Bible Bashers On Douglas Prom

[Albert Tatlock]

I suppose you believe some time in the future I will personally destroy 1000 innocent lives?? Nice one brother!

Your kind have just done that in Iraq, where estimates of the dead range up to anything like 300,000. They couldn't even be bothered counting the bodies.

[Declan]

IF there is a god, how does one justify resent events involving children both here and away. all these folk praying and such like does nothing to stop these things happening or heal the pain.

 

That presupposes that God is just. She isn't.

[ans]

Mensatrolls are fun.

[Chinahand]

Albert, I am sure your grumpy old man rant will, unfortunately, have many resonances with the readers of this forum, but it has a level of distortion and blinkered simplicity that I would expect of Rog.

 

Why are we at war? Why is our world subject to terrorisms and massacres and the, sometimes overblown, security responses to them? If you are going to say its a religious war, I'm going to say you are being simplistic; and when you claim it is a battle between Christianity and Islam I will not only say you are being simplistic, I'm going to say you are wrong and falling into the exact trap the extremists want you to fall into.

 

This is a fight between the intolerant and the tolerant. And your bluster against Bush ignores the multiplicity of political opinions, checks and balances that exist in the US. To portray US policy as being a Fundamentalist Christian battle is to have the breadth of opinion and understanding of the US that Osama Bin Laden has. It is a dogmatic simplification that is self serving and ignores the true complexity of policy decisions.

 

The prime movers for he war in Iraq were the Neo Cons ... they promote the state as a secular arbitrator, upheld by the consent of the people via democracy. They aspire to a world where people are free to choose their governments, and practice their particular religions, free from persecution, and where the state is neutral and has a separation of powers.

 

That aspiration is one I respect and agree with and the messy failure of that policy in Iraq shows how difficult and complex it is to create a society like that.

 

The Europe the US, Japan definitely, Taiwan maybe, Oz and NZ have been able to create political systems that approximate to the aspirations of secular democracy. They fail in thousands of details, but the aspiration is clear.

 

The aspiration to ensure the Middle East’s third largest supplier of oil was not an unstable corrupt tyranny, but an accountable, democratic state that ruled with the consent of its people was a high and maybe naive hope. But to put Religion before this aspiration as the primary cause of the current mess in Iraq is to me little short of incredible.

 

You claim the US is killing thousands in the name of religion. I think that opinion is so simplistic that it is almost impossible to engage with a person who holds that opinion in a reasonable debate.

 

If you are going to blame all the troubles in the world on George Bush and his religion and Osama Bin Laden and his, well great. But in the real there are real and serious problems that have to be addressed and worked on to make a better world.

 

Your rants do nothing to find solutions to those problems and by promoting simplicity actively hinder people from engaging intelligently with these issues.

[Lonan3]

If you are going to blame all the troubles in the world on George Bush and his religion and Osama Bin Laden and his, well great. But in the real there are real and serious problems that have to be addressed and worked on to make a better world.

 

I blame God. He/she just isn't up to the job!

[Albert Tatlock]

Albert, I am sure your grumpy old man rant will, unfortunately, have many resonances with the readers of this forum, but it has a level of distortion and blinkered simplicity that I would expect of Rog.

 

Why are we at war? Why is our world subject to terrorisms and massacres and the, sometimes overblown, security responses to them? If you are going to say its a religious war, I'm going to say you are being simplistic; and when you claim it is a battle between Christianity and Islam I will not only say you are being simplistic, I'm going to say you are wrong and falling into the exact trap the extremists want you to fall into.

 

This is a fight between the intolerant and the tolerant. And your bluster against Bush ignores the multiplicity of political opinions, checks and balances that exist in the US. To portray US policy as being a Fundamentalist Christian battle is to have the breadth of opinion and understanding of the US that Osama Bin Laden has. It is a dogmatic simplification that is self serving and ignores the true complexity of policy decisions.

 

The prime movers for he war in Iraq were the Neo Cons ... they promote the state as a secular arbitrator, upheld by the consent of the people via democracy. They aspire to a world where people are free to choose their governments, and practice their particular religions, free from persecution, and where the state is neutral and has a separation of powers.

 

That aspiration is one I respect and agree with and the messy failure of that policy in Iraq shows how difficult and complex it is to create a society like that.

 

The Europe the US, Japan definitely, Taiwan maybe, Oz and NZ have been able to create political systems that approximate to the aspirations of secular democracy. They fail in thousands of details, but the aspiration is clear.

 

The aspiration to ensure the Middle East’s third largest supplier of oil was not an unstable corrupt tyranny, but an accountable, democratic state that ruled with the consent of its people was a high and maybe naive hope. But to put Religion before this aspiration as the primary cause of the current mess in Iraq is to me little short of incredible.

 

You claim the US is killing thousands in the name of religion. I think that opinion is so simplistic that it is almost impossible to engage with a person who holds that opinion in a reasonable debate.

 

If you are going to blame all the troubles in the world on George Bush and his religion and Osama Bin Laden and his, well great. But in the real there are real and serious problems that have to be addressed and worked on to make a better world.

 

Your rants do nothing to find solutions to those problems and by promoting simplicity actively hinder people from engaging intelligently with these issues.

Admittedly my ‘grumpy old man rant’ was at the end of an extended night out! However, on reflection I stand by the bulk of it. I disagree that it is ‘distorted’ and reflects ‘blinkered simplicity’.

 

I fundamentally disagree that this is simply a fight between the intolerant and the tolerant. In fact I think you grossly simplify things by saying that, and on closer examination will find that it is actually a war between two intolerant religious groups – (with tolerant people forced onto both sides by classification of their religion, or by having no religion – and most of the tolerant people having limited or no control on the events that have unfolded).

 

The political-religious link in Islam is very clear and unambiguous. What makes the current ‘War On Terror’ a religious conflict is the political-religious link in the current American administration i.e. the Neocons. I disagree that they promote the state as a secular arbiter, as explained very well, IMHO, by Mark Gerson in the book: “The Neoconservative Vision: From the Cold War to the Culture Wars.”

“Neoconservatives believe that politics is about morality, and that morality should infuse political behaviour. Democracy thrives upon what they call "the bourgeois virtues" of thrift, the delaying of gratification, honesty, probity, and loyalty. The importance of individual moral responsibility is the flip side of the classical liberal's insistence upon personal freedom and initiative; neoconservatives maintain that each side is needed to make the other work. For example, while material wealth is necessary for a thriving society with a high standard of living, it is not an end in itself. This wealth can be put in the service of the things that truly "matter" in life, such as education and intellectual vitality; civil society, as in those mediating institutions that give society a collective existence independent of the state; and religion. Religion is the source of the moral virtues that animate both individuals and the society in which they live.

 

This raises the question of the role of religion in public life. In recent decades, under the influence of modern liberalism, the practice of religion within public institutions has been discouraged on the grounds of separation of church and state. Neoconservatives, Jewish and Christian alike, respond that this is too broad a reading of the concept. They note that the Constitution prohibits the establishment of an official state religion but does not say that religion has no place as a motivating force in politics. The state merely cannot do anything for interfere with the individual practice (or non-practice, a point on which neoconservatives do not all agree) of religion. Judeo-Christian morality is the starting point of American culture, and neoconservatives believe that such controversial events as invocations at public school graduations and Nativity scenes on municipal property reflect this morality and do not stop followers of other faiths from practicing them.

 

Neoconservatives have displayed a religious fervor in their defense of capitalism. In fact, religion and capitalism together create what neoconservatives view as the ideal social order. While most of the paleoconservatives praise capitalism for promoting economic growth and personal freedom, neoconservatives view the market as an ideal mechanism of moral restraint. Libertarian arguments for capitalism point out that the market efficiently translates individual demand into social outcomes. Neoconservatives respond that capitalism, having no values of its own, requires some form of moral background to sustain it, a moral background that is to be found in religion. If a public is infused with religious morality, it will influence consumer demand, meaning that all participants in the economy, if they are to thrive, must acknowledge this morality. Therefore, economics cannot pollute culture, but a corrupt culture can be propagated by the ruthlessly efficient market. Therefore, neoconservatives do not fret over the likes of selfishness and greed--they are moral failures that religion, not socialism or government regulation of the market, will cure.”

 

I hold with his views that the Neocons are fundamentally linked to religion, and view capitalism and religion as the ‘ideal social order’. For further examples, look at some of the associated issues and legislation that George Bush has supported since his 'election'.

 

I consider my so called ‘rant’ to be more worked out than you might think. It simply identifies the common denominator causing these problems as religion. Whatever you might say, the result is that hundreds of thousands of people have died in the past five years because of it. If there was no Islam and no fundamentalist Christians – just decent human beings who look out for each other - the chances are that most of them would be alive today.

 

Democracy does not need religeon to prosper, in fact quite the opposite.

[Mission]

Surely the right to ignore applies here?

 

I can spot a salesperson from 100 paces and let's face it, that's all these dudes are - salespeople (of God).

 

Let them crack on, they won't be taking up much of my time, that's for sure.

[LoneWolf]

Surely the right to ignore applies here?

Of course it does! We live in a tolerant, liberal society. [dont we Albert?]

[Chinahand]

I couldn't post this yesterday ... the connection to Manxforums was abysmal ... anyone else have problems?

 

Don’t tell me – your wife is either a repentant sleeper-arounder, used to drink too much or had a tough time with her parents? Go on, be honest for once – which one?

 

Albert, that is beneath you, and far far beyond the bounds of acceptability.

 

I seriously ask you to consider the things you are saying. It is offensive and personally directed against a third party to this forum who has not been involved in this debate.

 

I do not know how you can justify the crudity and vulgarity, I am sure you will try, but a sensible response would be to edit your original post and apologise.

 

You do not seem to want to understand complex issues, you would rather insult and reject and indulge yourself in rants ... good for you.

 

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Chinahand]

I fundamentally disagree that this is simply a fight between the intolerant and the tolerant. In fact I think you grossly simplify things by saying that, and on closer examination will find that it is actually a war between two intolerant religious groups – (with tolerant people forced onto both sides by classification of their religion, or by having no religion – and most of the tolerant people having limited or no control on the events that have unfolded).

 

Albert I do not pretend that extremist intolerence exists within Christianity. I also don't deny it exists within American politics ... Pat Buchannan, Jerry Falwell etc.

 

But it is not a significant motivator of American foreign policy. If you want to find out who dominates the debate on American policy you go to the think tanks and lobby groups in Washington, not to the church leaders. Of course the people involved in them have religious beliefs and some wish for more involvement of religion in the state ... the US has no state faith schools, as the UK does, for example. But the policies they are advocating are democratic, pluralist and capitalistic. Not dogmatic, orthodox and Christian.

 

This is NOT a crusade by intolerent Christians against Islam. And if you quote George Bush at me saying "We need a Crusade" I give up and you can go off and enjoy your Bushwacking simplicities in peace.

 

The Iraqi constitution enshrines Neo Con ideas ... a separation of powers, democratic elections etc ... But guess what ... it acknowledges the importance of Islam, says law is derived from Islamic principles etc ... IE contains things that Fundamentalist Christians would describe as sacraligious, but it also contains rights to freedom of belief and religion, no matter what faith.

 

I describe that constitution as being on the side of toleration ... IF it could be accepted and followed by all sides in I think it would be a good thing ... I support the attempt to uphold that constitution in the face of attacks by people who totally reject it. Al Qaeda has described democracy as against Allah's will, which is a remarkable statement to say the least.

 

Al Qaeda is an enemy of tolerence and of fundamentalist Christianity (an equally intolerent religion, which I dispise as much as Al Qaeda). You say:

 

I consider my so called ‘rant’ to be more worked out than you might think. It simply identifies the common denominator causing these problems as religion.

 

The fact is, if you remove religion from the US side you still leave Al Qaeda fighting tolerence. Al Qaeda will not accept pluralistic, complex societies, with freedom of speech and choice.

 

Religion is not the common denominator of these societies (these societies exist in Japan, Taiwan, South Africa as well as Europe and the US); it is tolerence and pluralism: it is the philosoply of Hume and Locke.

 

These ideas are more important motivators for the Neo Cons, because they believe they are transferable to non Christian societies. Turkey is a neo-con model; a secular Islamic country, in a similar way to the US being a secular Christian country. India is another example, though both have problems ... but guess what so does the US and the UK.

 

And Al Qaeda hates the modernity these societies exemplify as much, if not more, than their religion. It is the immorality, the pornography, that freedom of choice and secularism creates that they are fighting against as much as the religion of Christ.

 

This battle is far far more than a battle of religions. Religion is not the common denominator of this battle.

 

I say what I said in my earlier post it is a battle between tolerence and intolerence. That battle must be fought against Al Qaeda, and it must also be fought within the US and the UK to stop intolerent and dogmatic policies poisoning the debate. That intolerence can come from Christians, it can come from fascists and it can come from else where. But these intolerent philosopies currently don't dominate the debate in the Uk or the US and quite definitely religion is NOT the motivation of the West's response to militant Islam.

 

Sorry Albert ... I totally disagree with your analysis ... it is simplistic and intolerent and does not understand the issues involved.

[Albert Tatlock]

Surely the right to ignore applies here?

Of course it does! We live in a tolerant, liberal society. [dont we Albert?]

...and you have the right to ignore my views.

 

Equally, I have the right not to ignore, and not feel I have to tolerate, those that are effectively destroying civil liberies and changing my way of life - and stand up and say so. The problem is that these religious groups do not simply sit in the background to be ignored and be tolerated, they are in our everyday politics (don't you remember Tony Blair's and George Bush's praying to god comments?), they are in the top 5 news headlines every day, and many live in a self-imposed apartheid within our society. We also blindly fund this separatism by state funding their schools (through tax payers money).

 

Stop parents brainwashing their kids into the same beliefs, or invent a magic pill and remove religion from the equation - and you will find that most of the worlds problems will go away. I know this isn't going to happen for very many centuries yet (or until the advent of the singularity), but people still have a right to say that we should work toward it.

 

Any defence of religion, defends nothing more than death and destruction, and supports nothing more than human ignorance and lack of progress.

[Chinahand]

Any defence of religion, defends nothing more than death and destruction, and supports nothing more than human ignorance and lack of progress.

 

Do you know nothing of Quaker pacifism and its role in encouraging and supporting concientious objectors of all views and faiths?

[VinnieK]

or invent a magic pill and remove religion from the equation - and you will find that most of the worlds problems will go away.

 

That religion is the source of all problems and conflicts has to be the laziest of intellectual clichés, perhaps even hopelessly naive.

 

Take for example the Middle Ages, which were characterised by massive conflict between the European powers, most notably between England and France and between the Genoese and the Venetians. In both cases the combatants shared the same religions and the motives were not religious but political and economic. The Crusades were also a feature of the time of course, but it's telling that each crusade was afflicted with a chronic lack of coherence and manpower, precisely due to the fact that the European powers regarded political and economic motives for war more important than religion. Similarly, any reading of Crusade history also shows that even in these most commonly cited examples of religious wars, many of those fighting were chancers looking forward to financial and territorial gain, and that, once entrenched in the Middle East, were happy to recognise the neccessity of cooperating with their Muslim Neighbours (who were more than happy to fight amongst themselves despite a shared religion, for the same reasons as the Europeans did).

 

Similarly, the Napoleonic War can hardly be characterised as religious, nor can the Boer War, the Crimean War, the American Revolution, or the First or Second World Wars (the notion of Jewishness that rose to prominance in the latter conflict was an ethnological nature before a religious one). In there you have some of the bloodiest, most devastating conflicts in the history of mankind, all featuring massacres, mistreatment of civilians, and massive consequences, each of which was down to either a political or economic causes in which religion played little or no part.

 

So, given how humanity has over the centuries demonstrated such exceptional skill at finding mundane reasons to embark on slaughter of a massive scale, tell me again how "most of the world's problems will go away" by getting rid of religion? Unless of course you were just using the usual nearsighted clichés and intellectually dishonest bluster to justify what is just another petty prejudice.

[shoepatshoe]

Over the years I have been approached by religious salesmen on a number of different occasions in a variety of locations.

 

My experience on each occasion is that they do not say, "Sorry to bother you, but would you have 5 minutes to listen to me telling you about my religion in the hope that you may wish to join it?" because that makes it too easy to say, "No thank you" and walk away. Instead, the men and women are trained in questionning skills, just like any salesperson, so that one is drawn into a conversation using open questions. Consequently, just like with my time-share example earlier on, I don't want to have to a) Spot them coming and change my route, B) come up with an excuse as to why I can't stop to talk or, c) rudely cut them off mid sentence and walk on by. Why can't they sit on a bench with a sign that clearly states, "I LOVE GOD. CAN YOU SPARE 5 MINUTES TO LISTEN TO WHY I LOVE HIM SO MUCH?"

 

And that is my point in this thread. I don't much like religion but I generally keep these views to myself. Don't ring me up when I'm watching Deal or No Deal to sell me mobile phone stuff, don't leave Kleen-Eze catalogues on my doorstep and expect them not to be thrown in the wheelie bin and don't interrupt me when I'm enjoying the beauty of nature during my brief 60 minute lunch hour to try and sell me a god.

 

If I want a god - I know where to find one.

[LoneWolf]

Surely the right to ignore applies here?

Of course it does! We live in a tolerant, liberal society. [dont we Albert?]

...and you have the right to ignore my views.

 

I have chosen not to. That is my right as well.