[Winstonm]

IMO we are kidding ourselves if we don't acknowledge and talk about the negative effect of religious beliefs on our world. The stated purpose of ISIS (ISIL) is to establish an Islamic caliphate. Sanctimonious Christians refuse to accept that Christianity itself has also been brutal and unforgiving at times, but the multiple Inquisitions were Christian-led.

The fight should be to change people's thinking to reject belief systems that have no objective basis.

[mycroft]

I don't think you can apply that any more, but if it had been kept up, maybe it wouldn't be necessary now.

Unfortunately, a lot of this (especially the America as the enemy bit) is a result of having interfered in the past.

Not interfering now may mean that in 20 years or so, America need not interfere then.

And it's not 65 years, more like 120 (Philippines and Hawai'i), if not 250 (the "new" 37 states (and "54-40 or fight!" for that matter), Mexico (great and small), Puerto Rico, other Caribbean islands on and off), if not 500 (Jamestown and Mayflower, et al). The U.S. has always considered "what it can see and grasp" fair game for intervention; it's just that since 1945, "what it can see and grasp" has been the whole world.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2014-October-17, 14:47, said:

IMO we are kidding ourselves if we don't acknowledge and talk about the negative effect of religious beliefs on our world. The stated purpose of ISIS (ISIL) is to establish an Islamic caliphate. Sanctimonious Christians refuse to accept that Christianity itself has also been brutal and unforgiving at times, but the multiple Inquisitions were Christian-led.

The fight should be to change people's thinking to reject belief systems that have no objective basis.

I am trying to recall if I ever had a discussion with someone about religion in which, at the end, he asid "Oh yes, I see your point, I will now give up my belief in God". I think I would remember this if it ever happened. And such a discussion, if I were involved, would only take place between me and a friend since I have never thought it even remotely likely that someone who dislikes me would be open to my thoughts on his religious beliefs.

Are you suggesting that the way to deal with ISIS is to send atheist missionaries to Iraq to show them the philosophical error of their ways? No, of course I realize that you are not. But if we are going to work on an opbjective basis, I think that one objective truth is that people very seldom give up their religious beliefs. With the leaders of ISIS, I think "seldom" is a serious understatement. So we are back, if we wish to deal with the world as it is instead of as we wish it to be, to asking what we can reasonably do.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2014-October-17, 16:07, said:

I am trying to recall if I ever had a discussion with someone about religion in which, at the end, he asid "Oh yes, I see your point, I will now give up my belief in God". I think I would remember this if it ever happened. And such a discussion, if I were involved, would only take place between me and a friend since I have never thought it even remotely likely that someone who dislikes me would be open to my thoughts on his religious beliefs.

Are you suggesting that the way to deal with ISIS is to send atheist missionaries to Iraq to show them the philosophical error of their ways? No, of course I realize that you are not. But if we are going to work on an opbjective basis, I think that one objective truth is that people very seldom give up their religious beliefs. With the leaders of ISIS, I think "seldom" is a serious understatement. So we are back, if we wish to deal with the world as it is instead of as we wish it to be, to asking what we can reasonably do.

I am saying the long range goal should be for mankind to abandon irrational belief systems in favor of objectivity. This will not happen in our lifetimes. That doesn't mean we should shrug our shoulders when irrational belief systems provide ammunition for murder and mayhem - we need to stress finding a cure for the disease and not simply fight the symptoms over and over.

[mike777]

If posters feel that the American military should not be involved in Asia or the middle east against radical jihadIislam fair enough.

As Winston has pointed out our military may be so degraded at this point the USA may not be capable to win or impose it's will to a viable solution. The American wlll to fight and commit its youth and treasure to a decisive decision may not be there.

I see some posters don't feel that communism ever was a dangerous and active threat let alone radical jihadislam is a cu rrent threat to America or Europe.

[PassedOut]

mike777, on 2014-October-17, 22:39, said:

If posters feel that the American military should not be involved in Asia or the middle east against radical jihadIislam fair enough.

As Winston has pointed out our military may be so degraded at this point the USA may not be capable to win or impose it's will to a viable solution. The American wlll to fight and commit its youth and treasure to a decisive decision may not be there.

I see some posters don't feel that communism ever was a dangerous and active threat let alone radical jihadislam is a current threat to America or Europe.

Neither communism nor radical Islamism can be defeated by soldiers on a battlefield. These are (bad) ideas that people hold, and there is no way for the US military -- degraded or not -- to impose different beliefs on people. In fact, military force tends to harden opposing beliefs.

We do have a responsibility to defend ourselves against hostile forces and to punish those who take action to damage us. The US military is more than capable of doing that.

The way for the US to respond to the 9/11 attack was for the US military to focus completely on bin Laden and al Qaeda, finish the job with them, and return home. That would have sent the right message to terrorists. Instead, we had weak leadership with a short attention span, and those leaders got us bogged down in Iraq instead of doing the job right.

The advantage we have over systems based on bad ideas is precisely that they are bad ideas. Most folks didn't like living under communism, so eventually it collapsed in some places and evolved in others. Most people don't like living in terrorist states either. The way governments based on bad ideas survive is by convincing the people that they must present a united front against an external threat. These days they point to the US military as that threat, and we provide the evidence they need whenever the US invades "in search of monsters to destroy." (Thanks, blackshoe.)

Is it possible that terrorists will succeed again in attacking targets in the US? Absolutely. We can and should take steps to prevent that. But killing innocent people in Syria and Iraq to save them from being governed by terrorists only increases the rage directed against the US. Let's allow them to direct the rage against their local oppressors instead.

If we do experience another 9/11 type attack, let's respond the way we should have then: Go after our attackers relentlessly, then come back home.

The representatives in the US congress who claim they support sending US ground forces to battle ISIL because they believe that doing so will save American lives from a future attack are spouting their usual bullshit. In fact, saving American lives is almost as low a priority for them as is saving the lives of other folks in the world. If they cared about American lives, we'd have had sensible gun control legislation here long ago.

No, it's all about votes. Particularly the pants-pisser votes from people who fear things like communism and radical Islamism.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-October-17, 09:29, said:

The world is a small place in this century. I don't think any nation can afford to ignore any significant part of it. If the turmoil in the Middle East is allowed to go unchecked, it will most likely spill over. This isn't just an isolated civil war that will eventually burn itself out.

I don't think you can apply 19th century policy to the 21st century world. When Adams said that, "over there" was a long way away.

Times have changed, sure. But would we be in the mess we're in around the world if we'd stuck to Adams' ideas? Sure, maybe our involvement in Vietnam and Korea led - eventually - to the demise of the Soviet Union (not the demise of communism, since China is still communist). But maybe it didn't - maybe that would have happened anyway. Maybe our involvement in the Middle East is all that's keeping Israel afloat, and all that's keeping oil flowing, but I doubt that too.

[barmar]

The problems between Israel and the rest of the Middle East always seemed understandable, to some extent. I'm Jewish, and I was raised to believe that we had a God-given right to the ladd of Israel. But I can understand the Palestinians' feelings that they were robbed, much as Europeans did to the Native Americans 400 years ago. So there's a natural hostility between Israel and all the Arab countries in the region. The Camp David Accords was a great achievement.

The clashes of the past few decades, on the other hand, are much harder for me to understand. Perhaps that's due to my ignorance of Muslim society, and what it means to be Sunni or Shiite. I'm atheist (I was raised Jewish, and I identify with the heritage and participate in some of the rituals with my family, but I haven't believed in any of the supernatural stuff since I was a teenager), so I find it difficult to imagine killing people just because they're a different sect of my religion. We live in the 21st century, we see the results of science all over the place, can people in this day and age really allow superstition to rule them so much that they'll kill over it? The Crusades occurred before the Scientific Revolution.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2014-October-19, 02:04, said:

The problems between Israel and the rest of the Middle East always seemed understandable, to some extent. I'm Jewish, and I was raised to believe that we had a God-given right to the ladd of Israel. But I can understand the Palestinians' feelings that they were robbed, much as Europeans did to the Native Americans 400 years ago. So there's a natural hostility between Israel and all the Arab countries in the region. The Camp David Accords was a great achievement.

The clashes of the past few decades, on the other hand, are much harder for me to understand. Perhaps that's due to my ignorance of Muslim society, and what it means to be Sunni or Shiite. I'm atheist (I was raised Jewish, and I identify with the heritage and participate in some of the rituals with my family, but I haven't believed in any of the supernatural stuff since I was a teenager), so I find it difficult to imagine killing people just because they're a different sect of my religion. We live in the 21st century, we see the results of science all over the place, can people in this day and age really allow superstition to rule them so much that they'll kill over it? The Crusades occurred before the Scientific Revolution.

This largely matches my thinking (or so I think). As a possibly bad joke I have noted that the problem all arose from God telling the followers of three religions that the same piece of land is theirs, in each case by divine right.

More seriously, without meaning to minimze a large number of understandable grievances, the question before the house is whether these grievances should be avenged, thereby creating new grievances to be nurtured and avenged, or whether a way can be found to move forward. Moving forward could be understood to mean just that, and only that. It is not necessary for everyone to like each other or to forgive each other, it is only necessary to decide to not forever keep trying to kill each other. This does not apply only to Jewish/Muslim or Jewish/Arab relations. Or only to Islam/USA relations. Everyone seems intent on hating just about everyone else.

The fact is that my life has been pretty easy. I have neither a wish nor a reason to kill anyone. So I am reluctant to spout off too much to those who have suffered more. Still, we have to get it together somehow. It all seems to elude us.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2014-October-19, 15:28, said:

The fact is that my life has been pretty easy. I have neither a wish nor a reason to kill anyone. So I am reluctant to spout off too much to those who have suffered more. Still, we have to get it together somehow. It all seems to elude us.

This goes back to something I've been saying for many years: What ever happened to adults acting like adults? Fighting over grievances is something that children do on the playground.

Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of our Nature" discusses why violence was so prevalent in early societies, and why it has declined over time. It generally comes down to: 1) rule of law and organized law enforcement reduces the need for vigilante justice (which explains why violence is common within criminal organizations: they can't call the cops on each other), 2) education and communication increase empathy between people and groups (once we got to know Russians, they didn't seem like an "evil empire" as much), and 3) trade increases dependency and fosters cooperation (better to make money off someone than kill them).

So it's no coincidence that most of the violent societies are also so backward in their technological and social progress. And since they tend to suppress education (especially of women, who nurture the next generation) and censor communication with the western world, the problem persists.

[mike777]

I strongly disagree.

"...So it's no coincidence that most of the violent societies are also so backward in their technological and social progress..."


High tech societies go to war and kill, kill often. High social progress go to war and kill and kill often.


See, Russia, see China, See USA, See UK, See GErmany...See France


go back in history see Persia...See Greece...See Rome....


Let us just look at USA

The USA has been in constant war since 1776

Look at Rome...Look at Greece Look at China

[mike777]

As one of those voters pissers who feared communism and radical islam.

I know people who have been killed by them. I know family members who fight against them.

I understand those posters who don't bother to fight and have family members fight.


I understand posters who say they have never killed or had family members kill in the name of freedom.
to never have to pull that trigger is easy.
-----------------


With all of that I fully grant I do not see posters saying they are sending their young to fight, no posters are sending their young to fight No poster says this is worth a fight

[blackshoe]

mike777, on 2014-October-21, 23:12, said:

Let us just look at USA

The USA has been in constant war since 1776

I suppose that depends on how you define "war". Up until 1945, the US followed the Constitutional requirement for a declaration of war by Congress before the country would be "at war". Your "constant war" scenario doesn't fit that requirement.

Is the "War on Drugs" part of your "constant war since 1776"?

[kenberg]

mike777, on 2014-October-21, 23:12, said:

I strongly disagree.

"...So it's no coincidence that most of the violent societies are also so backward in their technological and social progress..."


High tech societies go to war and kill, kill often. High social progress go to war and kill and kill often.


See, Russia, see China, See USA, See UK, See GErmany...See France


go back in history see Persia...See Greece...See Rome....


Let us just look at USA

The USA has been in constant war since 1776

Look at Rome...Look at Greece Look at China

This is an opportunity to clarify what I was getting at.

I graduated high school in 1956. I considered joining the Navy, to "get my service obligation out of the way". But I didn't. Now I have gone through life with no one ever attempting to kill me. If I had spent a couple of years back then in the Navy, say 1956-1958, I am pretty sure I could still say that no one has tried to kill me. Ten yearsw later, a high school graduate faced a very different situation. Whatever you might wish to say about how we were struggling against Communism in 1956, the situation for a high school graduate in 1956 was a good deal more relaxed at that time then it was ten years later or four years earlier.

So I could pose my concern as follows: Is the relatively safe and peaceful world of 1956 no longer an option? I think that quite possibly the answer is yes, it is no longer an option. This is very distressing and I think we should try very hard to make it an option. But how?

Here is my rather bleak assessment of where we are headed. There will ne more and more killing, we will become more and more involved. At some point we will come to accept the more militant followers of Islam at their word: It is their religious duty to kill us and they will continue to follow the dictates of their religion until they have accomplished this. If/when we come to accept this in our bones, when we see this as the future, we will act on it. We did i,prison US citizens of Japanese descent. We did drop atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People don't change that much. Convince us that we are under unending attack and we will deal with it. The results, however inevitable, will not be good for anyone. I think the militants envisage the future in pretty much this same way. They seem to welcome this, I don't. And no doubt the vast majority of followers of Islam do not wish for this any more than I do. If those of us who really don't think it's a good idea to blow each other to smithereens can get the upper hand over the militants, that would be good. History does not make me an optimist.

[billw55]

barmar, on 2014-October-20, 09:52, said:

So it's no coincidence that most of the violent societies are also so backward in their technological and social progress.

I agree with this. But, violent societies also tend to conquer and destroy nonviolent ones. The emergence of technology has allowed this process to be curtailed (or perhaps, only interrupted). Historically though, this is an aberration. Usually violence wins. And in fact, advanced societies must still use violence to survive, albeit a more evolved (?) form of violence.

[barmar]

Maybe I'm biased, but I don't consider America to be violently aggressive. Yes, we've been in a number of wars, but not usually as the instigator, more commonly in reaction to aggressive acts by the other party (I said "not usually", not "never", so no need to point out things like the lies about Iraq's WMDs). And the checks and balances in our political process mean that it takes significant effort for us to go to war.

Our society at home is also far less violent. Is anyone here worried that there will be riots if the party in control of Congress changes next month? The worst protests we've had in recent times have been the ones in Ferguson a couple months ago. They're nothing compared to what goes on frequently in the Third World.

[kenberg]

I did a lot of driving today (300+ miles) and this gave me an opportunity to hear the first hour of the Dianne Riehm show. The topic was Turkey, especially their recent decision to allow Kurdish forces from Iraq to pass throughTurkey. There were several very intelligent and informed guests. man, am I depressed..One of the guests was emphasizing the importance of diplomacy. Sure. As they all agrees, diplomacy was involv ed in getting Maliki to step down, and diplomacy was involved in getting the Turks to give this permission for the Kurds to join in the Kobani struggle. No one even suggested that diplomacy might bring any form of any peace to any place. Apparently, for example, Turkish people, largely Sunni, support the Islamic State. They have their reasons. Unfortunately, there are always reasons.

Listening to this program I found no reason for any optimism at all.

More later, pr maybe more. If I don't get off the computer for dinner, I will have my own personal war right here.

[Winstonm]

It is depressing - there seems to be no solution. And how can there be when the argument is over whose delusional belief system is superior? Diplomacy with a raving lunatic? I don't think so.

If there is ever to be peace, it must come because reason triumphs over superstition - which is the reason I keep harping on that subject. Do I expect it in my lifetime - no. Nor my daughter's. Nor my granddaughter's. But it is the only hope we have.

I was at the Indian hospital in Claremore, OK, and the pickup truck parked beside me had a bumper sticker that read: The last time religion ruled the world, it was called the Dark Ages.

So if the owner of a redneck ride in the heart of the Bible Belt can see that truth maybe there is cause for hope.

Perhaps someday the Age of Enlightenment will include everyone - it is the only chance we have.

[kenberg]

I don't think that you have to be religious to be evil and I don't think that you have to be evil to be religious. But there can be linkage. I see two main problems that can arise.

1. Real world restraint becomes ineffective. Sure, you may be imprisoned or even shot if you engage in terrorism, but that is temporary. Your real reward has been promised in the next life. Suffer in this life, be rewarded in the next.

2. Compromise becomes a dirty word. If I want something and you want something, we may be able to work something out to the benefit of both of us. But if I represent the interests of God, how can I compromise? Who am I, a lowly supplicant, to negotiate on the wishes of God?


Neither of these traits are necessarily part of religion. All of my life I have had easy relationships with religious people. Just recently, in a discussion with a very religious woman about John Updike's novel Terrorist, we easily came to an agreement that neither of us felt the need to kill the other because we saw religious matters differently. We didn't even hiss or spit.


This is important for two reasons.

A. As Winston notes, and I am sure everyone agrees, religion is not going away anytime soon. So we must try to survive anyway.

B. Many people of various religions can come to tolerate others views. They may think that the other person is going to hell, but on this Earth they can work together.


So while we are waiting for everyone to think so sensibly that they agree with us on all matters, we should try to get along with all those thoroughly misguided souls who see things differently. But in the Middle East, this minimal requirement for peace seems like a desert mirage. I am sure that people of different faiths can live together peacefully. I am not sure that the peoples of the Middle East can do so. At best, the jury is out on that.


Actually I don't think I have ever known anyone who lives his life totally in accordance with logic. Such a person would probably be really hard to get along with.

[Winstonm]

I would like to make it clear that it is not specifically religion that is my idea of the culprit in these matters but the broader concept of acceptance of narrative-based ideological beliefs without supportive objective evidence.