Addendum: I also want to note that it is the court history maintained by the State's monotheistic priests which have pre-dated monotheism to the involvement of the States which eventually adopted them (e.g. Christianity and Rome). I am skeptical of the veracity of these court histories.
Clayton -
I'm not familiar enough with China's history to rebut you - but my point is not that "States cause monotheism" but, rather "State monopolization of religion causes monotheism." So, did China's historical states control a vast array of religions in a polytheistic (tolerant) manner?? Count me skeptical...
I cannot comment on Taoism for not having researched it, but Buddhism on the other hand is awesome. As far as religions go it's probably the most individualistic, so I wonder how it argues for collectivism (I have not come across anything from Buddha's teachings that suggest such things). Can you cite in Buddha's teachings where he argued for such things?
(The irony is you argue Islam is anarchistic while Buddhism is collectivist, while history and scripture proves you wrong on both accounts.)
Clayton: India and China's history and religious practices would seem to belie your point as well. No place is more statist than China, yet they did not develop monotheism. How does India belie it? Their history is a massive confirmation of this thesis... India's religions were conscientiously polytheistic and their political structures were decentralized over long stretches of time.
India and China's history and religious practices would seem to belie your point as well. No place is more statist than China, yet they did not develop monotheism.
How does India belie it? Their history is a massive confirmation of this thesis... India's religions were conscientiously polytheistic and their political structures were decentralized over long stretches of time.
Maybe I don't understand your thesis fully then. You're right what you say here, but today India is practically communist, and certainly collectivist. So that history hasn't helped them much in the modern era.
Clayton:I'm not familiar enough with China's history to rebut you - but my point is not that "States cause monotheism" but, rather "State monopolization of religion causes monotheism." So, did China's historical states control a vast array of religions in a polytheistic (tolerant) manner?? Count me skeptical...
China mostly has imported religion, in the form of buddhism and the tao, along with confucianism which is more of a secular moral code than a religion, or an atheist religion you could say. The reigning mysticism would be ancestor worship.
Japan is interesting to me, they have buddhism defined as the religion of the inner world, and shinto as the religion of the external world--being made up of a blended melange of local deities, almost like India's religions, and also ancestor worship :P
But back to the point. State monopolization of religion causes monotheism, I see a bit more of what you meant now. Kind of like how Islam was spread by war.
It would be hard to make a similar case for christianity I think. Early christianity was not marked by state propagation but state persecution, up until the Romans converted. Until then, the Romans, an extremely statist group, believed in multiple gods.
Hmm, from what I know of the ancient world, it doesn't seem like I can sustain the thread of your thought. But I did think it an interesting thought :) Some of the most powerful ancient regimes, some ruling for thousands of years like the Egyptians, still maintained a pantheon of multitudes of gods. Really the only monotheism that has arisen at all has been in connection to Jewish sources, of which christiantiy and Islam are derivative.
Even buddhism is not monotheist, not in india and not in China with it's history of strong rulers. Nor in Japan with it's very strong centralization.
While the Romans and Greeks were polytheist there was no coercion on the part of religion or politics on Northern Europeans, even they did inluence Gaulish, Celtic, and Germanic tribes in a variety of ways the polytheistic structure and worldview of the Northerners stayed the same. Even while they were essentially "occupying" territory and having battles with Germanic tribes, you see no major change in religion or politics til the influence of Christianity. In those cases either kings accepted it and made it the national religion by sword and killing the Heathens (oddly enough, their own countrymen), or like Iceland who adopted it in a democratic way and ruled it as the national religion, but did not ban it's folk practices. Northern Europe was never fully Christianized, as the missionaries could not get rid of localized/folk practices (they became interwoven, essentially Christianity became Germanized), but the structure changed from poly to mono, and with that you get a couple hundred years of rule by divine right by God and other nonsense. Before that even with the polytheistic structure you had various cults in that structure. Thunor worship/cults in Sweden, Tyr or Othinn cults on the mainland, Freyr cults in another region, etc. Different tribes, different gods, but they were all part of a larger framework. In a political way, it's pretty hard to control people who all don't want to worship one particular god. With monotheism, one god, one state, one rule - that's how it tends to appear.
Bert: Northern Europe was never fully Christianized, as the missionaries could not get rid of localized/folk practices (they became interwoven, essentially Christianity became Germanized), but the structure changed from poly to mono, and with that you get a couple hundred years of rule by divine right by God and other nonsense. Before that even with the polytheistic structure you had various cults in that structure. Thunor worship/cults in Sweden, Tyr or Othinn cults on the mainland, Freyr cults in another region, etc. Different tribes, different gods, but they were all part of a larger framework. In a political way, it's pretty hard to control people who all don't want to worship one particular god. With monotheism, one god, one state, one rule - that's how it tends to appear.
Northern Europe was never fully Christianized, as the missionaries could not get rid of localized/folk practices (they became interwoven, essentially Christianity became Germanized), but the structure changed from poly to mono, and with that you get a couple hundred years of rule by divine right by God and other nonsense. Before that even with the polytheistic structure you had various cults in that structure. Thunor worship/cults in Sweden, Tyr or Othinn cults on the mainland, Freyr cults in another region, etc. Different tribes, different gods, but they were all part of a larger framework. In a political way, it's pretty hard to control people who all don't want to worship one particular god. With monotheism, one god, one state, one rule - that's how it tends to appear.
Still, America at its founding was christian and moved away from the statism of its day, establishing a secular and limited government. Again, the thread of his thought doesn't hold constant.
And how long did that last? We do not have a limited government, and how secular is questionable (seems that a majority of statist measures are pushed by far Right principles that fall in line with some political Christian agenda, how convenient). Though the founding was not necessarily founded on Christian principles or values, but on those of the Enlightenment.
I'm fuzzy on remembering some history, but wasn't the idea of some general welfare pushed by government legislation in the late 19th and early 20th century influenced by the church and Christian morality? The selfless altruism that became entangled in politics.
Bert: Still, America at its founding was christian and moved away from the statism of its day, establishing a secular and limited government. Again, the thread of his thought doesn't hold constant. And how long did that last? We do not have a limited government, and how secular is questionable (seems that a majority of statist measures are pushed by far Right principles that fall in line with some political Christian agenda, how convenient). Though the founding was not necessarily founded on Christian principles or values, but on those of the Enlightenment.
We still have a secular government, so I'd say it's been pretty successful and has lasted up to the current day :P
As for limited government, true that's largely been lost, but that's because of two things: the philosophical trends and widespread beliefs of the populace which is largely statist, and because the constitution has gigantic gaping holes in it which allowed statism in.
When Benjamin Franklin came back from France the second constitutional congress was in session discussing our current constitution. He walked in, and George Washington offered him the chair, which he accepted. He sat down and asked to see a copy of the proposed constitution. He read it over and then stood to speak.
He said, "I see three places in this constitution where unlimited power has been granted. In the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch."
But his concerns were ignored and they went on with the proceedings.
He signed it reluctantly, saying, "Well we have a constitution. It's not as good as we could have hoped. But it's what we have."
Only five members of the original continental congress, the true founders of our republic and signers of the Declaration of Independence, signed the constitution we now have. Mostly because they weren't at the second constitutional congress and were business lobbying against it :\
Christianity does have concepts of altruism within it--but, and this is crucial, they are never, never conflated with government. the evil of the left is to take a moral concept, like altruism, and proclaim that if this is so moral, then let's FORCE people to be moral using the compulsion of state power.
That is evil, and that's not christianity.
+1 Bert
@Anenome: Well, let's take your most challenging example so far, Egypt. Look at the history of the conflict between "Atun" and "Amun" Pharaohs - even among an organized pantheon there is some chief deity. For the Greeks it was (arguably) Zeus, who the Romans called Jupiter (Zeus-pater or "Father Zeus"). In every case, the autocrat is either the literal descendant or symbolic designate of the chief deity. The whole purpose of the State's monopolizing of religion is to lend moral whitewash to its bloody deeds.
Now, during the several millenia of history prior to the dominance of monotheism, you could argue "there were empires/massive States and monotheism was not predominant" but I think it's just a scale/perspective problem. A person living 1,000 years in the future where the Vatican has finally succeeded in its avowed mission to wipe out all competing religions and the whole world belongs to the Holy Mother Church might look back to today and call us polytheists because, well, there are at least 5 major religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism) plus variations, sects, occultists, gnostics, pagans, atheists, and so on. But who can doubt that the US government is an imperial power and represents the essence of Statism?
It's just a matter of perspective. Today, the State is attempting to metamorphose and centralize all moral legitimacy within itself. Earlier, States were very bloody kinds of things and required the holy water of a morally spotless priestly class in order to be sanctified. Today, the State is its own priesthood, it is the moral high ground (at least, this is the message of modern social democracy). But what the secularists fail to realize is this is an extremely combustible form of hidden monotheism. All religions are wrong. Well, all except the one that we all universally assent to (the unwritten Zeitgeist as embodied in government policy). I don't believe the secular movement exists by accident or is a completely organic outgrowth of human philosophy.
Here, I risk losing a lot of people but I'll say it anyway... I think the Vatican has a direct interest in organizing secularism (through the auspices of its subversive arm, the Jesuit order) in order to contain it and as a way to discredit "all" religion. I put "all" in quotes because humans are intrinsically religious, a fact that the Vatican understands more deeply than anyone else possibly can. Read the history of the power wielded by ancient Popes - such power is founded on the abuse of the religious impulse within the masses for the ends of aggrandizing the temporal power of the corrupt ruling order. But that inherent gullibility or religious impulse doesn't go away because the academics have decided to dub our society a "secular" society. The reality is that a secular society is a society which is ripe for religious takeover.
To return to the original discussion, I think that what we call "polytheism" today was originally many small nations/tribes/clans which worshipped one chief deity and possibly other minor deities (that may have been borrowed from the pantheon of surrounding nations/tribes/clans, this is especially pronounced in India where every Hindu worships every Hindu god but each region within India regards one particular deity as its chief deity). The chieftain may have also been the medicine man/priest or they may have been separate but the primary moral limit on the chief's actions were the consequences of his actions on himself, that is, the potential for retaliation or usurpation from others within the tribe.
This is in contrast to the mega-States of today where there really are no limits to power except the very weak limits imposed by the Zeitgeist, itself largely a creation of the State. We have gone from the tribal order where moral limitations on leadership were iron shackles on their power to the modern situation where there are no meaningful limits on the naked exercise of power. This was done through the catalyst of State monopolization of religion which perverted it. The unifying feature of all natural religion everywhere has been veneration of the sacred. The sacred is usually associated with absolute moral purity, high character, through-and-through integrity, and so on. But the chief role of the major modern religions is to whitewash murder, extortion, pillaging, slavery, tribute, colonization and imperialism. It is hypocrisy at its most putrid.
Clayton:In every case, the autocrat is either the literal descendant or symbolic designate of the chief deity. The whole purpose of the State's monopolizing of religion is to lend moral whitewash to its bloody deeds.
That's a very good point. Both China and Japan also use the 'descended from godhood' trope to justify their rulers.
Clayton:I think it's just a scale/perspective problem. A person living 1,000 years in the future where the Vatican has finally succeeded in its avowed mission to wipe out all competing religions and the whole world belongs to the Holy Mother Church might look back to today and call us polytheists because, well, there are at least 5 major religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism) plus variations, sects, occultists, gnostics, pagans, atheists, and so on. But who can doubt that the US government is an imperial power and represents the essence of Statism?
But didn't Egypt go further than the US on statism? All citizens were slaves, owned by the pharaoh--this has been the case in many civilizations, and ruled for some 3,000 years unchanged, yet they didn't advance towards monotheism. Although, your point about the Egyptians having favored particular deities is taken, perhaps that could be seen as an advancing trend of monotheism which later bloomed fully.
You know, I think you may have something here. This would be a fantastic topic for a PhD student :)
Clayton: It's just a matter of perspective. Today, the State is attempting to metamorphose and centralize all moral legitimacy within itself.
It's just a matter of perspective. Today, the State is attempting to metamorphose and centralize all moral legitimacy within itself.
So then, the atheism of madern states would be seen as taking the place of religion in gaining that legitimacy, replacing the idea of 'god's representative' with 'representative of the people'?
Clayton:Earlier, States were very bloody kinds of things and required the holy water of a morally spotless priestly class in order to be sanctified. Today, the State is its own priesthood, it is the moral high ground
Exactly. I'm with you.
Clayton:But what the secularists fail to realize is this is an extremely combustible form of hidden monotheism.
Hmm, I'm not sure that follows. Because religion and government are separate categories innately and not that easy to conflate. If religion represents moral collectivism, tyranny represents political collectivism. I would say that what's happening is not the state-as-god, but a substitution of moral legitimacy from that granted by the representative of god (religion) to that granted by the people. It is the democracy, the will of the people, that represents the god of the left. But not in a literal sense. Only in terms of where legitimacy to govern comes from. This switch is more a symptom of secularization of society generally and the attempt to limit religion to the sphere of religion--a result of the enlightenment--than anything else.
Which is why we still has muslim nations taking their legitimacy to govern from religious figures :\
Clayton:All religions are wrong. Well, all except the one that we all universally assent to (the unwritten Zeitgeist as embodied in government policy). I don't believe the secular movement exists by accident or is a completely organic outgrowth of human philosophy.
Also interesting.
Clayton:Here, I risk losing a lot of people but I'll say it anyway... I think the Vatican has a direct interest in organizing secularism
o_O
Clayton:(through the auspices of its subversive arm, the Jesuit order) in order to contain it and as a way to discredit "all" religion.
Quite a conspiracy theory you've got going there :P I didn't know you actually meant you suspect the Vatican.
Clayton:I put "all" in quotes because humans are intrinsically religious, a fact that the Vatican understands more deeply than anyone else possibly can. Read the history of the power wielded by ancient Popes - such power is founded on the abuse of the religious impulse within the masses for the ends of aggrandizing the temporal power of the corrupt ruling order. But that inherent gullibility or religious impulse doesn't go away because the academics have decided to dub our society a "secular" society. The reality is that a secular society is a society which is ripe for religious takeover.
Not as long as skepticism is the reigning philosophy.
Clayton:We have gone from the tribal order where moral limitations on leadership were iron shackles on their power to the modern situation where there are no meaningful limits on the naked exercise of power. This was done through the catalyst of State monopolization of religion which perverted it. The unifying feature of all natural religion everywhere has been veneration of the sacred. The sacred is usually associated with absolute moral purity, high character, through-and-through integrity, and so on. But the chief role of the major modern religions is to whitewash murder, extortion, pillaging, slavery, tribute, colonization and imperialism. It is hypocrisy at its most putrid.
Kinda reminds me of some of the statements I've seen leftists make, that 'the only thing greater than each of is all of us, the collective will'. I've even seen some leftists refer to the collective as 'the only god they know'.
I guess that make The Wizard of Oz relevant all over again, the dictator is the man behind the curtain, and law his god-machine.
Islam preaches an economic system very similar to the ones Austrians preach. And guess what? Islamic countries don't have the financial crises Christian countries do. Coincidence?
F4M, you still have not told me where in Buddha's teachings he argues for collectivism.
@Bert,
Wouldn't it be reasonable to say he was anti-collectivism, considering his distaste for the Hindu caste system?
You wont find any explicit argument in favor of or against collectivism in Buddhist texts, but I think it's fair to say that Buddhism in general is fairly compatible with collectivist ideologies and socialism.
1. Buddha's main argument was that pain and suffering are ultimately the result of dissapointment associated with the material world (moksa) and as such, one must disconnect themselves from all material desires. Of course, this is something quite common to all religions, but isn't typically a central tenet. One of the noble truths in Buddhism is that "desire causes suffering" and one of the Bodhistava vows is to "free oneself from all material desires."
2. Chinese Buddhist schools of thought, of which there were many, all stressed and held as a central tenet the belief that everything is entirely interconnected and interdependent; nothing exists on it's own. In fact, all distinctions are merely illusory (nonsubstantiality). There is, quite literally, only the "greater whole;" individuals do not truly exist.
3. Buddhism's focus on potentiality (dharmakayana), rather than existence, is closely related to point #2. There isn't anything necessarily collectivist about this aspect, but it endorses the mysticism often associated with various socialist frameworks and the blatant denial of logic. Essentially, there are no constants (everything is in flux) and all things simultaneously exist and do not exist (related to the notion of "3,000 realms in a single moment"). Madhaymika quite literally asserts that "nothing is everything and everything is nothing."
4. There is a specifically statist element to Buddhism as well and it is related to the notion of the "enlightened wheel turner" (referring to kings and leaders). Kings in both Hindu and Buddhist societies are supposed to be enlightened benevolent leaders who understood the nature of the universe. They were supposed to use their vast knowledge and power to implement the "correct" society. Buddhism was supposed to be the method by which rulers and kings were transformed into these idealised "wheel turners." (I should note that many argue that Buddhist teachings served as a constraint on early rulers, preventing them from doing what they otherwise might have done if it weren't for the relatively passive teachings of Kharma and Dharma).
Essentially It is my belief that Buddhism, and eastern Asian mysticism in general is primarily the reason why the far east (which is rich with natural resources and natural intelligence) is generally characterized by material deprivation and sociopolitical oppression. The Communists obviously weren't Buddhists but much of their ideology was perfectly consistent with the teachings of Buddhism (and other eastern religions) which were interwoven in the fabric of that society (though the actual religions have faded as significant institutions).
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Although i believe the op got some points, i agree with John James as well.
i m a former muslim, i come from a muslim family, My parants, my relatives and most of my compatriot friends are muslims, i can tell you that even as a most Liberalized muslim nation which is most closer to westernized life style, we have some social problems as well.
even in our country masses are not that educated, i can tell you something positive is that families trying their best to improve their children's education level, most dems want their children to be educated.
if i say something general about middle east, religion and traditions put too mutch obsticals in front of people and some issues in middle east are need to be reversed as soon as possible.
there are still gap between men and women from equality aspect which is negative for women, ignorance, intolarence to differences, social disperity to gays/non theists/concentual acts, being tendent to violance (which probabely comes from lack of education), poverty are major problems.
so there's actually something need to be done in the middle east, but not by gun point ascide from conflicting with extremist terrorism for sure.
to conclude, anything without considering social dynamics may cause failiour in the end.
Freedom4Me73986
don't take my word personally but i have to call it bullshit.
we can discuss how keynessian model caused problems or how welfare state is the one of the biggest evil happend durring the last centuries, but your comparison to muslim countries with Austrian school's mentality is not that true.
none of the muslim countries that industrilized and some are relying on oil based economy.
lebanon could be kinda example but they are not governed by islamic sharia anyways, the reason is lebanese are good at trading.
gotlucky, the Buddhist path is a rather individual path when compared with other religions, it just so happens to be the least material path. As far as the caste system goes it no longer serves a purpose, it's been currupted.
Esuric, I'm familiar with Buddha's tenets (and fond of Buddhism as well), but I don't think F4M could articulate an argument as to why it's so. Point 4 is Platonic, which theoretically I'm not opposed to, but I suppose it's a bit of wishful thinking.
Esuric: Interesting break-down on Buddhism. It seems Buddhism reflects a conception of the world built on metaphysical collectivism.
It's point-4 that is perhaps the most interesting in terms of China's history of rulers, where rulers were blamed if anything went wrong in the country in general, and failings of the state of the nation were prescribed specifically to personal failings of the ruler, as if a causal link existed. The philosopher-king "ideal" strikes again.
I agree with a lot of points JJ makes although I don't like his defence of Israel. And his citing of neocon sources like Robert Spencer reeks of a political agenda slanted towards Israel. And no sane man should ever ever cite Dershovitz.. That guy is the worst most blatent apologist of Israel. I am not a fan of Israel becuase I want to reduce the influence of religions in general. I can't do that and promote an ethnic and religious state.
That being said Christianity and Islam are two religions with the greatest proclivity to violence. Lot of people here have argued that violence commited in the name of Islam is an abberation and not the norm of the religion. And I do think muslims are persecuted and villified for political ends. What is being done in the arab world is an outright travesty and Obama and Bush should be held infront of a war crimes tribunal. and that includes a lot of Israeilis as well. Israelis have commited war crimes in the name of fighting terrorism.
But much like Sam Harris I see religion as a failed science. It was an answer in the previous times that is nolonger valid today. Most christian societies have moved past christianity as the guide to everything. The age of enlightment reduced or replaced Christianity with science and inquiry.
Yet I see the muslim world hellbent on authoritrainism aslong as it is islamic authoritarianism. Islam dominates every thought and every aspect of their life. One of the most annoying things about debating with muslims and I hope fellow muslims here will respond to this as well is that why do muslims have to always respond with the Koran? Every time you talk about islam someone will cite some offshoot verse which is suppose to justify their argument.
Why cant muslim people just say 'hey you know what this is my argument' and leave it at that. Everytime its all like 'my argument and here is a free verse from the Koran'. here is the thing man. no sane man will accept the idea that one book can dictate everything in life. Whatever that book may be.
Christianity is violent in its tents,as we all know with the witch burning, crusades, stonings. But the fact of the matter is that Christian societies are some of the most tolerant peaceful and advanced scoeities on earth today precisely becuase they don't cling to their religion to arrange the entire society through that narrow prism.
On the other hand even modern muslim societies like Malaysia practices discrimination against local Hindus, Nigeria has many elements that are violent and Islamic and Nigeria is not a country dominated by the US. Not to forget the domination of almost all Asia through sword and forcing the spread of Islam in the past. And add to the fact that muslim socities although to be fair just like every developing world countries score dead last on individual rights, persecute women and gays. How is it that the treatment of palestinians quite rightly makes every arab country fit with rage but when muslims commit similiar crimes among themselves its not even openely condemend like the situation right now with Syria.
Islam much like christianity before has failed in spreading the good values that it supposedly contains. At some point in time you have to say that Islam has failed in teaching the good values it suppposedly contains. So this idea that islam is somegreat religion corrupted by a few is not valid at all. Infact it actually invalidates islam since islam is suppose to be the guiding light to 'good behaviour'.
The only way Islamic societies can progress is to recognize that their religion is not some perfect way of life but strife with contradictions and bends towards violent actions much like christianity before. And its ok. there are better avenues to seek answers and let the influnece of Islam fade for the good of their own.
@Esuric
It is my belief that Buddhism, and eastern Asian mysticism in general is primarily the reason why the far east (which is rich with natural resources and natural intelligence) is generally characterized by material deprivation and sociopolitical oppression.
I don't think you can meaningfully speak of "Buddhism" without qualification - I think it depends on the form of Buddhism. Listen to just about any lecture by the Dalai Lama... he sounds like an orientalized Ludwig von Mises. He talks about suffering (want) as the spring of action. And I think the Buddhists actually have an important point about psychological self-control (elimination of excess yearning) as an integral component of overall happiness.
As for being anti-rational, I think it depends on the particular school of Buddhism. The Zens are much more mystical and most of the Zen I've read is gibberish to me.
I was disappointed to learn that the Dalai Lama is actually a (deposed) political leader. I don't know how much substantial knowledge was revealed by prior Dalai Lamas but I have yet to read or see anything that the current Dalai Lama has said that could not be characterized as simply wise. Even his speculative teachings about reincarnation are not as crazy as they sound once you dig under the surface a little bit.
there are still gap between men and women from equality aspect
*sigh
Men and women will always be unequal.
Anti-religionists like Harris are spreading the erroneous and dangerous Enlightenment propaganda that spirit/soul is an illusion or anti-scientific. The fact is that not only is the spirit/soul "consistent" with science, it is an indispensable part of any truly scientific worldview. The denial of spirit/soul (in particular, the Urge to act and Awareness of the effects of action) is anti-scientific in the same way as the economic positivists' denial of human action. We can no more apply a microscope to human conscious experience than we can to human purpose (action). Yet both are absolutely real - at least as real as anything that we are aware of (e.g. scientific observations).
While there is no reason I can see to believe in an immortal soul, whatever people refer to when they speak of their "soul" (will, conscious awareness, capacity to think/reason) is as real as any other scientific phenomenon. In fact, all other phenomena always occur within the confines of the soul, that is, they are always perceived by the soul.
Where spirits/souls become anti-scientific is whenever they become a way to sweep aside any difficult-to-solve problem. But people use just about anything as a way to sweep aside difficult-to-solve problems, including the magical beliefs that voting makes a difference or that police keep us safe or judges care about justice, and so on. So, the real problem is not the spirit/soul, the real problem is mental laziness and the resort to magical thinking whenever a difficult-to-solve problem is encountered.
Yet I see the muslim world hellbent on authoritrainism aslong as it is islamic authoritarianism. Islam dominates every thought and every aspect of their life. One of the most annoying things about debating with muslims and I hope fellow muslims here will respond to this as well is that why do muslims have to always respond with the Koran? Every time you talk about islam someone will cite some offshoot verse which is suppose to justify their argument. Why cant muslim people just say 'hey you know what this is my argument' and leave it at that. Everytime its all like 'my argument and here is a free verse from the Koran'. here is the thing man. no sane man will accept the idea that one book can dictate everything in life. Whatever that book may be.
If you think Christians don't do this, then you haven't argued with any Christians.
I don't know what planet you're living on, but on Planet Earth, the opinions of fundamentalist Christians were the core foundation on which the entire US invasion of the Middle East was built. The Bush administration shrewdly maneuvered this important political group into support for his war.
Islam much like christianity before has failed in spreading the good values that it supposedly contains. At some point in time you have to say that Islam has failed in teaching the good values it suppposedly contains. So this idea that islam is somegreat religion corrupted by a few is not valid at all. Infact it actually invalidates islam since islam is suppose to be the guiding light to 'good behaviour'. The only way Islamic societies can progress is to recognize that their religion is not some perfect way of life but strife with contradictions and bends towards violent actions much like christianity before. And its ok. there are better avenues to seek answers and let the influnece of Islam fade for the good of their own.
But if Christians could overcome the problems inherent in Christian beliefs, why can't Muslims overcome the problems inherent in Islamic beliefs?? This is what I don't understand. And why is it any of our business? We sorted it out without anyone invading us and bombing us until we gave women a vote or whatever. Let them sort their own problems out.
Clayton, here's some evidence for you. The guy who posted this is in the military (and a walking contradiction and annoyance with some IRL conversations I've had with him).
That shirt is funny... I lol'd in my cube (where I work it's quite as a library so you get the idea).
But yeah, my brother-in-law is enlisted in the military and he just started parroting this "Islam is violent" crap a few months back. The ranks are fed the most undiluted propaganda. That's part of the reason I wrote the OP... I realized from conversations with him that the US government is launching an active campaign of anti-Muslim sentiment. It's been there since 9/11 (and even before) but this latest one is just flat-out propaganda bullshit. Interpolating from conversations with my bro-in-law, I gather that the ranks are being told "Muslims are violent and intent on taking over the world, they must be stopped at any cost."
I tried to explain that the Islamic empire - espeically the Ottomans - was far, far more powerful than today's wanna-be gangsta Arabs like Saddam, Gaddafi or Ahmadinejad. I mean, Suleiman the Magnificent actually laid seige to freakin' Vienna. Somehow, I don't see the Ayatollah of Iran laying seige to New York. The "Muslim threat" (to the extent it can even be called that) is being wildly exaggerated. Kind of like how they exaggerated about WMDs in Iraq. No, wait, they didn't exaggerate, they flat-out made shit up.
But that was 2003. It's been nine years since we started the last War Based on Total Lies which is about 8 years and 11 months longer than the average American's historical memory span. So, now they're serving up a whole new War Based on Total Lies.
Clayton, I started a similar thread, "Muslims the Next Jews?", a while back. But it didn't get much response. I also posted this article, "Growing number of Americans worried they might be Muslim": http://newsthump.com/2010/08/20/growing-number-of-americans-worried-they-might-be-muslim/
And all this from what - the media? Can people think for themselves anymore? I always hate it when one makes judgement on a group of people they've never met or countries they've never visited. I have traveled extensively throughout the middle east (including Syria and Egypt) just a short while back. As an American, I've never been harrasssed or dealt with any sort of trouble. Additionally I have never saw any of the violence or rioting that seemed to pervade our TVs 24/7. And that was last year, during the uprisings.
Clayton: I believe that Muslims are being set up to be the scapegoats for the economic/political ills of the West by Western Elites. I use the term "West" loosely to refer to US/Europe/UK/etc. An enlisted friend of mine in the military is constantly talking about how dangerous Islam is and how Muslims are a class apart from all other violent people in the world. I think he is drinking the Kool-Aid being served to him from his higher-ups. What I find interesting is that while the US government is maintaining an official policy of tolerance towards Muslims, it is internally spreading xenophobia within its ranks. We see the effects of it at the airports and in the FBI's mock terror plot takedowns - Muslims are always the target. Now that I'm finally putting the puzzle pieces together, I find it particularly terrifying because the only missing condition from 1933-1944 Germany in US policy circa 2012 is some sub-group to play the scapegoat, as the Jews did under Nazi rule. It is clear to me now that Muslims have been identified as the new scapegoat. This suggests to me that TPTB do, in fact, intend to ignite a global conflagration (full-scale total war). Muslims are the catalyst for xenophobic policies (e.g. the PATRIOT Act, NDAA, etc.) and they will be fingered as the cause of world war through their Muslim trickery just as the Jews were blamed for forcing the Nazis to go to war because decades or centuries of Jewish trickery had made any peaceful solution to Germany's problems impossible. In conclusion: buy oil. Clayton -
I believe that Muslims are being set up to be the scapegoats for the economic/political ills of the West by Western Elites. I use the term "West" loosely to refer to US/Europe/UK/etc.
Anyone who is tolerant of Islam is a moron. In the short time I have been a member, many people on this site choose to convict Christianity as a fall back when convicting Islam. It's pathetic. You ought to be able to criticize one thing without bringing up another. It's analogous to saying, "Jim, I don't like your philosophy, so let's discuss it," and Jim saying, "Well I don't like yours, so there!" What exactly gets discussed? Nothing.
Muslims of the extreme kind strictly adhere to a philosophy that requires adherents to push for mass conversion. Any hypocrites who disagree with it and are willing to discuss the religion in particular without diluting it by bringing up other religions?????
@tri: It's not changing the subject at all. The point is that this whole line of discussion is utterly subjective. Religion qua religion is not the cause of any violence. The State has co-opted religion for its uses. The secularist narrative since the Enlightenment attempts to blame the excesses of the State on the church but they have the causality backwards. The excesses of the church have been enabled by the protection and exclusivity (monopoly) granted to it by the State. Everything the State co-opts - law, security, even scientific research - is turned to violent ends. Religion is just the scapegoat.
The proximate causes of violence are manifold and the causality is incredibly complex. How much of it is due to upbringing, how much to human nature, how much is due to religious indoctrination or social customs or media or fill-in-the-blank? The ultimate cause of violence, on the other hand, is very simple: greed. All violence (except for a few insane people) is motivated by greed, the desire to own and control what rightly belongs to others.
The murderer is first a man-stealer. In the act of disposing of what is not his (the body of another) he is engaged in theft. Gang shootings are not motivated by an orgiastic love of violence. They are always some kind of reprisal or territorial assault in order to expand territory, quash competitors or punish enemies. Wars - gang shootings on the largest scale - are no different. They are started by the individuals seeking to benefit - whether from spoils, increased territory, control of natural resources, humiliation of rivals or other, more subtle political concessions.
Both Christianity and Islam have bloody roots and bloody history - including bloody recent history. Those pointing the finger at "Muslim violence" are ignoring the systematized, "sanitized" violence of the West. Anyone who thinks that Christianity is no longer a factor in State policy - particularly military capability and foreign policy - has his head firmly buried in the sand.
This is not to say that Islam and Christianity are "the same" - the secularists who lump all religions into one category are simply being disrespectful. Nor should we morally equivocate between the specific crimes committed (primarily by States) in the name of the respective deities. But to argue that one or the other is "more violent" is utterly subjective, meaningless and useless. It contributes heat but no light to the issue.
The comic book version of reality where there are "evildoers" who are just sociopaths hell-bent on wreaking mass destruction is magical thinking. It does not exist in the real world.
Even the suicide bomber phenomenon is completely misrepresented. It's presented as some kind of inherent mind-control power of Islam to take emotionally vulnerable youths and turn them into maniacal automatons controlled by murderous mullahs. The fact is that suicide bombing is primarily motivated by the money. These are desperately poor people holed up in ghettos with little prospects of escape not only for themselves but for their extended family. Saddam Hussein was paying $25,000 a pop for suicide bombers. That's the equivalent of several million dollars to an American living in the inner city. They're doing it for the people they leave behind, to give them a chance in life. They're not crazy, they're not brainwashed, they're desperate. But the Mossad/MI6/CIA's lies continue to beam out to the masses 24/7.
Clayton: The ultimate cause of violence, on the other hand, is very simple: greed. All violence (except for a few insane people) is motivated by greed, the desire to own and control what rightly belongs to others.
The ultimate cause of violence, on the other hand, is very simple: greed. All violence (except for a few insane people) is motivated by greed, the desire to own and control what rightly belongs to others.
Good point on religion being a scapegoat by organizations and government hellbent on committing wrongdoing and violence. But I cited the above paragraph because I wanted to make a distinction between greed, violence and the cause of both. Greed does not always cause violence, and violence is not always caused by greed. Greed sometimes leads to people hoarding ice cream sandwiches and hiding it from their roommates, something petty. In fact, like Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand say, greed can be a good thing. Greed is really looking out for oneself before any collective. I don't think that's a bad thing. As for violence being caused by greed, it isn't. Sometimes my little brother eats more macaroni and cheese than what mum tells him to eat since it gives her enough to eat. He knows this, yet he does it anyway. Is any violence being committed? No.
Violence is caused by volition. Same with greed. People choose what they choose because they choose to choose it that way, that's all. Sure, there are motivations, but choice is a must. A hehaviorist might say violence is caused by greed just as a government official might say that shootings are caused by owning the gun. Control one and you control the other. But people are not machines, nor are we inherently logical beings. We have the capabilities of logic, but we are primarily emotional beings that have free will. Simply bc government takes guns away doesn't mean that people won't seek guns. Simply because someone takes greed away doesn't mean violence will slow to a standstill.
While it certainly is tragic to attack peaceful, tolerant Muslims, let's not forget what dangers there actually are from Islam and Islamic cultural influences. The Taliban for example is indeed one of the worst enemies against freedom. In Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive because of Islamic influences on their law system. Many Muslims (somewhat similar to many Christians) seek to curtail freedom because of their religion.
But I think it's important to remember that a huge cause of antagonism against the US is wrong-headed policy by US leaders. The installation of the Shah, the support of Mujahideen fighters, the Gulf War, military bases in the Middle East, the ongoing Afghan war all contribute to blowback against the United States. Pakistanis wouldn't be burning effigies of Bush and Obama and shouting "Death to America" if our foreign policy were different.
SirTenenbaum: While it certainly is tragic to attack peaceful, tolerant Muslims, let's not forget what dangers there actually are from Islam and Islamic cultural influences. The Taliban for example is indeed one of the worst enemies against freedom. In Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive because of Islamic influences on their law system. Many Muslims (somewhat similar to many Christians) seek to curtail freedom because of their religion. But I think it's important to remember that a huge cause of antagonism against the US is wrong-headed policy by US leaders. The installation of the Shah, the support of Mujahideen fighters, the Gulf War, military bases in the Middle East, the ongoing Afghan war all contribute to blowback against the United States. Pakistanis wouldn't be burning effigies of Bush and Obama and shouting "Death to America" if our foreign policy were different.
The Muzzies would still be shouting those insults and threats towards us even if our foreign policy were better, no doubt. They even hit Buddhist temples before. Who the hell have the Buddhists insulted?? Anyhow, I say to hell with all other countries. We need to worry about ourselves from a financial and practical standpoint. And yes, Sir Tenenbaum, you're correct: the Muzzies need to be watched b/c they are extremely dangerous and totalitarian. Their philosophy is horrible and anybody with half a mind can see that.
@tri: Again, you're missing the point. By identifying greed as the culprit of violence, I am not trying to imply that, therefore, the solution to violence is to "eliminate greed" as the wacky leftists do. Human nature is what it is, it cannot be changed by wishing.
But the comic-book version of violence is that it is frequently the case that violence is unmotivated or motivated by sheer cruelty or for ideological reasons or tribal hatred. These are all proximate causes and the list of proximate causes of violence is effectively infinite. What is true of all acts of violence - without exception - is that they are committed without the consent of the victim. That's what makes them theft and that is how they are all motivated by greed, the greed to control what does not rightly belong to you (the body of another).
But in the large arch of history, we can see a pattern in violence. That pattern is clear: most violence is motivated by material ends. Larger territory. Spoils of war. Humiliation of the enemy. And so on. When people say "Muslims are violent" or "Islam is violent", they are ascribing and intangible motivation to violence to an immense (billion+) group of people and saying "these people are not motivated to violence by greed - like normal human beings - they are super-violent, they are violent for the sake of an idea, they are violent for no material reason." That's what I'm countering.
women cannot drive
Boy, I'm glad we've slaughtered a million+ Iraqis over the last decade to ensure women in Saudi Arabia the right to drive.
If there is one thing I am very sympathetic to about the liberterian ethic (and it is an ethic) - it can help in training oneself to shut up about things that we have no business talking about, or are not engaged with - it helps limit all these nonsense sentimental or pornographic (which are the same thing) zeitgeists that posesses people...and I don't mean that with any cynicism at all, it's a goo trait to cultivate; which may also make us inherently at odds with left wing mentality.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
For those with a hard-on for bombing Iran (h/t LRC):
The Pentagon and Tel Aviv want to reduce those beautiful people to this:
Iran's constitution says something to the effect of that they exist for the purpose of, or promise to, destroy Israel. And you, Clayton, are claiming that it's the Pentagon and Israel that want to destroy Iran? Please? Sheer propaganda. If Israel were not threatened, they would not be harming anyone. The muslim world needs a strong does of the NAP.
Iran's constitution says something to the effect of that they exist for the purpose of, or promise to, destroy Israel.
Bullshit. Cite it.
And you, Clayton, are claiming that it's the Pentagon and Israel that want to destroy Iran? Please? Sheer propaganda.
A picture is worth a thousand words:
Asserting that Iran's constitution says anything about Iran existing to destroy Israel is sheer propaganda.
If Israel were not threatened, they would not be harming anyone.
Yes, you're right, there is not a running apartheid in Gaza.
The muslim world needs a strong does of the NAP.
Wow, that must be a joke. After the US, UK, Europe and NATO have invaded and bombed two Muslim nations, precipitating social upheaval resulting in the deaths of many more innocents than were ever killed by Saddam Hussein, and instigated the toppling of half a dozen of their own puppet regimes in the so-called "Arab Spring"; a bloody process which is still under way.
The ranks are also being told they should become fundamentalist Protestants or they will burn in hell, but that doesn't mean DC decided to launch a campaign to make the army as Evangelical as possible. Something can become instituonalized and remain informal. There can be an ethos that pervades an institution without that sentiment having the support or approval of the central government the institution is subordinate to.
Islam already has a NAP. The Quran says not to attack anyone unless you are attacked. Compulsion doesn't exist in Islam. If your doing something forbidden God will take notice.
You need a strong dose of reading comprehension. Anenome said "the Muslim world". Are you telling me that the Muslim world observes the NAP? Really? The Saudi government observes the NAP? UAE? Yemen? really?
@gotlucky: Dismemberment in punishment for petty theft is not a form of aggression.
LOL