Religion vs. Religion

[LayDominican]

Dov

 

I am not saying that there hasnot been anyplace where the government has stepped in to kill on the whim. We have toppled a govenment that did just that. What I did say, that in a free society it would be next to impossible. Right in the United States we have "political" prisoners enjoying the confines thanks to the US Marines in Getmo.Our government calls them prisoners of war, and thus they have no status.

 

We intervene in WWII with the Japaneses Americans.It is a shame that the US has not lived down yet.So what are we to do? Must we go around and arrest all people that may be Moslem or look like Arabs? Where does it stop? How about big brother watch what is written on the computer on sites like this? Now we exchange thoughts and information freely, but how longer do you think that will last before big brother is do just that? How much personal freedom are you willing to give up so that your government can "protect" you?

 

 

Janis Joplin once sang: "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose. Nothin', no nothin' is really free."

[Dov Henis]

What about the genocide in Sudan ?

[Buffy]

I am not saying that there hasnot been anyplace where the government has stepped in to kill on the whim. ... What I did say, that in a free society it would be next to impossible.

Just want to point out here that there are indeed two levels of conflict we are dealing with here, that would seem to require different types of solutions. Both are within the scope of this thread, because they often have the same "root causes" (an explosive term, but something we need to consider here, in fact its a major part of the discussion: how does conflict arise and how is it justified?)

Must we go around and arrest all people that may be Moslem or look like Arabs? Where does it stop? ... How much personal freedom are you willing to give up so that your government can "protect" you?

This is also a fundamental issue here: the extent to which we must balance the trade-offs posed by the side-effects of various solutions. There are those who say the level of "security" we have added not only gives a "moral victory" to extremists, but causes significant economic and political harm: There are companies who are now avoiding doing international business in the US because it is simply too hard to travel here.

 

There was little terrorism in the old Soviet Union, because they had the tendency to assassinate anyone who had even the appearance of threatening them, notably several key Palestinian terrorists back in the 70s after bombings targeting Soviet interests. Effective, but not very moral, and with negative long-term consequences (see Afghanistan ca. 1979).

Janis Joplin once sang: "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose. Nothin', no nothin' is really free."

Sorry can't let this one go: The song was written by Kris Kristofferson, and the line is "nothin aint worth nothin but its free," which has a considerably different meaning (see "mondegreen")....

What about the genocide in Sudan?

This is the flip side of the issue I'm talking about here: when conflicts become violent, violent response *can* be justified. The moral and political (and economic!) problems come up when that response is not well thought out and is more "reactive" and focused on "vengeance" or "retribution" than simply stopping the conflict, which may feel less than satisfactory emotionally, but is the more correct solution in the long term.

 

Darfur is also an example though of how inaction can be immoral. But it also does not excuse stupid actions for action's sake.

 

Prudently,

Buffy

[LayDominican]

dov henis

 

I donot how to respond I thought this was a thread on how to keep religious beliefs from escalating into violent conflict.The Sudan, Chad and other small countries in Africa are power kegs looking to explore into conflicts that will involved all of Africa. I have been reading up on Sudan so that I could answer you in the limits of this thread. I cannot. For it is more than a religious conflict. It is for money and power. The President today spoke on the Sudan. Basically he said that it was a shame, but something had to be done. And that was all that he said. Something should be done.Like Rhawda. All the world said that it was horrific, but did nothing to stop the killing, just got their own people out of harm's way.

 

I am not the arnswer man. I read my religious books, and try to understand why people believe what they believe and why they do what they do in the name of that religion. My heart aches for those in Sudan, and Chad, and in sections of India, where they still have kept the caste system and have hindered religiiou missionaries there with new laws regarding converting to a new religion. That is because the main "caste" members converting are the untouchables. Religion may set a man free from the degress of a poverty that is so brutal that it is hard to believe.

 

As for genocide in Sudan, what would you suggest, within the framework of the two questions Buffy has asked. Believe me, I am not trying to be a smartass. I have no idea what to do, and I am hoping maybe you could suggest something.

[Dyothelite]

Please stop: This is off-topic and it is covered elsewhere.

 

You should note what you are doing by saying this though! :rolleyes:

 

Follow one's own advice,

Buffy

 

Right on, it is very easy to get off topic in these debates it seems.

 

However, isn't atheism vs. theism a valid Religion vs. Religion arguement? I know Atheists don't like the word religion and all, but the word A-theist has the word God right in it.

 

About the advice thing.... could you help me see my error?

[Dyothelite]

What about the genocide in Sudan ?

 

Right on man... I appreciate your compassion.

 

Sad we wasted all our money in Iraq. My point is it is sad that the UN only jumps in when its economically feasible. Rwanda was a good example too. If we cared so much about the human rights violations in Iraq to go to war, why can't we address Sudan?

 

Sorry Buffy strayed a little off course again, but its true economics plays a huge role in determining political conflicts.

[Buffy]

I'd only argue that if you can't back up your beliefs without resorting to discrediting another then your beliefs are not that strong.

Name one Atheist that can disprove the existence of God without trying to undermine existing religious doctrine.

 

About the advice thing.... could you help me see my error?

Not error, just uh, "inconsistent application" of your thesis! :rolleyes:

 

"There is no God" is not the same as "There is no evidence of God." Science does not "prove" non-existence ever. Saying there is no evidence is quite scientific. Again, discussed extensively elsewhere, so search for "atheism" in the search box above and you'll find lots of discussions.

 

Tangentially,

Buffy

[Dyothelite]

Not error, just uh, "inconsistent application" of your thesis! :rolleyes:

 

"There is no God" is not the same as "There is no evidence of God." Science does not "prove" non-existence ever. Saying there is no evidence is quite scientific. Again, discussed extensively elsewhere, so search for "atheism" in the search box above and you'll find lots of discussions.

 

Tangentially,

Buffy

 

Right on thanks. Consistency is key to credibility as well.

 

When you post in several different threads sometimes you forget exactly what thread youre in at that moment.

[Buffy]

Yet another way some people are encouraging our kids to think that religious tolerence is a bad thing:

 

'Convert or die' game divides Christians

Some ask Wal-Mart to drop Left Behind

 

Killing Infidels: Its not just for Muslims any more!

 

A lovely activity for the Christmas Holiday!

 

God tells me to,

Buffy

[Dyothelite]

Yet another way some people are encouraging our kids to think that religious tolerence is a bad thing:

 

Killing Infidels: Its not just for Muslims any more!

 

 

Oh WOW! That is messed up!

 

What will be interesting is to see if Conservative Fundamentalist Christians call for its ban. It says liberal and progressive groups have so far but no mention of the "Pat Robertsons" or "Jerry Fallwells" standing up to WalMart to ban it. Scary to think that some on the right silently would encourage that.

 

I really can't get over how messed up that is. They claim it is pacifistic because you actually lose spirit points for killing infadels instead of converting them!!!! What f%^k is that? And I'm sure secretly there are millions of Conservative Christians that dream about that day.

 

Seriously offended over here.... creeped out too

 

Here's a quote from the article:

"But Plugged In, a publication of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, gave the game a "thumbs-up." The reviewer called it "the kind of game that Mom and Dad can actually play with Junior -- and use to raise some interesting questions along the way."

[Boerseun]

Yet another way some people are encouraging our kids to think that religious tolerence is a bad thing:

 

'Convert or die' game divides Christians

Some ask Wal-Mart to drop Left Behind

 

Killing Infidels: Its not just for Muslims any more!

 

A lovely activity for the Christmas Holiday!

 

God tells me to,

Buffy

Sheesh - that's prolly one of the funniest things I've ever read on the Internets!

 

But it raises an interesting problem:

 

If we're to be offended by this, and we're to boycott Walmart and other shops selling this game, are we not making ourselves guilty of the same thing? They're intolerant of competing beliefs. We're intolerant of intolerance. I think this is another case where freedom of speech and religion should prevail, regardless of whatever consumer action against whatever shops. Funnily, these are so-called Christians campaigning against the distribution of a so-called Christian game.

 

Divide & Conquer is the Name of the Game.

[Dyothelite]

Sheesh - that's prolly one of the funniest things I've ever read on the Internets!

 

But it raises an interesting problem:

 

If we're to be offended by this, and we're to boycott Walmart and other shops selling this game, are we not making ourselves guilty of the same thing? They're intolerant of competing beliefs. We're intolerant of intolerance. I think this is another case where freedom of speech and religion should prevail, regardless of whatever consumer action against whatever shops. Funnily, these are so-called Christians campaigning against the distribution of a so-called Christian game.

 

Divide & Conquer is the Name of the Game.

 

I'm one the Christians offended.

 

More American Christians should be offended in my opinion.

[Buffy]

This is an interesting issue: Do you really inhibit their "freedom of speech" by boycotting?

 

Please note this is completely different than trying to pass a *law* that would make creation and sale of such games illegal.

 

I'll defend to the death their right to try to make such a game and sell it. Ditto "Grand Theft Auto."

 

But I'm entirely within my rights to point out their foolishness, racism, hate-mongering and *immorality* as loudly and publicly as I can! *That's* exactly the distinction that is important to recognize in this thread: it doesn't *require* government action and making things illegal--and most importantly, trashing our cherished freedoms--in order to stop the marketing and promotion of hatred.

 

We shouldn't try to outlaw promotion of Jihad or advocacy of killing non-christians. But if we aren't vigilant in pointing out its moral flaws--or if you wish to be secular, its encouragement of thoughts that support illegal activities--then you are allowing those immoral/illegal acts a medium in which to grow and spread.

 

Fine distinctions make good neighbors,

Buffy

[Dyothelite]

Yes Free Speech ..... But we shoildn't give it to our kids as gifts under a Christmas tree and endorse it through "pro-family" church organizations.

 

Teach our kids to hate AND celebrate Jesus? How messed up is that?

[Boerseun]

Teach our kids to hate AND celebrate Jesus? How messed up is that?

Many things have been done in the name of one or another religion, that horrified other members of the same religion - and the religious texts have been applied to perfectly justify both points of view. Muslim extremist suicide bombers, and moderate Muslims saying that the suicide bombers are against Allah's will, is a case in point.

 

It's all about interpretation, I guess - and that, in my opinion, is the Achilles heel of any religion. Seeing as nothing is empirical, black-and-white, yes/no issues when it comes to the Supernatural, it opens the doors wide to abuse and interpretations that are harmful and even deadly - on a global scale, no less.

[Buffy]

It's all about interpretation, I guess - and that, in my opinion, is the Achilles heel of any religion. Seeing as nothing is empirical, black-and-white, yes/no issues when it comes to the Supernatural, it opens the doors wide to abuse and interpretations that are harmful and even deadly - on a global scale, no less.;)

Kinda like guns huh? :evil: Could we regulate 'em? Oh there's that nasty establishment clause...but that didn't stop regulating the right to arm bears...

 

Back to the point though: Seems you two might agree that blasting this sort of thing as "messed up thinking" is a good approach? ("Wow, do you think you can get *those* two to agree, Buffy?")

 

Consensusizing,

Buffy

[LayDominican]

Once again we are witnessing the results of a free society. And it is just this kind of thing, a game selling at Christmas about killing non Christians. The real problem I have is the term Christians. As there are now over 35,000 different groups calling themselves Christians. As a Roman Catholic I sometimes wish they would just name the group(s) rather than just say Christian. When the Roman Catholic Church does something wrong, there is no problem naming who it was that did the wrong.

 

As for the game, kids are being brainwashed at school, on tv. and on video games.Violence doesnot take much to teach. It is the nothing the difference between what is right and what is wrong, when some actions are needed and when they are just cruel inhuman acts by people who don't care about what the kids see or hear.:)