Afghanistan
Afghanistan made a decision this weekend not to condemn a man to death for converting to Christianity. If you haven’t heard the story, click here.
The government succombed to intense pressure from westerners to free Abdul Rahman in spite of angry demands from Muslim clerics and citizens to execute him. For the Afghan government, it came down to politics: which action would do the least harm to them?
A reactionary take on this situation from our secular stance would be to blame religion. Indeed, religion is at the heart of the situation, but if it were really the sole cause, billions of people all around the world would be facing execution since many change religions every day.
Talk show host Dennis Prager made an interesting distinction with regard to this situation. I think he was partially correct. Prager played an audio clip of Rahman’s father. It was not the government, nor the clerics, who identified Rahman as having broken the law by converting. It was Rahman’s family. His parents, ex-wife, and children turned him in.
On the audio clip, Rahman’s father made a comment about honor and how his son had shamed his family and is now worthless to them.
Prager then made the assertion that the current event is a result of a culture who values honor more than morality. Think about it.
Prager is mostly correct. There are numerous instances where parents in a society that upholds family or parental honor as the highest value abuse their children when they feel shamed. In fact, it even happens in the U.S. among some families. In our case, we refer to it as ego and narcissism, rather than honor.
The weakness in Prager’s argument is that there are many Asian countries that uphold honor as their highest value. While we do see some abuse as a result, we don’t see them acting as a country with the level of violence and intolerance that we are seeing from many of the Islamic countries.
Is it the combination of honor and monotheistic religion? I specify monotheism because there is a level of tolerance for other gods among polytheistic cultures that does not exist within monotheistic ones. Honor combined with monotheistic religion is a part of it, but still not the complete story.
It is too easy for us secularists to blame religion for problems. As I have stated before, I do not believe religion is the “root of all evil.” Religious abuse is the symptom of some humans’ need to wield power and authority of others. Religion is also a handy tool for manipulation. Where humans have less desire to control others, religion is less harmful. Among people who have a stronger desire to control others, it becomes dangerous.
There is one more element that is older than Islam, separate from honor, and distinct from the thirst to control others. It is violence. It was the already existent violence among much of the mideast that put commands of violence into the Koran. It was the already existent violence among them that enabled them to accept the writings of the Koran with its commands to kill non-muslims and apostates.
Put all four elements together and we have the volatile situation we see today.
The problem in Afghanistan is a combination of (1) an excessive valuing of honor; (2) fundamental monotheistic religion; (3) a human desire to control others; (4) a culture that accepts and uses violence.
21 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
March 28th, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
Noell,
I’m glad you’re not making it a problem of Afghanistan rather a syndrome where religion is used to hijack the spiritual capacity of people in order to control and dominate them – not least for enlistment in wars against others (man, does religion ever capitalize on and inflame people’s xenophobia).
And let’s not forget to include here the atrocities chronicled and advocated in the Old Testament. Same location, same time period, same tendency to wholesale violence when wronged (killing every women and child, except for virgins, of course), abuse of family members, (especially women who were viewed no better than cattle).
Still, I’d say even that was outdone by the rule of the Dark Ages culminating in the Inquistion. That was a purely Christian inspiration, which brutalized Europe for over 1,000 years. As bad or worse than any kind of institutionalized system of violence any Muslim extremist has ever come up with.
And let’s not forget what the colonists did to the Indians in America around the same time: the worst genocide any population has committed on another that was justified by religion.
It wasn’t that long ago. But you’d be hard pressed to find any American who is ashamed of it. Maybe we could do with a little more sense of honor, and obligation ourselves.
March 29th, 2006 @ 7:13 am
Very important to bring up “culture” as it relates to this discussion. I have read that even among middle-eastern Christians some have been known to practice honour killings, not because of any belief in the Bible that supports it, but because the culture they grew up in does.
March 29th, 2006 @ 9:12 am
This is all too true: ” Religion is also a handy tool for manipulation”. I once told my brother after I stopped going to church that you don’t need religion to be a good and moral person. I said I could teach this to my future children without the aid of religion. He said something to the effect of “what will be their motivation? You need religion if you really want to imbred morality in them. Otherwise I don’t think it will work.” Religion was a huge motivation. But the example of my parents and others is as well.
Culture is a very scary thing. It has more influence than religion I think. It is a religion. I studied Afghanistan in school and it amazes me how poorly they treat each other. I read about how a woman was shamed from being raped and her brother “had” to kill her. But the rapist had done nothing wrong. I often wonder what I would be like had I been raised in a different culture. What kind of conversation would we be having if we were?
Thanks for the thoughts!
March 29th, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
Christianity has the same roots. I once grabbed this lovely list of Old Testament rules for conducting war (there is a similar list for mistreating women). With these kind of obscenities the Bible should be rated XXX for gratuitous violence and only available to sociopaths.
10. AFTER CONQUERING A CITY, AND KILLING ALL THE MEN, IF YOU FIND A DECENT LOOKING WOMAN UNDER ONE OF THOSE SHEETS, MAKE HER YOUR SLAVE. AND REMEMBER TO STEAL ALL OF THEIR PROPERTY.
“And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself†(Deuteronomy 20:13-14).
“And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. . . . And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods†(Numbers 31:7-9).
9. THOUGH INCONVENIENT, WHEN KILLING THE PEOPLE, BE SURE TO NOT TO HURT THEIR TREES (‘CAUSE THAT WOULD BE WASTEFUL).
“When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayeth eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man’s life) to employ them in the siege†(Deuteronomy 20:19).
8. DON’T STOP WITH KILLING THEIR SOLDIERS. RUB IT IN. DIP YOUR FEET IN THEIR BLOOD AND LET YOUR DOGS DRINK IT.
“But God shall wound the head of his enemies, and the hairy scalp of such an one as goeth on still in his trespasses. The Lord said, I will bring again from Bashan, I will bring my people again from the depths of the sea: That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same†(Psalms 68:21-23).
7. AFTER KILLING EVERY SINGLE PERSON, AND BURNING THE CITY TO THE GROUND, DON’T JUST ANONYMOUSLY KILL BIN LADEN AND OMAR IN A SPECIAL OPERATIONS, PUBLICLY HANG THEM FOR ALL TO SEE.
“For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. . . . And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day. And the king of Ai he hanged on a tree until eventide†(Joshua 8:26-29).
6.YOU MAY WANT TO CUT OFF THEIR HANDS AND FEET BEFORE HANGING THEM, THOUGH.
“And David commanded his young men, and they slew them, and cut off their hands and their feet, and hanged them up over the pool in Hebron†(2 Samuel 4:12).
5. NEVER NEGOTIATE WITH THE ENEMY. KILL THEM, ACCEPT NO SURRENDER. SHOW NO MERCY AT ALL.
“And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them†(Deuteronomy 7:2).
4. REMEMBER THESE PEOPLE ARE HEATHENS. ITS OK TO KILL THEM WHILE THEY’RE PRAYING IN CHURCH. KILL YOUNG AND OLD ALIKE, AND EVEN THOSE TOO FEEBLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.
“But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy. Therefore he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age: he gave them all into his hand†(2 Chronicles 36:16-17).
3. DON’T WASTE THE GOOD STUFF. BURN THE CITY DOWN BUT REMEMEBER TO STEAL THE MONEY AND GIVE IT TO YOUR LEADERS.
“And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the Lordâ€(Joshua 6:24).
2. DON’T WASTE MONEY ON P.O.W. CAMPS. ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE DEALING WITH 10′S OF THOUSANDS OF CAPTIVES. SIMPLY THROW YOUR CAPTIVES OFF A CLIFF.
“And Amaziah said to the man of God, But what shall we do for the hundred talents which I have given to the army of Israel? And the man of God answered, The Lord is able to give thee much more than this. . . . And Amaziah strengthened himself . . . and smote the children of Seir ten thousand. And other ten thousand left alive did the children of Judah carry away captive, and brought them unto the top of the rock, and cast them down from the top of the rock, that they all were broken in pieces†(2 Chronicles 25:9-12).
1. JUST REMEMBER THIS SIMPLE RULE: KILL EVERYONE, DESTROY EVERYTHING THAT BREATHES AND DEMOLISH EVERYTHING IN SIGHT.
“But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth†(Deuteronomy 20:16).
“Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city [of nonbelievers] with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword†(1 Samuel 13:15).
“And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain: and he did to the king of Makkedah as he did unto the king of Jerico. Then Joshua passed from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, unto Libnah, and fought against Libnah: And the Lord delivered it also, and the king thereof, into the hand of Israel: and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain in it†(Joshua 10:29-30).
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass†(1 Samuel 15:3).
March 29th, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
I think that’s a good analysis of Prager’s comment. I also agree with you that, although religion is the problem in this situation, it is not the only source of evil. Secular dictators use exactly the same combination of honor + control + violence for their own purposes. It must be the standard time-tested recipe for dictators of
all sorts.
One question is: Are these same elements present in this country and to what extent? And: Are we at all vulnerable
to the same type of problems they are facing in Afghanistan?
Fortunately, we don’t have a culture where violence is used or accepted, but the first three elements are definitely here. In this country, there is still hope we can resolve our issues peacefully through discussion, but we need to realize that religion is a “conversation stopper.” Let’s hope that reasonable thoughts and ideas will prevail.
On a recent show of the Young Turks, during a discussion
of an article on teaching evolution, one exchange with a teacher from Arkansas stuck out.
caller: You’re joking about this, Cenk, but this is serious, they will threaten to kill you if you mention
evolution.
Jill: You see. The fundamentalists in this country are
not that far from those in Afghanistan. When push comes to shove, they will kill you in honor of their religion.
caller: …I love the people of my state, but some
of them are the most ass-backward thinkers…
March 29th, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
Dudley,
We don’t have a culture where violence is used or accepted? Did you see bowling for Columbine. Every year in the United States between 11,000 and 12,000 Americans meet their end through the barrel of a gun. Every year in Japan, Germany, Canada and Great Britain less than 200 people die by means of a gun. So, what makes America different? Other countries at or above the 10,000 gun deaths per year mark include Estonia, Brazil, and Mexico. The thing all of these countries have in common? A vast polarity between the rich and the poor.
But violence just isn’t about blowing people away, it is about how a culture treats its poor and marginalized people (I mean besides lynching, and bashing…). One way is you just put them all in jail. There are more than 2.1 million US citizens in jail – more than in any other country with one in 138 people now in jail, new official figures reveal. Most are black and other minorities, most for the victimless crime of drug use and trade.
But there is so much more we could do if the theocrats had it there way. A whole new list of victimless crimes for rounding up and dispensing the unfaithful.
In, “With God on Our Side”, William Martin used a sampling of the views of several noted Reconstructionists to give a sense of how a Reconstructed America would be:
“A theonomic order would make homosexuality, adultery, blasphemy, propagation of false doctrine, and incorrigible behavior by disobedient children subject to the death penalty, preferably administered by stoning.”
Kill back-talking kids?
There are far too many in America willing to go this route. We should never forget that freedom needs to be defended on a daily basis from the baser human impulses Noell spoke of.
In America we share with Afghanistan fundamental monotheistic religion + control + violence but to you those can add incredible power + vast economic disparities and appetites.
Sure, in Afghanistan they might stone and rape a bunch of people here and there. But America, as Britain did before it, has always felt absolutely righteous when it has obliterated entire nations with nukes or cluster bombs, or Napalm or guns versus bows or slavery. We, in America, have taken inequity and violence to a level Muslims could only dream of. No shame, no honor.
March 30th, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
Hifi–I would hardly call the violence of Columbine acceptable American behevior. The U.S. may have more violence than Canada and some other western countries (maybe even all western countries? Does anyone know?), but it is deviant behavior. Americans do not find it acceptable, let alone holy, as so many of the mideasterners.
And who are these Reconstructionists anyway? Do they have a voice? From what I can tell, they are a small fringe group and it requires someone else to bring their views to light, because we are not hearing from them themselves. Your description of them seems a bit alarmist. Of course, their views are ALARMING, but I don’t see their views gaining any kind of substantial following.
March 30th, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
Dudley–I don’t see the element of “Honor” as being present in our country. Honor (as in family homor, ancestral honor, patriarchal honor)is a very eastern value. Americans and westerners have other values in much higher priority. Particularly in America we value Individualism above almost all else. I would say that Individualism is indirect conflict with Honor.
We have a serious problem with the mideast which could end in our annihilation. While we also need to work on our problems at home, I think we are ignoring the world’s greatest problem by suggesting we are just as voilent and dangerous.
March 30th, 2006 @ 9:37 pm
hifi – Relative to the situation in Afghanistan, Americans do not accept violence. In the article I read on Abdul Rahman, the cleric who said: “Cut off his head!… pull him into pieces so there’s nothing left” — it says that he was a moderate cleric! Calls for murder don’t happen here, unless you are a certain Christian with his own tv show. As Noell stated, Americans view violence or murder as deviant behavior.
However, I do agree with your point that there are far too many deaths from guns in this country compared, for example, with Canada.
Noell – The first time I heard about Reconstructionists was in a talk by Sam Harris (31:00 into his Long Now talk). He says that they are not well-known, but have a disproportionality large influence on politics, due to their activism, based on their particular eschatology. And yes, their views are scary.
The honor question is more difficult. In America, we do value individualism. Young people are encouraged to set off on their own and make their own lives to a much greater extent than in the eastern world.
But where religious people in this country explicitly don’t value individualism is where religions everywhere don’t value freethinking. Obedience is expected. Only in religion can someone live his life saying: “Nothing anyone can say will affect what I believe. I refuse to even think about it because the answers are in this old book,” — and this person will be held up and praised for being devout. The more blind the faith, the more honorable it is perceived.
Feel free to disagree. I am thinking here more about the more fundamentalist types of religious communities. Also, honor is tied into other social factors, like fitting into the community, avoiding shame, etc. And finally, honor is not wrong in itself. Family honor is great, like, if your family did something great. It’s excessive honor, when it is put above morality (like for violence), that is the problem. And finally finally, the culture in Afghanistan takes all of these elements to another level compared to our country. So, yes, that’s where the serious problem is.
March 31st, 2006 @ 11:41 am
Noell, Are you the great cook wannabe from New Mexico featured in a nationally acclaimed magazine ?
March 31st, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
Fran–Huh? You question sure made me laugh as I have no idea what you are talking about! How about naming that magazine?
Anyway, I am from Arizona, and although I am a “great cook wannabe” I have no awareness of being featured for it!!!!
March 31st, 2006 @ 4:07 pm
Check it out noell , http://www.msnbc.com/id/12083480/site/newsweek/ I knew you were from the southwest I just didnt know where . Maybe it’s the other noell that posts here occasionally.
March 31st, 2006 @ 4:08 pm
click on good moms needn’t be great cooks when you get to the page
March 31st, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
Dudley, Noell,
You may have missed my point when I said “in Afghanistan they might stone and rape a bunch of people here and there. But America, as Britain did before it, has always felt absolutely righteous when it has obliterated entire nations with nukes or cluster bombs, or Napalm or guns versus bows or slavery. We, in America, have taken inequity and violence to a level Muslims could only dream of. No shame, no honor.”
Yes, Americans aren’t like people involved in honor killings – we are much, much worse. We objectify slaughter. It’s not a manner of honor. It’s not personal at all. Therefore we have no compunctions about mass destruction. We share this distinction with the other self-righteous, moralist nations of the past (see below).
Yes, there is violence in pastoral Afghanistan, but it is human and personal. Hunters and gathers engage in ritual violence – contests of strength and skill, but kill your enemy and you have to pay their families – that’s real honor. By contrast, as with the populations of all other war=faring, imperialist nations, we vindicate ourselves by dehumanizing our victims, with ideology, with xenophobic labeling and managing to just plain be oblivious of the military is doing.
Take a look at history.
Compare 3,000 lost in the twin towers to
8,587 AFGHAN TROOPS KILLED
and 25,761 SERIOUSLY INJURED July 2004
3,485 AFGHAN CIVILIANS KILLED
and 6,273 SERIOUSLY INJURED July 2004
And unrelated to the Twin Towers, just because we felt like it, as a result of our unprovoked and unjustified invasion:
30,000 IRAQI TROOPS KILLED
and 90,000 SERIOUSLY INJURED Aug. 2003
188,896 IRAQI CIVILIANS KILLED
and 340,012 SERIOUSLY INJURED March 2006
Before that, one million Iraqis died as a result of U.S. initiated and enforced sanctions, including 700,000 children. Only made Saddam richer.
All told Killed through U.S. foreign policy since WWII: 10,774,706 to 16,856,361 (1945-May 2003)
If you want to be truly horrified by the toll that “civilized” warfare in the 20th century has exacted please see: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#20worst
Warning: there are 8 pages of statistics!
Millions upon millions upon millions! Number one cause? Ethnically/religiously-based xenophobia and competition for economic resources.
Do the numbers here. Muslims don’t even rate on the blood-lust chart.
BTW, 300 million died in the 20th century from smallpox. So when we are talking about a few honor killings or suicide bombings here and there, we have lost all perspective as to what is important
It’s unfortunate this topic had to take this turn. But exonerating ourselves while blaming other is absurd. It is not cultures that at fault it is humans – and the more deadly the weapons the greater the destruction. Americans are as human as the best and we have the most deadly weapons (the only country to have used nuclear bombs – and against millions of civilians). Can we please not buy into the self-righteousness and xenophobia that is rampant in the world in these discussions? Trying to get our fellow Americans to be a little more rational and fair with us when it comes to freedom of belief will go along way to making sure our idealized view of ourselves someday can become a reality.
March 31st, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
Noell,
Not enough Reconstructionists? Look what 20 or so terrorists did. Don’t underestimate people who are organized and determined.
“The significance of the Reconstructionist movement is not its numbers, but the power of its ideas and their surprisingly rapid acceptance. Many on the Christian Right are unaware that they hold Reconstructionist ideas. Because as a theology it is controversial, even among evangelicals, many who are consciously influenced by it avoid the label. This furtiveness is not, however, as significant as the potency of the ideology itself. Generally, Reconstructionism seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of “Biblical Law.” Reconstructionism would eliminate not only democracy but many of its manifestations, such as labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools.”
“Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment beyond such crimes as kidnapping, rape, and murder to include, among other things, blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality (“Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence: Part 1 — Overview and Roots,” by Frederick Clarkson, 3/94 The Public Eye).”
Notes on Reconstructionism
“A dedicated and organized movement of politicized fundamentalists is reshaping American life. They are a minority, even among American evangelicals. But they are the minority that controls the grassroots of the political party that in turn controls the country.”
Do Theocrats Matter?
Whereas, we are a minority that is not organized and not politicized, yet. My hope is that this is only a temporary situation. We can take a second to catch our breath but then we need to get to work.
March 31st, 2006 @ 10:19 pm
Hifi–My original reaction to your post, which I hadn’t gotten around to responding to, was that since we, as American citizens, aren’t doing the actual killings, we are not the danger you are implying. But now I see what you are saying: Because we are so detached we are that much more dangerous. As individuals we may be violent, but as a military power we are.
But getting back to the reconstructionists: I really don’t know anything about them. It sounds like I need to climb out of my ignorant happy place and get acquainted. You are saying that they actually DO have a voice. Will you please explain what their ties are to the Republican party? I want to know who they are and what their connection is. How do they have control of the grassroots of the Republican party?
I guess I just don’t know why anyone would give their ideas a second of consideration. It is so hard for me to fathom.
April 1st, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
Noell,
The tricky thing is that there is a continuum from the most Taliban-like of fundamentalists to your everyday little old lady. Like the article I quoted stated, most Christians aren’t conscious of the creeping Reconstructionism in their own views. Certainly, the Bush administration has flamed the fire by actively promoting the primacy of Christianity in America and inserting religion into government at every turn. They all agree that non-Christian expression and values should be more limited in every public and private area of life. Their secret weapons are voter apathy and the ability to manipulate the majority Christians on social issues. The big business people in Bush’s coalition love this ability to control “the rubes” in supporting neo-con economic and foreign policy.
Perhaps the list of folks at the War on Christianity/Value Voters conference would make a good starting place. The list of organizations they keep creating and funding grows so fast it is hard to keep up with.
“Those scheduled to appear at the press conference include Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum; former presidential contender Alan Keyes, now with the Declaration Foundation; Rick Scarborough of Vision America; Manny Miranda of the Third Branch Conference; Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America; Lou Sheldon of Traditional Values Coalition; Rabbi Aryeh Spero of Caucus for America; Janet Folger of Faith2Action.
Other links:
From Mother Jones end of last year A Nation Under God (I hope you appreciate the importance of the title to our other topic on the Pledge.)
“Reconstruction is the spark plug behind much of the battle over religion in politics today. The movement’s founder, theologian Rousas John Rushdoony, claimed 20 million followers—a number that includes many who embrace the Reconstruction tenets without having joined any organization. Card-carrying Reconstructionists are few, but their influence is magnified by their leadership in Christian right crusades, from abortion to homeschooling.
Reconstructionists aren’t shy about what exactly it is they are pursuing: “The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise,†Gary North, a top Reconstruction theorist wrote. “Those who refuse to submit publicly…must be denied citizenship.â€
The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party
“With the apathy that exists today, a small, well-organized minority can influence the selection of candidates to an astonishing degree. (Pat Robertson, The Millennium, 1990
In 2004, forty-eight out of fifty-one Republican Senators voted with [Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition 100% of the time.”
How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State
April 3rd, 2006 @ 4:55 pm
More on America’s brand of violence. We do it for fun and $$$…
“Terrorists “need to get creamed, and it’s fun, meaning satisfying, to do the shooting of such folk.”
Gee, if you put it that way, I guess we’re not so bad. Even if we shoot, say, patriots – who oppose an occupying army in their country – instead of terrorists.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0403-02.htm
Private military company Blackwater USA mostly trains military and police personnel and provides security for government and private clients, including the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. But this week at a conference in Jordan, Blackwater announced it was ready to shift from security to combat, becoming an army for hire. “We’re low-cost and fast,” said Cofer Black, Blackwater’s vice chairm
an. “The issue is, who’s going to let us play on their team?” Blackwater faced criticism after deploying hundreds of its mercenaries for general law enforcement in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, under a contract from the Department of Homeland Security. Additionally, Blackwater’s President Gary Jackson wrote on March 7, 2005, that terrorists “need to get creamed, and it’s fun, meaning satisfying, to do the shooting of such folk.”
But to get back to the point of this topic, people can be violence, yes, but let’s not let one human being use religion as the justification.
April 4th, 2006 @ 4:50 am
Hifi-that is really disgusting, isn’t it? I am curious to see if this will hit mainstream news. Let’s watch for it.
April 6th, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
I have been watching this discussion with great interest. In the end, I ask myself just what source of guidance does the average person on the street have to enable them to effectively make moral/ethical/virtuous decisions regarding the majority of topics you have presented? I never see a developed alternative to the religions and their followers that are being villified. Does there even need to be an alternative or is it enough to simply concentrate on learning to see objective realities and be very prickly when any individual freedom is compromised?
April 7th, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
Gregg100-among the million other topics I intend on blogging, one has to do with the topic that moral decisions should be based on whether or not they contribute unnecessarily to pain.
I also agreed with your way of looking at the polygamy question (from the Big Love post). For example, Hifi described “utopian” societies of “free love” where no one is actually allowed to fall in love. While I have seen documentaries on those types of groups, I have not done extensive research myself.
I do remember seeing an interview of a man who was born and raised in that type of a group. He talked about his childhood/innocence lost. He talked about confusion. Depression. He felt that as a child growing up in such a lifestyle, his natural sexuality was damaged.
Of course, this is anecdotal and only one example. It would seem to me that however liberating the adults feel, I would have to think it very confusing and unhealthy for a child to be reaised that way.
Like you, I agree that it would be wise to use scientific tools to find what might be the results of these other lifestyles.
But I’ve gone off the topic of this particular post. To return to your question, humans should use their empathy when making moral decisions. Will my particular action cause someone else pain and suffering? If people were to always do what I am about to do, would it increase happiness in the world, or suffering?