Bush won't tolerate nuclear Iran

Finn d'Abuzz wrote

Quote:

Unfortunately, sometime those causes are quite low, but in each case they are the product of mankind itself.

Is not religion of product of mankind itself. It is a tool for division and conflict among peoples. It may have a noble purpose, which is doubtful, but more often is an irritant and the cause for conflict.

The difference between it and other causes of conflict is that the others have a rational element and compromise is possible while religions irrational and compromise seldom is.

all good points.

but shouldn't we also consider that through the world's history there have been periods when religion either dictated to, or directly controlled a majority of governments ?

I'm not sure that this is the case. It can certainly be argued that throughout most of our history, religious institutions have held serious political power, and influence, but actually ruling nations, I don't believe so. As well, it's necessary to broaden our focus beyond the West and the buffer region of the Middle East.

sort of an ebb and flow ?

it feels like, to me, that over the last 30 years or so, that religions have been openly working towards greater influence over governments in both the middle east and the west. most notably, the united states.

As opposed to what period of time?

To the extent that is true, do you believe the trend in the US is more notable than the trend in the Middle East because it is less expected, more relevant to you personally, or greater in scope?

In any case, I'm not arguing that religion is not capable of influence over the political process, only that it is capable of compromise.


as you say, religion can be corrupted by man for his own purposes. but it could not be used that way without the True Believers that he is able to command to his bidding, could it ?

But again, is religion anymore of an effective framework for True Believers than other isms? Billions of people in China and Russia became True Believers in Communism. Millions became True Believers in the superiority of the Germanic peoples.

In addition, I tend to think the notion of True Believers to be overstated.
While there have, undoubtedly, been fanatics of all stripes who one might argue acted in promotion of orthodoxy rather than personal interest, they tend to exist in large numbers only among the young and impressionable.
The greater majority of followers have a wide variety of their own personal motivations for following that extend beyond devotion: fear, avarice, hatred, lust - pretty much all of the classic sins.

Even if we assume that the hundreds of thousands of screaming muslims who take to the streets to protest political cartoons incorporating images of Mohammed are the sort of fanatical True Believers who would follow a power mad tyrant for the sake of othodoxy (and I don't believe this for a minute), clearly they only represent a small percentage of those who favor, enable, or refuse to resist the rogues.

The bitterweet truth is that just as there is little reliability in hordes of True Believers doing evil without regard to personal interests, we also cannot count on armies of True Believers doing good.

as we see, the human fear of, or need for an explanation of the supernatural, etc. creates a very fertile ground for someone with "the answer" to plant whatever version of the truth he wants. no matter what his version is, there will be at least a few takers. jim jones ?

And we should also see that the human fear of inconsequence or the human passion for superiority creates a very fertile ground for any demagogue: Adolph Hitler; Mao-tse-Tung?

and they all have a built-in defensive response to critics; "you are attacking people of faith".

look how deftly it's been used against us.

bin laden totally f&%ks us and when we respond by pounding his cohorts and camps in afghanistan, the cry isn't "you bombed afghanistan", it's "the americans are attacking islam".

Enemies of the People... Defilers of the Race... Godless Sinners... They've all been used with good effect.

There have been non-religious terrorists who countered resistance to their actions with similar arguments: "You are attacking Liberty! "You don't care if the Earth is destroyed!"

Power-hunger and greed would be irrational explanations for the motivation of a suicide bomber. Aside from the obvious contradiction, I believe it generally would require far more compelling reasons to overcome the natural instinct for self preservation.

I'm almost with AU on this one, Finn. While I agree with most of what you've written regarding rationality, because I know entirely too many rational people of faith, that doesn't complete the equation. I'd add a fifth question to your list for comparison:
5. Does it lend itself to fanaticism in ways the others don't? Yes.

Your question #5 is, essentially, my question #3:

Is it significantly more effective than any other transcendent authority in creating a framework for the power mad to gain the initial support of the people?

We can, of course, disagree, but I would argue that the depth of (for example) Nazi or communist fanaticism is every bit as equal to that which may flow from a religion.

The capacity of an individual to sublimate their personal identity to a transcendent cause is not, at all, limited to religion. It is perilously easy to associate fanaticism only with religion, but it is also a considerable mistake.

The answer to either of our questions can not ignore the fact that billions of people bought on to communism. How many of them were fanatics is probably equal to the number of religious fanatics in any comparative movement.



Power-hunger and greed would be irrational explanations for the motivation of a suicide bomber. Aside from the obvious contradiction, I believe it generally would require far more compelling reasons to overcome the natural instinct for self preservation.

One might argue that the Divine Wind of Kamikaze pilots during WWII was a product of Shinto fanaticisim, but one would be well off the mark. The Kamikaze pilot was a suicidal weapon bent on advancing Japanese nationalism far more than Shinto.

While Nationalism and self defense of the collective can and have proven sufficient to overcome this instinct, I believe it is considerably easier and infinitely more likely to be counseled into a mind already convinced that A. Life on earth is only the beginning and B. You'll be rewarded for such action in the next life. Absent religion, these conditions don't exist.

Interestingly enough, this argument should (but will not) engender protestations from rational aetheists. Self-sacrifice is not dependent upon reciprocal reward. The father who jumps into a raging river to save his drowning children, has not calculated that to do so will insure a place for him in heaven.

To a large extent, I think you are viewing the issues through Islamic colored glasses. All religions are not Islam, all historical applications of religion are not the application of Islam.

Yours, is a rather cynical interpretation of self-sacrifice.



While it can be explained away as man's exploitation of religion and certainly most people of faith would reject the idea as contrary to HIS teachings, anyway, you still can't escape the fact that promises can be made to these people that would hold no water absent their religion. Then factor in that the very difference that is exploited is indoctrinated into them from the time their born. Even if the eventual suicide bomber wasn't brought up in an extremist or fanatical version, the foundation for future exploitation frequently begins there.

Again, you seem to be locked into a vision of Islam, and in fact there is nothing particularly fanatical about someone who kills themself for a reward in the after-life. Fanatics kill themselves to advance ideas. Idiots kill themselves for the promise of virgins in heaven. In this regard, the Japanese nationalistic Kamikaze pilot was, by far, the greater fanatic (and by my way of thinking the far more honorable man) than the Palestinian suicide bomber.

What other premise for a cartoon could reach the dizzying self-righteous heights of indignation as those published recently? Can a parallel be drawn between this and any other subject of devotion? I think not. I wouldn't (usually) go so far as to call religious beliefs irrational but I think it's undeniable that they lay a more solid foundation than any other for irrationally accepted exploitation.

I don't follow this line of your argument. Please rephrase.

I'm no believer myself, but I'm not so arrogant as to claim any certainty. I do wholeheartedly reject the idea that any "Supreme Being" would be anything but benevolent. I also recognize and sometimes even envy the incredible love, comfort and tranquility that stems from belief as well as the incredible generosity and selflessness so frequently displayed by people of faith. Heck, that friendly dude from the Christian Children's Fund convinced this non-believer to sponsor a needy child for "less than a dollar a day" (damn, he's good :wink: ). One could fill volumes with the good brought about by people of faith, but I don't see how that changes AU's assertion that religious fanaticism is a dangerous, irrational side-effect that IMO is the most worrisome part of the Middle East equation.

AU's assertion is that religion represents a uniquely detrimental influence upon mankind. It is not, very clearly, the modified representation that religious fanaticism is dangerous.

A leader can't make his people buy into irrational hatred and barbarism, true. And, as you pointed out, it's been done absent any serious religious conditioning. But surely you recognize that it's just that much easier to accomplish with people of faith. Powerful motivational tools like "its God's will", "you'll be rewarded in the Afterlife", "you'll suffer eternal damnation" etc. simply don't exist absent religion.

No, I'm afraid I don't acknowledge that it is easier to control the masses through religion as oposed to any other "ism."

A point of fact is that the ideology of communism controlled masses in the billions, and we would be hard pressed to find a religious constituency of greater number.

Religion itself may not be dangerous or irrational but as a tool of the charismatic fanatic it is perhaps the most dangerously exploitable attribute of mankind. While, as a non-believer, it is difficult for me to accept that those who aspire to positions of power in all facets of life, don't do so for self-serving motives (I have to believe the vast majority do). In this instance, it is the end user or foot soldier's beliefs that make faith so very dangerous. Through no fault of his own, his deepest felt convictions can be exploited in the most heinous of ways. Be very wary of the man who doesn't fear his own demise.

It is somewhat ironic that a self-professed non-believer has such a high regard for the power of belief. I think your problem is that you do not seem willing to credit the strength of belief in a non-religious concept, as equal to the belief in a concept with which you, yourself, cannot align. In fact, the irony is breath taking.

InfraBlue wrote:

OccomBill wrote:

Ahmadinejad is representative of the Muslim Fundamentalist movement that seeks to destroy us.

Do you have any references to this assertion, thanks.

What a bizarre point to take issue with. Do you know he considers Iran's to be the government for the world? Do you know he is widely considered to be Khamenei's protégé? Did you read his post election speech?

Quote:

"Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world," he said. "The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world."

Really InfraBlue, that doesn't remind you of anyone else we know?

You can brush up on the fella yourself easily enough. You don't need me for that. I recommend you start with Wikipedia.

Does it lend itself to fanaticism in ways the others don't? Yes.

......surely you recognize that it's just that much easier to accomplish with people of faith. Powerful motivational tools like "its God's will", "you'll be rewarded in the Afterlife", "you'll suffer eternal damnation" etc. simply don't exist absent religion.

After reading the comments that some have made an attempt to compare the destructive actions of for example Hitler, Stalin and the other tyrants throughout history with religion. I should point out when they fall their actions normally fall with them. However, with religion the damage it does is ongoing and more encompassing It's justification has been implanted in the minds of it's adherents. To be awakened and used time and time again. Religion divides people and sets them at each others throats

IMO words such as brotherhood, turn the other cheek,peace be with you and all the platitudes uttered by religion are only meant for the faithful of that religion.

here's the thing. no leader can become a leader or even get very far without his own bunch of True Believers. a movement doesn't just appear out of thin air.

it starts with an utterance, the adoption of that thought by first one other person, then another and another. soon, voila; overnight success.

the thing about religion, as bill noted, is that there's an added incentive to either adopt or reject something based on whether or not it will have a positive or negative impact on your spiritual wll being. and of course, that perception of good or bad impact can be manipulated by a skilled orator or writer.

On the other hand, virtually all movements for non violence, tolerance, pacifism, and relieving human suffering worldwide as well as great art, music, hospitals, and universities have emerged from religious endeavors.

hey there foxy !

just so there's no mistaking my comments;

i'm not saying that only religious movements are based on the adherence of True Believers.

amway ???

only that religion is a very, perhaps the most, potent ingredient in creating True Believers.

which only makes sense to me, as religions themselves are born out of one's idea and the following adoption of that idea by True Believers, right ?

i.e., christ wasn't a christian. but his adherents and True believers were/are. hence, christians.

but, foxy, i must take an opposite view from your's that religion is the great fount of the arts etc. certainly religion fostered certain styles of art. and of course, during some periods it has been the prevailing form of art.

and as old europe noted, there is the concept of secular humanism.

additionally, i cannot in good conscience agree that "athiests" are the most fervant pervayors of viewpoint.

jerry falwell ? bob jones ? pat robertson ?

seem pretty fervant to me.

so don't take me wrong; i'm not attempting to lay every ill of the world at the feet of religion. only that, as religions are attended to by humans, they cannot help but to be used occassionally by those with a less than pure motives and ideology.