Religious Tolerance (or not)

[anarchist 10]

SemperParatus- good web site but it comes nowhere near the objective or subjective truth of world history... all of the old testament wars were religious, some examples are not even part of wars...the arabization of the middle east, southern Europe and Africa, spanish inquistion, etc. even in most of the wars noted, religion played a large part in demonizing the 'other' side. But that was not the real point...religion is a very dangerous topic and needs to be handled with lots and lots of tempered 'turning the other cheek' type toerance around the old campfire.

God willing.

 

[Trevorum 24]

anarchist, with due respect I disagree with your thesis. I strongly suspect that nearly all inter-cultural wars have been fundamentally about economic issues (land, resources, etc.). Religion has been invoked to be sure, but generally as an ex post facto rationale for conquest. This is not to say that religion isn't explosive. It is. But that is precisely why it us used as an excuse for war - it gets the population fired up so quickly.

[scoutingagain 20]

"But that is precisely why it us used as an excuse for war - it gets the population fired up so quickly. "

 

I kind of agree with Trevorum here. It's kind of like saying, "Hey there are terrorists in that country and they have nuclear and biological weapons. We need to get them before they get us!" As opposed to "Hey that country has a lot of oil and it would sure be neat if they had a government willing to sell it to us cheap instead of doing business with those French guys. Lets invade and take over the government."

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

SA

 

[Rooster7 11]

How many tens of millions died because of Stalin and other godless dictators?

[packsaddle 753]

I think the big difference between someone like Stalin and any counterpart with religious ties is that although both may cause huge quantities of death and suffering out of intolerance for different views, only one of them was supposed to be better than that. Stalin, in his way, was at least more honest and predictable in his intentions. He was what he obviously was.

 

Scoutingagain, good one. Similarly, while Saddam tended to be everything we expected him to be, another leader who was supposed to represent virtue lied...and as a result tens of thousands are dead. And when Saddam was dug out of his hole, HE was the one who spoke the truth while the other insisted on his lie. Another delicious irony for the collection.

[firstpusk 10]

Pack, you hit the nail on the head. Religious motivations are supposed to flow from charity. If we have to compare our actions to Saddam or Stalin in order to feel good about ourselves, more than a little reflection is in order.

[Rooster7 11]

If you want to make the argument that some folks have used religion for their own purposes, you will get no argument out of me. I fully agree that many have perverted their faith, including some folks whove claimed the Christian faith. However, Stalins atrocities should not be separated from this discussion. He, and many like him, killed without conscience because they had no faith and/or hated those that did. There is a profound correlation. You cant claim religion (i.e., faith in God) is to blame for x millions of deaths, without recognizing the fact that godless agendas were the cause of 10x millions of deaths. Many, many, more have died at the hands of those who wanted to purge God from society than those who had perverted their faith in God. Regardless, and I feel this to be especially true for Christianity, those who have corrupted their faith (to justify their own purposes) are to be blamed, not a faith in God.

[Rooster7 11]

Pack,

 

Sometimes Im a little slow. Or, perhaps, sometimes I simply refuse to believe what some of my countrymen will allow themselves to believe. What exactly are you attempting to say about our President? Or, did I miss your meaning again? It sounds to me as if youre saying that you would prefer a leader such as Saddam Hussein over President Bush? Please tell me thats not what you meant.

 

[packsaddle 753]

Rooster7, you ask if I would prefer Saddam. Come on, do you really think I could possibly have such a preference? For the record this is a no-brainer...Heck no! I also wouldn't prefer, if you are curious, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Amin, Kim Jong Il (nor for that matter, his brother Menta Lee Il), Khomeini, the Pope, or Jerry Falwell. Moreover, because it seems necessary to so state, failure to list other persons does not constitute my endorsement of them.

I knew Saddam to be what he is from the beginning long ago. He was, if anything, consistently and predictably bad. However, I expect much better from a president. So my statement is one of terrible disappointment. I guess I should have expected Bush to be deceptive after the attempt to conceal his drunk driving. At least Cheney made no such attempt to conceal his. But Bush came into office with a virtuous act. He said things that I decided that I had to believe because I thought he had incontrovertible evidence that, for security reasons, could not be shared with the country. It was a lie. It was a betrayal of my trust and more. It was an act and I fell for it. Later, when Saddam was dragged out of his hole speaking what we now know to be the truth, I saw the delicious irony. Sad maybe, especially for thousands of families destroyed as a result, but delicious at least in its clarity.

[firstpusk 10]

Pack,

 

Your initial post was quite clear and further explanation was not required. For showing such charity you are to be commended.

 

Rooster,

 

You shoudl apologize either for misunderstanding or for twisting Pack's words. Your choice. Personally, I would lay odds against a sincere apology. Make my day and prove me wrong.

[packsaddle 753]

firstpusk, thanks for the good words. There is no need for any apology. Rooster7 and I are fairly sporting in our exchanges and I know the score. In my field the skin I have developed is very thick so exchanges I have with other posters leave no hurt feelings on my part.

The thing that brings me to anger more quickly than anything else is anything that brings harm to a child. And in those cases I am as offensive as I can be. Probably not the best way to be but at least I know this about myself.

But thanks anyway.

[Rooster7 11]

No, I didnt actually believe that he could possibly want Saddam Hussein over Bush as a leader. Yet, upon reading his original post, his statements do make that very clear. Even in his second post, he offers no thoughts to suggest that Bush is much better. To say the least, he hardly seems embarrassed to make a comparison between the two.

 

Pack,

 

It appears to me that we are on opposite ends. From my recollections, there was no attempt by Bush to hide his driving record. It is my perception that he ran an honest campaign. Furthermore, while he and others may in deed have been wrong about Husseins potential to have and/or build WMDs, I do not feel he intentional miss led us. In fact, as I remember his speeches, he never stated that WMDs was the sole reason, or even the most compelling reason, for invading Iraq.

 

No matter, it appears that you and others on the left have a strong distrust for the President. Certainly, I must say, I had very similar feelings about Clinton when he was in power. I cant say I like him much better today. Now, I know, there many who will say this is all about politics which Bush and Clinton are simply the victims and/or victors of their partys struggle for national power. To some degree, I too believe this to be true.

 

However, at a basic level, I also believe that the ideology purported by the conservative movement has our countrys best interest at heart. Furthermore, I believe that Bush is a true patriot that loves his country only second to his family and God. One of us is obviously wrong. It is not outside of the realm of reason that I could be that person. I am capable of being deceived just like anyone else. But, as I study the world today, and examine those who claim to serve us, my intellect and my heart tells me otherwise. So I guess we will continue to disagree.

 

Perhaps 50 years from now, well both be in the same place laughing at our misconceptions. Frankly, for my part, I hope that Bush is not one of them. I like him. I think hes the man that he presents himself to be. In regard to who is leading us, I sleep well at night. I hope one day you will come to the same conclusion. If not, Ill see you in 50 years and we can discuss it then.

 

[Rooster7 11]

Second sentence in the post above, shoud have read:

 

Yet, upon reading his original post, his statements do not make that very clear.

 

[packsaddle 753]

50 years? Oh I doubt it will take nearly that long for me...especially with my tendency to **** people off. Anyway, you must remember, even after the drunk driving thing, I gave Bush my trust (although I regret my gullibility). I do understand the 'silent denial' aspect of the first campaign. Because of my personal interaction with drunk drivers I am especially sensitive to the topic...you'll have to forgive that.

The lie of which I write is constituted in his words (and statements by others in his admin) that regarding WMD, there was "NO DOUBT". That statement is unequivocal, absolute. I understand that an expression of doubt would have weakened his argument for the invasion. That merely explains why he said it - he might not have gotten the necessary support to get his way. And now we know that his own security researchers had indeed expressed significant doubt...prior to the statements. And when he said there was no doubt he knew it was not true. That was the lie that caused me to trust his decision, possibly many other Americans as well. And as a result, good men and women were placed in harm's way. His monumental incompetence and ignorance are less significant to me than the fact that he intentionally misled (lied) in order to get his way.

Clinton and Saddam are history as leaders. One of them lied but death and destruction didn't result. The other one was a tyrant with no regard for life as he took many thousands of them. They are both finished however. At this time Bush is not finished and through his lie, he continues to put good men and women in harm's way. And those good men and women are still dying. I care about that.

So no matter what spin (read deception) anyone wants to apply after the fact to rationalize our invasion of Iraq, the resulting woven tangled web will not obscure the record. And that record is clear regarding the reasons for invading that country. WMD was a primary reason. It was a threat to us and other countries. There was "no doubt". It was, however, a very costly lie.

[Rooster7 11]

Pack,

 

Id like to see the quotes from Bush, which you feel leave no room for doubt that he lied about WMDs being in Iraq. Regardless, I do not feel he intentionally lied or misled the American public. Call me naive if it pleases you. But if he gave out bad information, Im convinced that an intelligence failure was the root cause, not a desire to manipulate anyone. Furthermore, it still cannot be said with certainty that those WMDs were not in Iraq prior to the invasion or even that theyre not there now. How difficult would be to hide canisters of chemical or biological weapons? Or, perhaps they simply moved them to Syria. We know in the previous decade that he had the capability to kill thousands of his own people. That makes two things very clear 1) Hussein has no conscience and we should not doubt his willingness to do any evil or help others do the same, and 2) even if Iraq no longer had WMDs, Saddam knew how to obtain them. No matter what bad information may have been passed along (if so, I believe it was inadvertent), we do know Husseins nature and the brutality of his regime. America was criticized long and hard for not getting involved in World War II sooner. And when we did get involved, millions of American groaned about U.S. interest not being served. Bush would have been criticized no matter what course he decided upon.

 

In my mind, invading Iraq and installing a democracy, was and is the right thing to do. If there is ever going to be world peace or something even close, that region needs to be stabilized with freedom loving moderates. 9-11 wasn't an aberration. It was just their biggest success. Allowing radical Muslims the opportunity to fester in country's like Iraq will give them the time and the resources to have even bigger successes. From the stories Ive heard, via the soldiers, the vast majority of the Iraqi people are happy that we (the U.S.) are there. While I feel anguish over the death of each U.S. soldier and innocent Iraqi, I also understand the bigger picture. We have to get this one right, because if we ignore it if we put off what needs to be done today, there will be no turning back the hands of time to stuff the genie back in the bottle. I dont want to wait for a nuke to go off in NY or DC before we decide its time to do something. And apparently, neither does the current administration. And by the results of the election, Id say at least half the nation feels the same way. Thats my take on this.