World Politics

[Spare Tyre]

So you honestly believe that people would be less likely to fight and kill in the absence of God? Seriously? Your only relevant examples say otherwise, and disowning Stalin and the like still doesn't alter the fact that people like he and Mao were atheists.

I cannot tell if you are responding to my comment or confusing me with someone else.


Perhaps Ripper expresses my view more clearly:

Some brilliant discussion on this thread (I am being serious). I agree that people are the source of their own 'evil', so to speak. Polarizing themes will always be both a scapegoat and an exacerbating factor - and IMO, religion is one polarizing area! The irony for me is, religion can be used as a tool to bring people together and do good as much as it can be used as a tool to do terrible things.

Of course, at the end of the day it is the people who actually do the actions.

 

[flyor64]

As always, enjoying reading this thread. Can't contribute much but would say that I've learned some new perspectives and thoughts.

BTW, found a couple of interesting internships in international law I am going to look into. I will be at a disadvantage (because, as a stupid American, I only speak English), but I may be able to work something out. There are several in Washington DC dealing with international law that don't require fluency in anything but English, but I would certainly rather go overseas.

The main problem is that if you want to go overseas you need to know at least one other language most of the time, most of the time French. You could always try it with the US consulates, or the US agencies at different International Organisations...snip...

Can comment on this one a bit. One recommendation to you TFF is to look at the Scandinavian countries. Almost all business is dealt with in English and often it's the official contract and legal language, at least it is here in Norway. I have heard that Sweden works legal and contractual issues in Swedish though. Can someone from Sweden confrim or deny this?

As most folks here speak english, it also makes for a smoother transition for an expat. Learning the host country's language is helpful and appreciated by one's colleagues but it's not a pre-requisite...

 

[rhubroma]

I have never dismissed that. I just see the real impetus, where your prejudice blinds you to reality.

Now that's just fine. This has to be the best assesment of "reality" by far! Good grief.

In any case I have put forth my arguments on this historical case. You don't agree, that's fine too. I'll let the facts speak for themselves, people can interpret them as they see fit and with their good conscience. Mine is certainly at rest on my interpretation.

Hold on to your beliefs, for what they're worth to you. I suppose you're lucky to have them. It's true you know what they say, faith is a gift. I just haven't recieved it, though not for that do I feel any less consolation in life. To the contrary I find there is great liberty in it. If anything I feel a little compassion for those who just can't exist without it, mixed with great indignation over the injustices that have been caused in the name of a supposed Higher Power. In any case, while I may be a many things, I'm certainly not blind to reality.

I leave you with the following beautiful passage from Flaubert’s correspondence: ‘The melancholy of the antique world seems to me more profound than that of the moderns, all of whom more or less imply that beyond the dark void lies immortality. But for the ancients that ‘black hole’ was infinity itself; their dreams loom and vanish against a background of immutable ebony. No crying out, no convulsions – nothing but the fixity of a pensive gaze. With the gods gone, and Christ not yet come, there was a unique moment, from Cicero to Marcus Aurelius, when man stood alone. Nowhere else do I find that particular grandeur.'

Cheers

 

[The Hitch]

Then we just disagree regarding Stalin, and it is a minor point honestly because I don't think whether or not he was an atheist had anything to do with his actions.

And yes, members of my religion have and continue to perpetrate violence and harm against others in the name of God. .

Like i said, i agree with you that the world would be very bloody with or without religion, and that most wars would have taken place with or without religion.

Still i think in 1 or 2 of your posts you have touched on something that maybe going too far.

A very slipery slope.

This

But they would be people who did those things if they didn't believe in God because that is the type of people they are

This is touching on the idea that people are born good or evil and will act as such regardless what circumstances they find themselves in, because thats the type of people that they are.
I disagree strongly. Its no coincidence that crime is at its highest in places were poverty is high. Its no coincidence that people with abusive parents are far more likely to lead lives of violence.

I guess a few people are born total pschychopaths and cant be changed (Stalin, Lavrenty Byria, John Gotti) But mostly circumstances determine what kind of life people lead.

Similarly some people have been made to act violently because of religion. The most obvious example being peaceful middle class muslim men and women, are convinced to wage war on innocent men women and children, because they started to read the wrong websites.

Many other such examples in history. Thousands of such cases during the crusades, were radical preachers were able to persuade ordinary folk to commit massacres on their Jewish neighbours, and the not so radical preachers were able to persuade them to hold it off and save it for the Muslims in Anatolia. These would not have happened without religion because you cant perusade locals to leave everything they have and march 4000 miles for any earthly rewards. These people needed heavenly rewards, for making such a sacrifice, and thats exactly what the Pope promised them.

There are many reasons why people are violent. Most wars are started because of human greed. But religion has on occasions played its part too.

 

[Anonymous]

Once again you have missed the point. Let me try to explain it better. During the ancient Roman world the pagans made no separation between the "affairs of gods" and those of men, indeed they were "inextricably conected." Making sacrifices to the gods were thus an act of civil participation to the pagans, which all citizens of the empire were expected to perform. The Christians, who had initially developed out of traditional Judaism, refused such civic participation on their religious grounds. Even this would not have led to their periodic persecutions by the Roman authorities however, that is on purely religious grounds, because, as I have mentioned before, the pagans were very religiously tolerant and alowed a multitude of foreign gods into their traditional State cults. Yet what could not be tolerated was their refusal to make that pledge of allegiance to the State in the form of an anual tribute to the emperor, which Christians refused also to do this. Even the Jews did this. Consequently it wasn't because Christians worshed a deity whom they called the Christ (from Christos in Greek which means Savior), but because they were civil disobedients - many also refused to be conscripted in the army - in an age for which certain civic behavior was compulsory not optional. Tacitus thus described the Christian as the worst breed of civil disobedient, who practices witchcraft. The Roman historian even accused them of atheism.

As I said before, TFF, the world began to know the ugly side of religion only with the Christian persecution of the pagans (and Jews) begining with the Edict of Theodotius of 380. From that moment forward in the late antique world, religon would forever change its nature in mutating from a predominantly polytheistic status to a monotheistic identity. And the great monotheistic religons (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) have all in some shape or form also shared political aspects, which in my mind has led to the disaster. When any religious institution mixes too much of the sacred with the profane, and thus the spiritual with the political, the good teachings of those faiths more often than not become emersed and bogged down in the power conflicts of the ages. And this is what precisely happend within that long list of religious based conflicts I have previously provided.

Consequently when these religions make politics too, as the Christian Church did down through the Middle Ages just as was true with Islam during the period, the outcome is inevitably political. And politics is a most dirty business, TFF. It's why we eventually came up with a separation of Church and State in our democratic constitutions, something which hasn't taken place in several Islamic States. Yet as I see it, especially in the American political scene of late, that important separation of Church and State has become frightfully tenuous if it still exists in a meaningful way at all.

Rationalism, reason, enlightenment and science begining in the XVII century had allowed the State to eventually be emancipated from the religious institutions, where a return to constitutional laws (as was actually the case with the Ancient Roman State), not religious dogmas, were from now on going to be the guiding principles for which the actions of men would be judged for or against in terms of their rightousness. It's true, though, that with an excessive pride in modernism, scientific positivism and a false utilization of socialist ideology on the right and left wings alike we did experience the disaster of the XX century Nazi, Fascist as well as Stalinist communism movements. Though, again, this was a fortunately brief historical experiment and in these cases, at any rate, the zeal of ideology had transformed the State into a "religion." Thus the same mixing of the "sacred" (in the form of ultra nationalism, racial purity, a missionary calling to uphold some political dogma or ideal) with the political, led these regimes to perpetrate the same types of crimes against humanity, which formally had been commited by the State under complete sway of the religious institutions as my list has demonstrated. Religious institutions since late antiquity, which, through the belief in holding exclusive ownership of God's will and the Truth, had provided justification for the worst type of crimes and injustices that happened throughout this long historical period as cited on my list.

Consequetly for me religion is not to be so easily let of the hook for its crimes. Such would be an all too convenient method of cleaning the dirty laundry of history. And many of its good teachings we can in any case find in the great philosophers' works of the pagan and enlightenment civilizations. In the end, the religion of today, the one that likes to play politics too: has become a weapon of mass destruction for the ignorant, the fascist, the desperate and the frustrated (or all of the above). And it is like this in the Christian, Islamic and Jewish States alike.

And yes, this is why, it is quite an arduous task indeed to separate a political discussion from a religious one. Precisely because the religious leadiship has always demanded to have a political voice. And in our world it has been that way since the days of Theodotius. The Evangelical movements in America, especially in the Republican party, tells us that this is still true today.

I didn't need to read any further. That is laughable. Um, I would suggest reading the Old Testament (Torah) and cross reference the stories there with the archeological record concerning certain events. You do realize that if I accept your premise, you still prove mine? See, if we didn't know "the ugly side of religion" until that point, all of the slaughter before that (and those people were just as dead so the ones killed by religion) were slaughtered for other reasons (or slaughtered by the pretty side of religion?), and therefore goes to show that people will kill people for whatever reason they need to use to justify it.

Past that, you need to tighten up the posts dude. I have 236 pages of case book to read, and I certainly don't have the time or patience to read through clearly erroneous pontification in terms of the motivations of mankind.

You believe that the world would have been more peaceful, and people wouldn't have killed each other over things like limited resources, spices, ethnic differences, revenge, cultural revolutions, etc in the past. Got it. Hey, do you believe in bigfoot too? Just asking.

 

[Anonymous]

Like i said, i agree with you that the world would be very bloody with or without religion, and that most wars would have taken place with or without religion.

Still i think in 1 or 2 of your posts you have touched on something that maybe going too far.

A very slipery slope.

This



This is touching on the idea that people are born good or evil and will act as such regardless what circumstances they find themselves in, because thats the type of people that they are.
I disagree strongly. Its no coincidence that crime is at its highest in places were poverty is high. Its no coincidence that people with abusive parents are far more likely to lead lives of violence.

I guess a few people are born total pschychopaths and cant be changed (Stalin, Lavrenty Byria, John Gotti) But mostly circumstances determine what kind of life people lead.

Similarly some people have been made to act violently because of religion. The most obvious example being peaceful middle class muslim men and women, are convinced to wage war on innocent men women and children, because they started to read the wrong websites.

Many other such examples in history. Thousands of such cases during the crusades, were radical preachers were able to persuade ordinary folk to commit massacres on their Jewish neighbours, and the not so radical preachers were able to persuade them to hold it off and save it for the Muslims in Anatolia. These would not have happened without religion because you cant perusade locals to leave everything they have and march 4000 miles for any earthly rewards. These people needed heavenly rewards, for making such a sacrifice, and thats exactly what the Pope promised them.

There are many reasons why people are violent. Most wars are started because of human greed. But religion has on occasions played its part too.

I believe that people are born with natural instincts, and are taught morality. I don't know that I prescribe a "good" or "evil" to that as much as I believe that they begin to satisfy those natural instincts, and if left to do so without moral teaching, (and mostly even with moral teaching) seek the satisfaction of those desires by any means available to them. I also believe that they learn the immoral pursuit of the satisfaction of those desires from the same people teaching them morals.

Let me give you a hypothetical: Two people who are fully developed, but have grown up in complete isolation from society and have no teaching of good/evil, moral/immoral, are put into a room together for a year with enough food to feed one of them. One of those people will survive, and the death of the other will not be attributed to starvation. I believe there is a base explanation for atrocity that only uses constructs like religion, ethnicity, etc, as an excuse.

Here is the other thing with religion, you cannot only count the slaughters in the name of religion and attribute it to belief, and completely discount the many instances of religionists enacting benevolence and good and not attribute that to their religion. (I don't know that you do that, but I do hear many pontificate about the negative who never address the positive)

 

[Anonymous]

As always, enjoying reading this thread. Can't contribute much but would say that I've learned some new perspectives and thoughts.





Can comment on this one a bit. One recommendation to you TFF is to look at the Scandinavian countries. Almost all business is dealt with in English and often it's the official contract and legal language, at least it is here in Norway. I have heard that Sweden works legal and contractual issues in Swedish though. Can someone from Sweden confrim or deny this?

As most folks here speak english, it also makes for a smoother transition for an expat. Learning the host country's language is helpful and appreciated by one's colleagues but it's not a pre-requisite...

Thanks for the tip!

 

[rhubroma]

I didn't need to read any further. That is laughable. Um, I would suggest reading the Old Testament (Torah) and cross reference the stories there with the archeological record concerning certain events. You do realize that if I accept your premise, you still prove mine? See, if we didn't know "the ugly side of religion" until that point, all of the slaughter before that (and those people were just as dead so the ones killed by religion) were slaughtered for other reasons (or slaughtered by the pretty side of religion?), and therefore goes to show that people will kill people for whatever reason they need to use to justify it.

Past that, you need to tighten up the posts dude. I have 236 pages of case book to read, and I certainly don't have the time or patience to read through clearly erroneous pontification in terms of the motivations of mankind.

You believe that the world would have been more peaceful, and people wouldn't have killed each other over things like limited resources, spices, ethnic differences, revenge, cultural revolutions, etc in the past. Got it. Hey, do you believe in bigfoot too? Just asking.

Ummm?????? So are you studying to be a lawyer (or an archaelogist)? Well with your logic, I certainly would hope that for the poor souls you will be defending you do read those 236 pages very, very carefully. For if you don't your clients won't find anything laughable about what you say (nevermind me). They'll be crying.

As for history goes I'd select other works to read besides the Old Testament, which isn't a history book at all but the story of a religion. Just a tip.

PS: I never brought into the equation any hypothesis regarding whether or not the world would have been better off (more peaceful) without religion. That's entirely on you. Rather I simply brought into the analysis what has taken place. Everthing else is nonsense.

 

[L'arriviste]

Thanks for the tip!

See also: VUB's LLM here in Bruxelles and try the University of Maastricht (I know a couple of people who studied there). High quality programmes + beer + pro cycling. It's a no-brainer, Mr Brainy!

 

[Anonymous]

Ummm?????? So are you studying to be a lawyer (or an archaelogist)? Well with your logic, I certainly would hope that for the poor souls you will be defending you do read those 236 pages very, very carefully. For if you don't your clients won't find anything laughable about what you say (nevermind me). They'll be crying.

As for history goes I'd select other works to read besides the Old Testament, which isn't a history book at all but the story of a religion. Just a tip.

PS: I never brought into the equation any hypothesis regarding whether or not the world would have been better off (more peaceful) without religion. That's entirely on you. Rather I simply brought into the analysis what has taken place. Everthing else is nonsense.

...says the guy who believes religious strife didn't start until 380...

Many historians (And archaeologists {spelled correctly mind you}) view the Bible as a valuable resource for historic reference. It really isn't a novel approach on my part, I would have thought someone as astute as are you would recognize that. I guess I was wrong.

BTW, I have a degree in history, and have studied a bit of archaeology. You aren't the only one with some edumikation here, though your verbal diarrhea does appear to suggest you are educated well beyond your intelligence at times.

 

[The Devil]

As for history goes I'd select other works to read besides the Old Testament, which isn't a history book at all but the story of a religion. Just a tip.

The bible is neither a history book or a story of religion. It is the biggest selling book of fiction ever written. Harry Potter Anyone?

 

[Anonymous]

See also: VUB's LLM here in Bruxelles and try the University of Maastricht (I know a couple of people who studied there). High quality programmes + beer + pro cycling. It's a no-brainer, Mr Brainy!

Honestly, studying or interning in Belgium would be fantastic. I can't think of a place I would rather study. I am interested in human rights law on an international level, so I am looking everywhere, but if I happened to find something there, I would jump at the chance for sure. Thanks for the tip!

 

[Anonymous]

The bible is neither a history book or a story of religion. It is the biggest selling book of fiction ever written. Harry Potter Anyone?

So, what are the terms of the contract you have with Keith Richards? I have always wanted to see the specifics.

 

[rhubroma]

...says the guy who believes religious strife didn't start until 380...

Many historians (And archaeologists {spelled correctly mind you}) view the Bible as a valuable resource for historic reference. It really isn't a novel approach on my part, I would have thought someone as astute as are you would recognize that. I guess I was wrong.

BTW, I have a degree in history, and have studied a bit of archaeology. You aren't the only one with some edumikation here, though your verbal diarrhea does appear to suggest you are educated well beyond your intelligence at times.

It didn't. You know absolutely nothing about which you speak. Stick to your legal arguments, because you're ignorance in this regard is pathetic.

In the ancient world wars were not religious in nature. Get that through your head. The only exception, perhaps, was the case of the Jews and their so called Promised Land. After 380 this dramatically changed. Because the Christian Churches invented theology, dogma and there is where a new power struggle (unknown in the pagan civilizations), that was begotten out of such religious debates, arose. A power struggle that has continued within the monotheistic religions of the world to this very day.

How can you claim to have studied history, when you are so terribly ignorant of some basic aspects? It's beyond me really.

 

[The Devil]

So, what are the terms of the contract you have with Keith Richards?

What has the musician Keith Richards got to do with Harry Potter.?

 

[Anonymous]

It didn't. You know absolutely nothing about which you speak. Stick to your legal arguments, because you're ignorance in this regard is pathetic.

In the ancient world wars were not religious in nature. Get that through your head. The only exception, perhaps, was the case of the Jews and their so called Promised Land. After 380 this dramatically changed. Because the Christian Churches invented theology, dogma and there is where a new power struggle (unkown in the pagan civilizations), that was begotten out of such religious debates, arose. A power struggle that has continued within the monotheistic religions of the world to this very day.

How can you claim to have studied history, when you are so terribly ignorant of some basic aspects? It's beyond me really.

Hey, thanks again for proving my point. People will kill people regardless of excuse.(In case you haven't noticed, my argument isn't that people have not used religion to slaughter others. It is that there is that it isn't the least common denominator. I am sure you are an expert on math too, so I am guessing you will understand my reference.)

As for your "exception," yea, thanks for picking up my reference. I also find it laughable that you believe that before that (or 380, which is it?) nobody anywhere in any civilization ever killed because of their religious beliefs. Stick to the things you know...(apparently that means everything based upon your obviously inflated view of your intelligence and knowledge)

My arguments may be pathetic, but they sure do pull your strings for something that has no basis...

 

[Anonymous]

What has the musician Keith Richards got to do with Harry Potter.?

Nothing, I just wanted to know the terms of his contract. Does he have to wear that ring in the shower?

 

[L'arriviste]

Hey, thanks again for proving my point. People will kill people regardless of excuse.(In case you haven't noticed, my argument isn't that people have not used religion to slaughter others. It is that there is that it isn't the least common denominator. I am sure you are an expert on math too, so I am guessing you will understand my reference.)

As for your "exception," yea, thanks for picking up my reference. I also find it laughable that you believe that before that (or 380, which is it?) nobody anywhere in any civilization ever killed because of their religious beliefs. Stick to the things you know...(apparently that means everything based upon your obviously inflated view of your intelligence and knowledge)

My arguments may be pathetic, but they sure do pull your strings for something that has no basis...

Um, anyone fancy a bit of general politics? Come on, TFF/Rhubroma. Entertain me with something on-topic. Religion is so yawn.

 

[The Devil]

Does he have to wear that ring in the shower?

Well he probably wears that constriction ring on his john in the shower----

 

[Anonymous]

Um, anyone fancy a bit of general politics? Come on, TFF/Rhubroma. Entertain me with something on-topic. Religion is so yawn.

Point well taken.

I am done. My only real point is that I find the promulgation of atheist thought on this thread to be as offensive as I would if a Christian came here and started proselytizing to convert people. I don't dig evangelism from anyone.

Hey how bout that George Bush, huh? What a polarizing figure that guy is, right?

 

[Anonymous]

Well he probably wears that constriction ring on his john in the shower----

If that fits over his John, he asked for the wrong thing at the crossroads IMO...

 

[rhubroma]

Hey, thanks again for proving my point. People will kill people regardless of excuse.(In case you haven't noticed, my argument isn't that people have not used religion to slaughter others. It is that there is that it isn't the least common denominator. I am sure you are an expert on math too, so I am guessing you will understand my reference.)

As for your "exception," yea, thanks for picking up my reference. I also find it laughable that you believe that before that (or 380, which is it?) nobody anywhere in any civilization ever killed because of their religious beliefs. Stick to the things you know...(apparently that means everything based upon your obviously inflated view of your intelligence and knowledge)

My arguments may be pathetic, but they sure do pull your strings for something that has no basis...

For my part I too will close our little debate now to spare everyone this ad infinitum quid pro quo. And I apologize to all that it has gone on this long.

During antiquity it is never mentioned in any of the written sources that wars were faught over religious principles. When the Persians attacked the Greeks it wasn't in the name of any religious issue. The same goes for the Roman conquests. Idem for the barbarian incursions into Roman territory, or when the Mongol Huns swepped across the steppes and into Europe.

These wars and battles were faught for fame, territorial aquisition, wealth, etc., but not religion. Theology wasn't known to the pagans and, as in the Roman case, a foreign deity from a defeated society could even be made into a real Roman cult too (something which the later montheistic religions could never accept).

With the rise of institutionalized monotheistic Christian and latter Muslim faiths this changed. The turning point was in 380. Now, and for the next fourteen circa centuries, wars could, and frequently would be fought directly over religious principles connected to a theological corpus. If they were not entirely always fought exclusively upon these debates, religion was always looming in the background or else reinforcing the conflict and divisions at the forefront of the clash between societies.

Think however you like, but this is what historically took place. I'm off now too.

 

[Anonymous]

For my part I too will close our little debate now to spare everyone this ad infinitum quid pro quo. And I apologize to all that it has gone on this long.

During antiquity it is never mentioned in any of the written sources that wars were faught over religious principles. When the Persians attacked the Greeks it wasn't in the name of any religious issue. The same goes for the Roman conquests. Idem for the barbarian incursions into Roman territory, or when the Mongol Huns swepped across the steppes and into Europe.

These wars and battles were faught for fame, territorial aquisition, wealth, etc., but not religion. Theology wasn't known to the pagans and, as in the Roman case, a foreign deity from a defeated society could even be made into a real Roman cult too (something which the later montheistic religions could never accept).

With the rise of institutionalized monotheistic Christian and latter Muslim faiths this changed. The turning point was in 380. Now, and for the next fourteen circa centuries, wars could, and frequently would be fought directly over religious principles connected to a theological corpus. If they were not entirely always fought exclusively upon these debates, religion was always looming in the background or else reinforcing the conflict and divisions at the forefront of the clash between societies.

Think however you like, but this is what historically took place. I'm off now too.

Again, you do nothing but prove my point further. I have never countered any assertion other than religion not playing a part in slaughter until 380. I would suggest that you to narrowly confine the term "religion" to serve your point, rather than accept a larger interpretation of the term. I would also suggest looking at South and Central American history and would suggest that there was plenty of slaughter there based on religious grounds prior to the arrival of Europeans...oh wait, you were being Eurocentric...sorry...

Well, there is also the issue of Stalin and Mao being glaring examples of slaughter in modern times by atheists. Hey, no theory is perfect, keep it up, I am sure your theory will be great when you finish it...

 

[The Hitch]

So, what are the terms of the contract you have with Keith Richards? I have always wanted to see the specifics.

Is this a reference to Don Mclean " American Pie"?

Um, anyone fancy a bit of general politics? Come on, TFF/Rhubroma. Entertain me with something on-topic. Religion is so yawn.

Tbf we did stop talking about religion - theism, atheism deism and all that a few pages back. This religion in history is political in many ways.

Then again everything is political.

 

[The Hitch]

Um, anyone fancy a bit of general politics? Come on, TFF/Rhubroma. Entertain me with something on-topic. Religion is so yawn.

Tbf we did stop talking about religion - theism, atheism deism and all that a few pages back. This religion in history is political in many ways.

Then again everything is political.