religion and war

[Crunchy Cat]

How many of these were built after 1945? And was all the technology Japanese from the beginning? What was the US/Western contribution to the transfer of technology to Japan post WWII?

Probably most if not all of them were built after 1945 and alot of the technology certainly came from the U.S. Post WWII, we probably witheld alot more than we gave.

Very long stories both of them.

Suffice to say, I realised a lot of information outside the ME about the ME is based on our notions of what we think they should live like. Most of them do not share these notions and are happy with their lifestyles. Where they are unhappy, it is usually because external influences control their governments and make their lives miserable. Is everybody equally happy? No, but they are free to leave, if they so wish.

As for US policy, the short story is that selfless acts are not the norm and political manipulation is, at the cost of human lives and social conflict elsewhere. Not a pretty picture at all.

I find what you have to say very interesting and if you don't mind I would like to hear the long stories of both (maybe PM them?).

 

[S.A.M.]

I disagree. There are alot of factors that go into good communication and listening is only part of it.

I believe listening is a major part of communication. You already know your own POV so its imperative to grasp that of the other party.

I thought this story was very interesting because it showed that a point of view can be wrapped up in its own bias and doesn't necesessarily warrant embracing it. My friend seemed to have objective reality on his side and was the one to consult a 'variety of information' before jumping to conclusions... but he did dismiss the POVs.

Embracing a point of view means taking it under consideration. Without that, one is simply involved in a monologue.

I'm confused about this statement. Isn't religion/ideology bound to Islamic politics (i.e. they don't have a separation of the proverbial Church and State)? Sharia comes to mind...

Muslim is not the same as Islamic.

Sharia is based on Fiqh written over a thousand years by Muslim jurists who proposed different legal approaches to social and political issues (including civil, criminal and family law). The approaches range from conservative and harsh to extremely liberal. No government in a Muslim country is bound to accept or use it, however. It is a legal opinion that can be consulted if desired, but the choice about which and how much of it to implement resides entirely with the government. The problem with Sharia today is that it has not been updated or revised over the last few hundred years due to lack of cohesiveness in Islamic jurists. It is due for a another revision.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Apparently atheists disparage religion as a major cause of war. Are they equally against nationalism?

The basis of the thread is to determine atheistic views of nationalism. You mentioned "adaptive nationialism", which you defended as self-coined. Apparently, this is an ideal for you, not your view on nationalism.

The premise of the thread that Atheists consider religion a major cause of war appears not to be correct and the question was are they against nationalism?

My answer was that religion is a good thing and magical thinking and the resulting irrational thought promote violent conflict. As for nationalism, I made it clear that I was for it with the condition that it be adaptable... because what I value and what the rest of the world values will change over time and if nationalism is focused on the wrong set of values because it did not adapt then it breaks.

I hope that makes more sense.

 

[S.A.M.]

Probably most if not all of them were built after 1945 and alot of the technology certainly came from the U.S. Post WWII, we probably witheld alot more than we gave.

I find what you have to say very interesting and if you don't mind I would like to hear the long stories of both (maybe PM them?).

I can sort of answer both questions here. Japan has no oil, neither has Germany or Israel. But they are strategically placed in areas where the US has (or in the case of Germany, used to have) political interests. Hence these countries were provided with financial and military aid as well as technology transfer to enable them to become allies in case of political requirements. Much of the "loans" given them by the West were also "forgiven".

The ME is a different story. Not only does it hold much of the oil reserves, but the culture is resistant to Western influences, since most of them do not wish to embrace Western values and in fact consider their own culture to be ideologically superior. Any independence here therefore is unpredictable and is also tied in to one-fifth of the world's population through a religion that has (or appears to have) very staunch followers.

It is therefore in Western interests to establish puppet dictatorships that balance the value of the dollar (as they routinely do) and typically help maintain the status quo of the West by supporting their interests. Which they have done successfully until the information age came to the ME as fully as it has come elsewhere.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I believe listening is a major part of communication. You already know your own POV so its imperative to grasp that of the other party.

I think we agree that listening is an important part of communication. IMO, it's being overemphasized. On a sidenote, sometimes you think you know your POV but it actually turnes out to be a little different than you thought . Dialog can help bring that out.

Embracing a point of view means taking it under consideration. Without that, one is simply involved in a monologue.

It sounded like my friend would just interrupt what the person was saying and go a completely different direction. These developers had a POV of their issues and it didn't sound like much consideration was given to them. What do you think?

Muslim is not the same as Islamic.

What do you perceive the differences to be?

Sharia is based on Fiqh written over a thousand years by Muslim jurists who proposed different legal approaches to social and political issues (including civil, criminal and family law). The approaches range from conservative and harsh to extremely liberal. No government in a Muslim country is bound to accept or use it, however. It is a legal opinion that can be consulted if desired, but the choice about which and how much of it to implement resides entirely with the government. The problem with Sharia today is that it has not been updated or revised over the last few hundred years due to lack of cohesiveness in Islamic jurists. It is due for a another revision.

Were these legal approaches based on the Koran?

 

[S.A.M.]

I think we agree that listening is an important part of communication. IMO, it's being overemphasized. On a sidenote, sometimes you think you know your POV but it actually turnes out to be a little different than you thought . Dialog can help bring that out.

I think listening is underemphasised. Everyone seems to come to the table these days merely to confirm their established views, rather than listen to those of others.

It sounded like my friend would just interrupt what the person was saying and go a completely different direction. These developers had a POV of their issues and it didn't sound like much consideration was given to them. What do you think?

I really could not comment without knowing all aspects of the conversation. After all what your friend presented was his perspective.

What do you perceive the differences to be?

Well is all Muslim writing Islamic? Do Muslims write only about religion?
I find it fascinating that people ascribe religious motivations to everything that Muslims do, without having any knowledge of their culture or practices and as if they were separate from influences beyond religion.

Were these legal approaches based on the Koran?

Very few. They were written over a thousand years and were influenced by the outlook of the writer, the ruler/government in power, the reasons for which the rulings were debated upon with commentaries describing the conditions under which they were used. They were derived from Muslim legal practices, with inputs from Roman, Greek, Byzantine laws as well as Christian and Jewish laws, local tribal practices, Pagan laws, etc. A few are based on the Quran and the Hadith but these deal mostly with family law (marriage, divorce, alimony, child support).

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I can sort of answer both questions here. Japan has no oil, neither has Germany or Israel. But they are strategically placed in areas where the US has (or in the case of Germany, used to have) political interests. Hence these countries were provided with financial and military aid as well as technology transfer to enable them to become allies in case of political requirements. Much of the "loans" given them by the West were also "forgiven".

The ME is a different story. Not only does it hold much of the oil reserves, but the culture is resistant to Western influences, since most of them do not wish to embrace Western values and in fact consider their own culture to be ideologically superior. Any independence here therefore is unpredictable and is also tied in to one-fifth of the world's population through a religion that has (or appears to have) very staunch followers.

It is therefore in Western interests to establish puppet dictatorships that balance the value of the dollar (as they routinely do) and typically help maintain the status quo of the West by supporting their interests. Which they have done successfully until the information age came to the ME as fully as it has come elsewhere.

What aspects of the Islamic culture do Muslims consider Ideologically superior? Is it the Ideology itself that resists Western influence? What successes and failures has the Ideology brought and what are the causes for both?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I think listening is underemphasised. Everyone seems to come to the table these days merely to confirm their established views, rather than listen to those of others.

Does it matter if they are right or is it more important to listen and achieve understanding of the other party's position?

Well is all Muslim writing Islamic? Do Muslims write only about religion?
I find it fascinating that people ascribe religious motivations to everything that Muslims do, without having any knowledge of their culture or practices and as if they were separate from influences beyond religion.

I don't people ascribe religious motivations to all Muslim actions. I was asking the question because I understood Islam to be a theistical philosophy of how to live and a Muslim was a parctitioner of that philosophy.

Very few. They were written over a thousand years and were influenced by the outlook of the writer, the ruler/government in power, the reasons for which the rulings were debated upon with commentaries describing the conditions under which they were used. They were derived from Muslim legal practices, with inputs from Roman, Greek, Byzantine laws as well as Christian and Jewish laws, local tribal practices, Pagan laws, etc. A few are based on the Quran and the Hadith but these deal mostly with family law (marriage, divorce, alimony, child support).

Do Muslims find it problematic that they are living under laws / Sharia that were created in the interests of man rather than Allah?

 

[S.A.M.]

What aspects of the Islamic culture do Muslims consider Ideologically superior? Is it the Ideology itself that resists Western influence? What successes and failures has the Ideology brought and what are the causes for both?

I think people in the West fail to realise the strength of the structure that Eastern religions provide. Much as in India, in the ME religion enables people to undergo a lot of hardship without collapse of the society (notwithstanding foreign interventions). The lack of this structure and stability is what most Islamic societies perceive as a deficiency of Western society.

The success of Islam is that all men being equal under God, they see no reason to respect a man just because he is king or dictator if he is inept. Which is why dictators have to resort to harsh measures. Another success is that under all conditions, they are willing to fight to preserve their society and are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of their community or society.

A failure of this ideology is that they have been especially suppressed because they refuse to conform and become more fundamental when pushed, retreating into harsher and harsher measures to defend themselves from attack.

 

[S.A.M.]

Does it matter if they are right or is it more important to listen and achieve understanding of the other party's position?

If you are going to judge them, you are not going to listen anyway.
Anyway, what does right or wrong mean. Every man thinks he is right. What one can present is the relative validity of conclusions based on available evidence. As long as both parties are willing to negotiate an outcome is possible.

I don't people ascribe religious motivations to all Muslim actions. I was asking the question because I understood Islam to be a theistical philosophy of how to live and a Muslim was a parctitioner of that philosophy.

Sure it is a theistic philosophy of life. But the Quran continually stresses use your reason, use your reason. Which is why there is relative freedom of interpretation, since everyone is free to use their reason.

Do Muslims find it problematic that they are living under laws / Sharia that were created in the interests of man rather than Allah?

This has only become a problem now, with the rise of fundamentalism. Harsh as some punishments seem, they keep crime virtually nonexistent or at manageable levels. Even today, one can lose a child in a mall in Jeddah and hunt for him/her with a minimal anxiety, knowing that he/she will be found by someone and returned to you safe and sound. How many people can say that with certitude elsewhere?

Laws are not meant to be for God, but for man. Islamic philosophy dictates one should live a good life, with personal accountability that embraces personal, family, community and social responsibilities. God is a part of the equation not a goal.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I think people in the West fail to realise the strength of the structure that Eastern religions provide. Much as in India, in the ME religion enables people to undergo a lot of hardship without collapse of the society (notwithstanding foreign interventions). The lack of this structure and stability is what most Islamic societies perceive as a deficiency of Western society.

It's interesting because in the U.S. I have noted that some people become very silo'd and tend to unravel under hardship (the New Orleans flood was a good example). Cultural diversity and conflicting mechanisms for human relationship are part of the issue.

At the same time, I would have to question whether or not the Eastern human relationship structures (while good at enduring hardship) also promote it as well? What do you think?

The success of Islam is that all men being equal under God, they see no reason to respect a man just because he is king or dictator if he is inept. Which is why dictators have to resort to harsh measures.

Is that a success? Does it provide value to not respect an inept King or Dictator vs. help them be competent?

Another success is that under all conditions, they are willing to fight to preserve their society and are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of their community or society.

What happens when the people want to change their society and how does an individual know what the good of their community/society is?

A failure of this ideology is that they have been especially suppressed because they refuse to conform and become more fundamental when pushed, retreating into harsher and harsher measures to defend themselves from attack.

What are the top forms of suppression that they encounter?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

If you are going to judge them, you are not going to listen anyway.
Anyway, what does right or wrong mean. Every man thinks he is right. What one can present is the relative validity of conclusions based on available evidence. As long as both parties are willing to negotiate an outcome is possible.

In the subjective world, right and wrong have no objective counterparts. It becomes a values / positions negotiation (which is fine). There is also objective right and wrong (meaning correct and incorrect). Take the famous Earth is round vs. flat argument. In this case there shouldn't be a negotiation to it's validitiy because reality agrees with one party and not the other.

Sure it is a theistic philosophy of life. But the Quran continually stresses use your reason, use your reason. Which is why there is relative freedom of interpretation, since everyone is free to use their reason.

I think the question I was trying to ask is if I was correctly distinguishing the difference between Islam and Muslim. The lack of objection implies it was correct.

This has only become a problem now, with the rise of fundamentalism. Harsh as some punishments seem, they keep crime virtually nonexistent or at manageable levels. Even today, one can lose a child in a mall in Jeddah and hunt for him/her with a minimal anxiety, knowing that he/she will be found by someone and returned to you safe and sound. How many people can say that with certitude elsewhere?

How is crime defined? Could it violate human psychological or physiological needs?

Laws are not meant to be for God, but for man. Islamic philosophy dictates one should live a good life, with personal accountability that embraces personal, family, community and social responsibilities. God is a part of the equation not a goal.

Could there be a conflict based on what Islamic philosophy considers 'Good' and what law considers 'Good'? It seems Islam might submit you to Allah and law might submit you to man and they might not have each others interests in mind... as you said law was meant for man.

 

[S.A.M.]

It's interesting because in the U.S. I have noted that some people become very silo'd and tend to unravel under hardship (the New Orleans flood was a good example). Cultural diversity and conflicting mechanisms for human relationship are part of the issue.

At the same time, I would have to question whether or not the Eastern human relationship structures (while good at enduring hardship) also promote it as well? What do you think?

Promote what? Hardship? Most families are close and provide help and support in ways which I have not seen in the West.

Or do you mean cultural diversity? That again depends on the power equation.When power is equally distributed (as under the Ottomans) there are fewer rifts than when it is unequal (as under Saddam). Muslims belive it is a greater sin to tolerate injustice than to be unjust.

Is that a success? Does it provide value to not respect an inept King or Dictator vs. help them be competent?

Of course it does. People are independent in thought. One has to only pick up a Quran to know that all men are equal and the dictator or king has no right to oppress you.

As to helping the king or ruler, it is a community bound society based on tribal and family connections. Of course they will help the king, but they will demand their rights be satisfied as well.

What happens when the people want to change their society and how does an individual know what the good of their community/society is?

Civil war, much as anywhere else. e.g. Darfur where the original conflict was a revolt of the local people against the ruling class.

As to how? Well people meet five times a day for prayer, they talk. And form groups. As to what is good for the society? That depends on what their present cirumstances are. What do the people of Iraq want? Or Palestine? What did the Lebanese want? Lack of understanding of Muslim culture and mentality is what has prolonged these wars. The people don't realise, they will never give up their rights.

What are the top forms of suppression that they encounter?

In dictatorships?

Suppression of their freedom of expression as well as information that they have access to, such as state controlled media. Plus all the joys of living under a tyrant who will maintain power at any cost, as the brutal SAVAK under the Shah of Iran, placed by the CIA instead of the democratically elected Mossadegh.

 

[S.A.M.]

In the subjective world, right and wrong have no objective counterparts. It becomes a values / positions negotiation (which is fine). There is also objective right and wrong (meaning correct and incorrect). Take the famous Earth is round vs. flat argument. In this case there shouldn't be a negotiation to it's validitiy because reality agrees with one party and not the other.

Science is not a problem for Muslims. We have no established ideas and the Quran insists that we use our reason and obtain knowledge from those who have studied a subject, and that no conclusions can be reached without discussion among peers.

There are therefore no problems with abortion or stem cell research or such, since all are permissible according to guidelines in the Quran.

I think the question I was trying to ask is if I was correctly distinguishing the difference between Islam and Muslim. The lack of objection implies it was correct.

Islam is the religion, a Muslim is one who practices the religion. But if a Muslim is a scientist, a lawyer, a doctor or a musician, those are not Islamic practices. If the music, law, etc is typical of Muslims it may be Muslim law or Muslim music without being Islamic.

How is crime defined? Could it violate human psychological or physiological needs?

By jurists. It can be as they wish to define it, depending on what is good for the society. Morality in Islam lies between two extremes. For every crime there is a choice between a very harsh punishment and its exact opposite. e.g. theft may be punished by cutting off one hand or forgiving the person, with the latter as a recommended option for all believers. Hence it is upto the jurists to decide on an individual basis what is the right thing to do.

Could there be a conflict based on what Islamic philosophy considers 'Good' and what law considers 'Good'? It seems Islam might submit you to Allah and law might submit you to man and they might not have each others interests in mind... as you said law was meant for man.

No. there is no conflict, if all the principles of the Quran are followed. The Quran recommends forgiveness in all cases, so there can never be an instance where Islam will ask for a punishment harsher than can be given. That will fall upon the jurist who actually makes the decision to do so. And he is personally accountable for it.

 

[rjr6]

The premise of the thread that Atheists consider religion a major cause of war appears not to be correct and the question was are they against nationalism?

Thanks for your input, crunchy. Above you state that atheists (are you an atheists?) do not consider religion a major cause of war. Below you state irrational thought caused by magical thinking in regards to religion promotes violent conflict. I grasp the nuance, but disagree with your conclusion that atheists don't 'blame' religion for war, based on the posts in this forum. You may, however, discriminate between the belief and the believer, which is good. It seems wrong to disparage religion because it is perverted by some, which is partly where my question originated.

My answer was that religion is a good thing and magical thinking and the resulting irrational thought promote violent conflict. As for nationalism, I made it clear that I was for it with the condition that it be adaptable... because what I value and what the rest of the world values will change over time and if nationalism is focused on the wrong set of values because it did not adapt then it breaks.
I hope that makes more sense.

How do you know it's broken?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Promote what? Hardship? Most families are close and provide help and support in ways which I have not seen in the West.

Or do you mean cultural diversity? That again depends on the power equation.When power is equally distributed (as under the Ottomans) there are fewer rifts than when it is unequal (as under Saddam). Muslims belive it is a greater sin to tolerate injustice than to be unjust.

Could intolerance of injustice lead to perpetual negaitve feedback loops of revenge?

Of course it does. People are independent in thought. One has to only pick up a Quran to know that all men are equal and the dictator or king has no right to oppress you.

As to helping the king or ruler, it is a community bound society based on tribal and family connections. Of course they will help the king, but they will demand their rights be satisfied as well.

IMO, it sounds more like the success is being able to help an incompetent ruler.

Civil war, much as anywhere else. e.g. Darfur where the original conflict was a revolt of the local people against the ruling class.

Is it a problem that war is the result of a desire to change?

As to how? Well people meet five times a day for prayer, they talk. And form groups. As to what is good for the society? That depends on what their present cirumstances are. What do the people of Iraq want? Or Palestine? What did the Lebanese want? Lack of understanding of Muslim culture and mentality is what has prolonged these wars. The people don't realise, they will never give up their rights.

It doesn't do a good job of answering the question. Lets assume Palistine. What is 'good' for their society and how did they determine this?

In dictatorships?

Suppression of their freedom of expression as well as information that they have access to, such as state controlled media. Plus all the joys of living under a tyrant who will maintain power at any cost, as the brutal SAVAK under the Shah of Iran, placed by the CIA instead of the democratically elected Mossadegh.

It seems the very nature of a dictatorship has these qualities in general. Do Muslims fall under the rule of dictators alot?

 

[S.A.M.]

Could intolerance of injustice lead to perpetual negaitve feedback loops of revenge?

It could in cases of civil war and the like. But before the Europeans divided the ME they had been under the Ottomans for 600 years living in ethnic groups bound by extended families. Even today, where do you see the civil wars and ethnic strife?

Look for oil and you will find it.

Even then places like Saudi Arabia where the king is a benevolent dictator lack any civil strife, since there is no perceived injustice (even though Saudi Arabia was established by one group forcibly taking over all other tribes)

IMO, it sounds more like the success is being able to help an incompetent ruler.

Where do you see this?

Is it a problem that war is the result of a desire to change?

You mean unlike the civil war in the US, the 200 years when 300 states in Europe wre condensed to 30 and the two World Wars?

I'd say the scale is far smaller. And against governments armed and funded liberally by the West, what would you suggest? Roll over and take it?

It doesn't do a good job of answering the question. Lets assume Palistine. What is 'good' for their society and how did they determine this?

You mean when they were dispossessed of their homes and kicked out of a place where they had lived for thousands of years because someone else decided to give away the place they call home?

After 80 years of warfare against a more technologically advanced state, I would say they are tired of war and want peace. But not everyone is of the same notion, some of them want it all. Thats ego speaking though, not religion.

It seems the very nature of a dictatorship has these qualities in general. Do Muslims fall under the rule of dictators alot?

Only when they have oil on their lands. Or are adjacent to communist countries of interest.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Thanks for your input, crunchy. Above you state that atheists (are you an atheists?) do not consider religion a major cause of war.

Almost . What I was trying to say is that the assertion that Atheists consider religion to be a major cause of war is incorrect. To be correct it would mean that every Atheist in existence holds that position and several (including myself) have stated otherwise.

Below you state irrational thought caused by magical thinking in regards to religion promotes violent conflict.

Correct.

I grasp the nuance, but disagree with your conclusion that atheists don't 'blame' religion for war, based on the posts in this forum.

I hope my first paragraph cleared that up.

You may, however, discriminate between the belief and the believer, which is good. It seems wrong to disparage religion because it is perverted by some, which is partly where my question originated.

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).

How do you know it's broken?

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

 

[lightgigantic]

I did not say equal now did I, what I did say was as one, what you mean as one is not what the majority think. all atheist are like minded (as one) but not equal.

it is an impossible dream, there's far to many loons in the world, as you well know.

even atheists argue amongst themselves

We all have the same basic structure. Religion seems to divide people, at least into the believers, and the non.

so does atheism - at least with religion there is the scope for illusion and realization, which can therefore accommodate everyone

 

[Crunchy Cat]

It could in cases of civil war and the like. But before the Europeans divided the ME they had been under the Ottomans for 600 years living in ethnic groups bound by extended families. Even today, where do you see the civil wars and ethnic strife?

Look for oil and you will find it.

Even then places like Saudi Arabia where the king is a benevolent dictator lack any civil strife, since there is no perceived injustice (even though Saudi Arabia was established by one group forcibly taking over all other tribes)

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

Where do you see this?

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.

You mean unlike the civil war in the US, the 200 years when 300 states in Europe wre condensed to 30 and the two World Wars? I'd say the scale is far smaller. And against governments armed and funded liberally by the West, what would you suggest? Roll over and take it?

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.

You mean when they were dispossessed of their homes and kicked out of a place where they had lived for thousands of years because someone else decided to give away the place they call home?

After 80 years of warfare against a more technologically advanced state, I would say they are tired of war and want peace. But not everyone is of the same notion, some of them want it all. Thats ego speaking though, not religion.

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?

Only when they have oil on their lands. Or are adjacent to communist countries of interest.

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?