Christian for that matter. Basically the question for any church is “are they following the principles as laid out by the Bible”. The Bible is a difficult book to understand at first glance compounded by the length of time the book was written over, the different languages it was written in, and the different cultural/historical situations that were around, and the old and new covenant, etc.
The church has had periods of corruption most notably during the “dark ages”, but on the whole it has been a very positive force.
Most of these atrocities had little to do with Christianity. For example the inquisition….they forbade people from reading the Bible…now what sense on earth would a real Christian have to not allow others to read the Bible? That is like communists not allowing their people to read the Communist Manifesto. So while there has been periods of individual blind Christians making serious errors and committing grave sins…on the whole most of the atrocities committed by the “church” were done by people who have little in common with Christian principles.
What church supported Nazi’s?….most likely not a church following the generally accepted tenants of “Christianity”. Not the universal church to be sure….Christians were targets of Hitler also….particularly ones that gave their lives to protect Jews. For a very powerful story about this type of behavior of Germany’s occupation of Holland one might want to look into the life of Corrie Ten Boone (see books written about her or watch the movie “the hiding place”). Hitler had a Catholic background but tended to hate Christianity as he drew upon pagan religions and from the writings of Nietzsche. Hitler stated “After the destruction of Judaism, the extent ion of Christian slave morals must follow”.
Regarding what you allege about Italy and Pope Pious XII.
I am not a Catholic and though they are generally thought of as Christians….I do not enough of their history to discuss the situation intelligently
Quote
“ Even if I would accept your argument, without its extreme violence against unbelievers, who were enslaved, put before the choice between death and baptism, or murdered right away”
There was a horrible part of the churches history where select persons/groups/churches performed these awful deeds. Most were not Christians in the accepted sense of the word (save St. Bernard of Calirveaux during the Crusades who reportedly was a true “Christian” who authorized crusades in contradiction to Christian beliefs…there really is no excuse for what he did save that he was a product of his time). Mind you also that the crusades were in large part a reaction to adherents of Islam who were killing Christians by the sword.
But again anyone who has a basic understanding of the Bible would know that free will is the FOUNDATION of God’s appeal to the world. Their very actions during the crusades were in such contradiction to the Bible’s perpetual and exhaustive teachings of free will, that one can quickly determine those actions had nothing to do with true Christianity. I could extrapolate but it would likely be at least 2 pages long so I will spare ya
Most importantly one thing to remember when putting the church under a microscope. Saying that Christians have perpetrated an amazing amount of evil….it comparable to saying Germans have perpetrated an amazing amount of evil. Because of Hitler that does not mean that all Germans are corrupt and murderous bigots. Having Christians try to defend some of the churches bleak periods is paramount to making Germans defend against the Nazi party and what it did in the past. Rightly so a German can say that Hitler had little to do with the soul of Germany's history and likewise the dark periods of the church have little to do with the soul of Christianity.
It is easy to lose sight of what was going on at various periods during history…we often have modern blinders on……this creates an unfair modern bias….which sadly enough our future generations will use against us. You have to go back to get a first hand glimpse of the society and the world view to accurately judge different time periods.
Every culture, country, religion in history has blood on its hands. For example in the USA the constitution and Bill of Rights….arguably one of the greatest masterpieces written in political history…well some of our founding fathers were slave owners….do we therefore throw out the constitution because of that? Is the document somehow tainted?
One side note that might be interesting….is that Christians have been and continue to be one of the most persecuted and murdered groups since Christ’s death. From its origination….Jesus and all the apostles were all murdered for their beliefs… to recent years (Stalin and Mao killed tens of millions of Christians)…to modern day situations in communist countries and certain extreme Islamic countries which continue the practice.
My next post will not be a defense of Christianity but a support of Christianity’s positive impact.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted September 28, 2002 11:32 PM |
|
|
Here is something funny, unless of course you are a peace activist:
Response to "Peace Activists"
With all of this talk of impending war, many of us will encounter "Peace
Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating
against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001. These
activists may be alone or in a gathering...most of us don't know how to react
to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies,
here are the proper rules of etiquette:
1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a
conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will
tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did
this to us, we only bring on more violence. They will probably use many
arguments, ranging from political to religious, to humanitarian.
2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the
nose.
3. When the person gets up off the ground, they will be very angry and may
try to hit you, so be careful.
4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about
more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if
they are really committed to a non-violent approach to undeserved attacks,
they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must
lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.
5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.
6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much
harder. Square in the nose.
7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot
realizes how silly of an argument he/she is making.
8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim
or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable
and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost. We owe our military a huge
debt for what they are about to do for us and our children. We must support
them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either
strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.
____________
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted September 28, 2002 11:39 PM |
|
|
LOL, I was thinking the exact same thoughts when they explained to us in school that when somebody punches you in the face you should just walk away... That was kinda hard to understand for someone like me who wasn't born into the Canadian education system where there is no such thing as honour or pride, but only safety crap. And I still think that when somebody punches me in the face, they will spend the next few weeks in a hospital.
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted September 28, 2002 11:43 PM |
|
|
Isn't it funny! lol hehehehehe
____________
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 29, 2002 12:39 AM |
bonus applied. |
Edited By: Romana on 1 Oct 2002
|
An attempt to disprove Wolfman´s joke
Well, as long as you don´t use this semi-serious joke as a valid argument to support your political views, it is perfectly okay to me. But since I am certainly not opposed to those peace activists, I will gladly try to disprove the analogy.
If there´s one thing I learned from having debates, it is that analogies can only be used to explain your views and never to prove them. Just because in situation X you should do something, doesn´t necessarily mean you should do the same in situation Y, only because both situations look similar. Analogies never completely hold...
In this analogy for example, there is a difference between the ways in which is retaliated. If the peace activist would hit back, he would at least be assured that he harmed only the one who ´deserved´ it. When America decided to strike back, it was certain that many innocent civilians would die too.
But let´s say that the analogy DOES hold. In that case it would still be best for the peace activist to give the agressor in to an authority, even though I agree that it would be the hard way and that the result would not necessarily be satisfying. Similarly, the ideal solution for America would be to imprison any terrorist after his guilt has been proved by an independent court, rather than bombing whole Afganistan to the stone age.
So again: if you want to use this analogy as a joke, go ahead. But it should be no argument.
Edit: in case anyone wants to reply on this, I would suggest to continue the discussion in the Osama bin Laden thread.
edit by Romana: Very good point..I think?
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 29, 2002 03:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So while there has been periods of individual blind Christians making serious errors and committing grave sins…on the whole most of the atrocities committed by the “church” were done by people who have little in common with Christian principles.
Dargon, that´s exactly what I called "arbitrary" in my last posting. With the words that you use here, every ideology can defend its misdeeds. Replace Christianity with communism, and it will work, too.
Quote:
Basically the question for any church is “are they following the principles as laid out by the Bible”.
The problem here is, if you ask 10 Christians about what these principles are, you get 11 different answers. Still, most of these answers will focus on what their priests tell them about the bible, which usually is highly selective - only the nice parts.
Quote:
Bible is a difficult book to understand at first glance ...
I´m sorry, but I disagree here again - I personally don´t find it so difficult to understand. In my very humble opinion it only becomes so when you start to interprete the parts that you do not like, until everything fits together the way you want it.
Quote:
What church supported Nazis?
Both the protestant and the catholic church in Germany were cowardly at best, they arranged themselves very well with Hitler.
Quote:
... particularly ones that gave their lives to protect Jews
Until 1945, the few Priests who were in any way part of the resistance against Hitler, were treated as heretics.
Quote:
Hitler had a Catholic background but tended to hate Christianity as he drew upon pagan religions and from the writings of Nietzsche. Hitler stated “After the destruction of Judaism, the extention of Christian slave morals must follow”.
I have not heard this before, do you know from what year it is? In October 1941, Hitler is quoted in a diary of an SS Adjutant:"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so", and went on with his "teaching" that the Jew was the killer of God.
Quote:
anyone who has a basic understanding of the Bible would know that free will is the FOUNDATION of God’s appeal to the world.
I think that the Christian concept of an almighty and all-knowing god in conjuction with free will is self-contradictory. If god is all-knowing, then this implies knowledge of what we do before we do it, which means that we have no free will.
Quote:
Saying that Christians have perpetrated an amazing amount of evil….it comparable to saying Germans have perpetrated an amazing amount of evil.
Not at all. Being German or French is a heritage, while being Christian or communist is an ideology. I think neither of us believes that the value of a human life depends on racial criterias. BUT if an idea continually has bad consequences, this indicates that the idea itself is bad.
Quote:
For example in the USA the constitution and Bill of Rights….arguably one of the greatest masterpieces written in political history…well some of our founding fathers were slave owners….do we therefore throw out the constitution because of that?
No, but in analogy to the religion, if there was a belief in the godliness and all-goodness of the founding fathers, their slave-ownership should cast alot of doubt on it.
By the way, here is what the New Testament says about slavery: "Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, 10 nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior."(Tit.2;9,10)
____________
|
|
Mad_Unicorn
Famous Hero
I am a mean person shame on me
|
|
posted September 29, 2002 12:06 PM |
|
|
been awhile just thought i throw in somethin
Since we are on ideaology vrs racial.
Wars are started by a difference in ideas not race or heritage. Look at every war in history, Both sides incorperate all people with the SAME belief.
The Bible IS something that can be understood at first glance and as lews said its ALL about interpertation. (interesting quote about slaves). However if you read through the whole thing front to back you will soon get confused by the amounts of contradictions in the teachings and stories. Again easy to understand very difficult to interpret.
Now back to topic just for the sake of it being early and my mind is wandering.
I just feel like reinstating that iraq should be severly attacked in any which way. (Preferably a way that destroys the people not the land) With them gone I wonder what bush will find to do next? I feel bad for him having to make up for his dads mistakes in the past. I hope i dont leave anything for my son(when i have one) to clean up.
I was having a debate with my mother in law.. True proud to be an american lady.. seeing no faults with her country... christian... so obviously very naive. She suggested just assasinating Sadam and all his higher up supporters... okay... if this could be done all that will happen is somebody else eventually will take his place and probably be alot worse than Sadam himself.(Hate begets Hate begets Hate etc...)
My idea is a very bad one i will admit... unfortunatly it is the most immoral thing to do which if done will have grave consequences. (lack of world support, which dargon says we dont need anyway america rich) (2.totally cut off out of the trade which means will be poor eventually since we already wasted most our natural supplies) (3. Another country will take advantage of us and buy us out ie Japan).
I feel this is the way bush wants to react tho but is barred by a moral dillema. Who is really right? What are the reasons for doing anything by either side?(i dont think he realizes this one but we can hope)
Wow just read through this sry if i am all over the place i am on 2 hours of sleep in 3 days and high on b12 wheee
____________
I guess with my way thinking I would be going to hell. Good thing I dont believe in it.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 30, 2002 05:32 PM |
|
|
*steps forward again to light the blue touchpaper*
On the churches issue to my recollection both protestant and catholic churches of europe were guilty of not dealing with Hitler. The vatican, and head of the church of rome refused to harbour jewish refugees during the war from the SS, knowing their fate would not be pleasant. The protestant church ignored the attacks on jewish people, trade unionists and catholics for a long time until they themselves finally came under attack from hitler and then there was no-one to defend them.
Of course this does not mean that every member of the church was guilty of such matters, there are many high profile members of both churches who were actively involved in opposing hitler and helping the allies. But the fact remains that the organisation of the churches both stood to one side and ignored the events happening before them. I do though know enough to say that lews is right on the actions of the pope in this time. Perhaps this was the actions of a frightened man, worried about what would happen to him if the nazi's turned their greedy eyes on the riches of the catholic church as an organisation. He also hated communism, and therefore Lews is again right in saying that the pope at least did not oppose the invasion of russia.
As for hitler being a catholic, well in the true sense of the catholic/christian meaning he was not a catholic. My suspicions are that he used catholic rhetoric such as the jews being the killers of god/jesus was simply a way of pesuading a large number of people in the occupied territories that he was indeed a nice guy, only out to defeat gods (alleged) enemies in the jews and heathen communists. Hitler was very much a man for all people when he wanted to be, playing on nationalism, religion or indeed anything he could to promote his cause. He also was quite heavily involved in astrology and the "dark" arts, both frowned upon by the catholic church.
On the German vs Christian thing lews touched on, well I tend agree about german/british/whatever being something you cannot help or choose, but only to the extent that christians come in all shapes and sizes, with their own beliefs, therefore none of them HAVE to follow the same beliefs followed by the idiots who supported the crusades and such actions. If you follow what I believe to be christian belief, then you do not follow the same beliefs supported by the crusaders. In this you have a choice, not only to support it, but also look at it and decide which you follow. the teachings of madmen such as cortez and others, or the teachings and core principles of the bible, which do not promote violence.
All ideas can lead to bad and good consequences, it really depends on what you look at. Look at the core beliefs, and the core aims. They are what matters not the actions of people warping those aims and beliefs. Sure christianity has lead to evil, but that (like communism funnily enough) does not prove it is evil itself.
Essentially at the end of the day, most christians worship the same god, but all of them, if not realising it do this in seperate ways. It's how you act and worship that makes the difference. Millions of christians of all types since the starting of the faith have followed the teachings of god and jesus faithfully and made the world a better place. Millions have killed in the name of god or for their way of worship, yet none of the latter realise that they are acting neither for god or for christian beliefs. We should never write off a religion for the actions of some of their people. The people involved in these killings would have probably done so without religious reasons if they did not have them.
And lastly (honest) on the bible, it is useless to me to quote the bible as it is written by so many differing people that it is bound to contradict itself over and over. many of these people wrote their words with their own reasons and therefore you will of course find in there justification for slavery and murder. does that make it OK? Surely not, the basic ideas of freedom of will and love for others do not fit there so it's illogical to assume that these writings represent either gods word, or mainstream christianity.
PS
I am not a christian, indeed I am something of a heathen sice I do not believe in god, but Christianity has done good and done bad. To represent it as solely either is unfair to both IMO
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 01, 2002 02:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As for hitler being a catholic, well in the true sense of the catholic/christian meaning he was not a catholic. My suspicions are that he used catholic rhetoric such as the jews being the killers of god/jesus was simply a way of pesuading a large number of people in the occupied territories that he was indeed a nice guy, only out to defeat gods (alleged) enemies in the jews and heathen communists.
No, the above quote is from a diary of an SS-adjutant who had spoken to Hitler privately. Still, Hitler´s being catholic is not really the matter, IMO it´s much more problematic that the represents of Christianty were with him.
Quote:
Sure christianity has lead to evil, but that (like communism funnily enough) does not prove it is evil itself.
Where have I called anything at all "evil"? Besides, I agree about your comparison, but in the case of communism, we see the bad fruits it bears and reject it for the future.
Quote:
or the teachings and core principles of the bible, which do not promote violence.
PH, is there any chapter in the bible named "core principles"?
Quote:
The people involved in these killings would have probably done so without religious reasons if they did not have them.
Would Mohammed Atta and his friends have driven their planes into the WTC, too, if they had been agnostic?
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
