religion and war

[rjr6]

Religion is a tricky beast. There are alot of really positive things that come out of it and there are some craptacular things as well. My observation on the positive has been it meets various human psychological needs extraordinarily well. On the negative it promotes alot of fantasy as objective truth and this causes conflicts with reality. What's even more difficult is that religion binds itself so closely to a persons identity that to challenge it with real objective information is to threaten the believers identity (which unfortunately can interpreted as an attempt to kill them).

I am religous, and your assertions do not threaten my identity, so your statement is incorrect, in an absolutist view. Who are you referring to that is afraid information will kill them? Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao are examples of atheists and are responsible for millions of deaths. But that would not be descriptive of atheists, that would be irrational thought or of nationalistic doctrine.

I dont think I said it was. I meant that if it is unflexible then it would break.

You are saying an 'adaptive nationalism' would not break. What is your definition of 'break'?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I am religous, and your assertions do not threaten my identity, so your statement is incorrect, in an absolutist view. Who are you referring to that is afraid information will kill them? Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao are examples of atheists and are responsible for millions of deaths. But that would not be descriptive of atheists, that would be irrational thought or of nationalistic doctrine.

What is your religion, do you accept the assertion 'God exists' as being objectively true, and is how you live your life based on that acceptance?

You are saying an 'adaptive nationalism' would not break. What is your definition of 'break'?

By break, I mean incorrectly functioning. If non-adaptive nationalism for example is protecting what society presently values and those values change (even contradicting the original set) then nationalism is protecting the wrong set of values and therefore isn't quite functioning properly.

 

[Bowser]

Can a diversity of communities exist on one ball, or must one culture consume all? Can they segregate themselves, or must they integrate? The question is larger than simply saying religion and war.

 

[S.A.M.]

It sounds like the dictator in Saudi Arabia and Muslims adapted to each other rather than the muslims exercising revenge.

Sure, they may disagree with him on some counts but they have safety and security of way of life and religion, free education and health care, subsidized housing. Those people who want more religious freedom (or personal) move to areas of the country that are less strict (like cities), but on the whole most of them prefer their way of life. So why would they seek revenge?

You said Muslims would help an incompetent ruler or disrespect him. Although you claimed the latter an accomplishment the former seems to be more constructive and IMO would be the accomplishment.

So how would one help Saddam or the Shah? By offering suggestions? Don't forget, any criticism was liable to get you thrown into a vat of acid or something/

I meant just like U.S. civil wars (not world wars however). Since the formation of the U.S. it has undergone alot of changes and alot of them are becuase its inhabitants wanted to change. The ratio of people-desired changes applied vs civil wars is practically negligable. The impression I get is that Islam would resist even the smallest change in order to preserve itself and if its people wanted a change bad enough civil war would be the result.

There is no comparison. If you consider that people in the ME have lived under atrocious dictataors since the formation of the ME in 1920s (if I am not mistaken) and that the major coups have been seen only in Iran (where the SAVAK tortured the local people), or in Lebanon where the Israelis were pushed out after 18 years of occupation, or in Darfur where the local people revolted due to oppression and famine, it does not seem like small changes that result in upheavels.

So what's good for them? Should they accept what is and go for peace, should they not sin an seek revenge revenge revenge, ... something else?

Thats not for me to say, is it? It is their life and they have to live with the choices they make. Without sufficient knowledge of their present circumstances, can I pass judgement on why they are resorting to such desperate measures?

Muslims appear to be moving to countries all over the world and living in foreign cultures. Is it realistic for a practitioner of Islam to do so under the pressures of these cutures?

I think most of them would prefer to stay where they are. Its unusual for people in the ME to uproot themselves from places where they have lived for thousands of years. They have no problems with external cultures, but are probably tired of internal war and oppression and have chosen the other method recommended in the Quran. If you are unhappy with your current circumstances, change them; if you cannot, then move to a different place where you can be happy. As you say, coups and civil war are accompanied by bloodshed. So while most of them could live in reasonable peace under Saddam, for example, the new democracy was a little harder to take, so rather than stay and fight, they have taken the path of discretion and chosen to leave. Same as for people from Palestine or Lebanon.

As to pressures, well between life and inconvenience, most of us would pick life.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Sure, they may disagree with him on some counts but they have safety and security of way of life and religion, free education and health care, subsidized housing. Those people who want more religious freedom (or personal) move to areas of the country that are less strict (like cities), but on the whole most of them prefer their way of life. So why would they seek revenge?

It sounded like the leadership's dominance was taken by force and that is an 'injustice'. If they can put the sin of not avenging injustice aside if life circumstances worked out for them then so be it.

So how would one help Saddam or the Shah? By offering suggestions? Don't forget, any criticism was liable to get you thrown into a vat of acid or something/

I am not saying they could and I am saing that they would given the opportunity... correct?

There is no comparison. If you consider that people in the ME have lived under atrocious dictataors since the formation of the ME in 1920s (if I am not mistaken) and that the major coups have been seen only in Iran (where the SAVAK tortured the local people), or in Lebanon where the Israelis were pushed out after 18 years of occupation, or in Darfur where the local people revolted due to oppression and famine, it does not seem like small changes that result in upheavels.

Take for example homosexuality. People can't really help what their sexual preference is and might want Islam to recognize and respect that. What would be Islam's response?

Thats not for me to say, is it? It is their life and they have to live with the choices they make. Without sufficient knowledge of their present circumstances, can I pass judgement on why they are resorting to such desperate measures?

Technically, its your way of life as they are practicing the same philosophy. Their circumstances are quite different however.

I think most of them would prefer to stay where they are. Its unusual for people in the ME to uproot themselves from places where they have lived for thousands of years. They have no problems with external cultures, but are probably tired of internal war and oppression and have chosen the other method recommended in the Quran. If you are unhappy with your current circumstances, change them; if you cannot, then move to a different place where you can be happy. As you say, coups and civil war are accompanied by bloodshed. So while most of them could live in reasonable peace under Saddam, for example, the new democracy was a little harder to take, so rather than stay and fight, they have taken the path of discretion and chosen to leave. Same as for people from Palestine or Lebanon.

What about Muslims living in countries such as the U.S. and U.K. whom are of the mindset that the culture they live in must submit to Islam?

 

[S.A.M.]

I am not saying they could and I am saing that they would given the opportunity... correct?

I'm not understanding what you are trying to say here. If basic rights are provided for and they can manage to live peacefully they will, if not they will try to change their circumstances to the best of their ability (which would involve fighting the military etc) or they will move. The last is the most difficult decision for most due to the extended nature of their families and their attachment to their roots.

Take for example homosexuality. People can't really help what their sexual preference is and might want Islam to recognize and respect that. What would be Islam's response?

Actually Islam itself has no conditions regarding homosexuality, but unfortunately those in the middle east have adopted the Christian doctrines as their own. In places outside the ME (with the possible exception of Pakistan, Afghanistan) most Muslims believe that what you do behind closed doors is your own private affair.

Technically, its your way of life as they are practicing the same philosophy. Their circumstances are quite different however.

Islam is too flexible a philosophy to assume that all Muslims follow it in the same way. Most Muslims predominantly follow local customs where they live only maintaining their Islamism as a personal ideology.

What about Muslims living in countries such as the U.S. and U.K. whom are of the mindset that the culture they live in must submit to Islam?

No doubt most of them come from regions they were forced to leave due to foreign interventions or internal conflict. I don't believe the vast majority could care less what other people do as long as they are left in peace. Unfortunately though, one Pakistani terrorist is enough to paint all Muslims regardless of whether they are Palestinian, Lebanese, Turkish, Iraqi or Irani under the umbrella of Islamic militant. Having escaped persecution in their own lands, they are definitely not going to take any more of it lying down. That is why the current uproar against the hijab has resulted in British-born Muslim women adopting one, where previously they would never have considered it. Its a defence mechanism.

 

[S.A.M.]

I am not saying they could and I am saing that they would given the opportunity... correct?

Here is a hot new example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6190673.stm

Here is another:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5359672.stm

PS I wonder if this news will be on CNN.