Rallying for Peace
I've written recently about concerned Pakistanis and Pakistani-Americans who are attempting to reclaim that country's future. One such group of progressives intend to rally at City Hall's South Lawn (200 N. Spring Street) on Saturday, May 30, at noon.
Their stated goals: to stop the Taliban movement in Pakistan; to embrace tolerance and acceptance for all there; to promote education and stability; and to denounce extremism in the name of Islam. You can write to the organizers at PeaceForPakistanRally@gmail.com.
I know there are cynics out there about who doubt that there is much compatibility between Muslims and the West. The quick case I'd make is this:
1. Human beings tend to play identity politics. When things go bad in our lives or our community, we do so with even more enthusiasm (as Eric Hoffer noted, the less we can claim excellence for ourselves, the more we claim ALL excellence for our tribe or religion or sports team. Because of problems in the Middle East and South Asia, we've seen identity politics there shift from love of country, within failing countries, to love of religion (where extremists can at least claim some hope of recreating a golden age that once existed).
2. If the West and the Muslim world were so inherently at odds, why was talk of a civilizational war so muted in the childhood of anyone over the age 30? Presidents from FDR to Reagan to the Bushes eagerly lined up to do business with Muslims in the Middle East, never worrying about incompatibility. The notion of a "civilizational war" is a recent development, a rallying cry for Mideast extremists and American talk-radio hawks who find it to be a wonderful ploy for maximizing their influence.
3. Identity politics depends on region and social conditions. Muslims act differently in Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation, than in Saudi Arabia, or in Orange County.
4. Being cynical about or combative against Islam only feeds into a dangerous polarization of societies. If people in the West condemn Islam as a whole, then progressive Muslims in Pakistan and elsewhere, who are plentiful if a bit quiet, will by the reality of identity politics feel polarized into the very camp that we in the West want them to stay out of. Finger-pointing against poorly understood neighboring religions may make some Westerners feel superior, but it's not good form or good strategy.
The "civilizational war" (and I had not heard that term before) only popped up after 9/11, no? Presidents from Bush backward lined up to do business because nobody from that religion had declared a holy war (at least very loudly) against the West. That sort of changed on 9/11.
Nevertheless, I think overall most people in this country are not Islam-haters (there are always the rabid few "haters" in general) and welcome opportunities to get along. I'm talking about a personal level, like the people you know and work with and ride the bus with. :)
The rub seems to be in the perception that perhaps Islam as a whole actually does seek the destruction of the West. Which is sort of interesting -- a perception that a religion seeks the destruction of a culture (as opposed to another religion, etc.) What do you think about that perception?
I think you will find that the so-called holy books of all the self proclaimed "Ultimate Truths" have as their end and even gleefully anticipated (by many) goal, the utter and total destruction of Humanity. The promised exception of course, will be those they magically claim will be swept up to some cosmic never-ending Disneyland, where the believer will transcend the finality of death in bliss and the unbeliever will experience as a never ending torture in a lake of fire, that will probably be worse than a never-ending episode of a Barney the Dinosaur show, or even a Kathie Lee Gifford marathon.
I think it is well past time for Humanity to carry such rubbish as baggage into an era where we have now the technology to make the first part of the above promise occur. As to the second part (the promised eternal redemption), just more rubbish to sucker in more rubes. Dump religion now before (if we are very lucky) it is too late.
>>The rub seems to be in the perception that perhaps Islam as a whole actually does seek the destruction of the West. Which is sort of interesting -- a perception that a religion seeks the destruction of a culture (as opposed to another religion, etc.) What do you think about that perception?
I think it's a perception mainly among Western hawks who are disregarding the bulk of East-West relations over the past 1,400 years and focusing on the words and actions of a small minority. Such exaggeration of threats serves the purposes of hawks of both sides -- by making themselves seem indispensable in fighting an intractable menace.
By contrast, beyond the angry political hornets' nests of the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent, you have relatively boring tolerance in a place that has a mix of Muslims and Christians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Kazakhstan
If Wikipedia is to be believed (and I think in most cases it is, don't you?) ... this is a good example of what you are talking about.
David, you were not born in a vacuum. There is much in this world to consider, and the greatest minds of humanity, throughout the centuries of recorded existence, have pondered the existence of a higher power. A "something" that is not "us." Ultimate truth, love and beauty. They have not agreed, historically, on what that is, although they all point the same direction.
So it is truly laughable that you think YOU are superior to all those minds, that you have greater insight than Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, etc. You are the one who is intellectually empty here. You can see no further than the tip of your nose, and you are unaccountably proud of yourself for that. It's a mystery.
Diane - If and until you can produce irrefutable proof that your god/gods exist, there is nothing to be gained by listing all the "great minds" throughout history that were also incapable of performing that task. That you would stoop to such a valueless ploy to some how pull the wool over every one's eyes is only indicative of how shallow and baseless your intellectual perceptions are and that in the face of not being able to offer such proofs, you resort to trying to denigrate and belittle, through smoke and mirrors, anyone who offers a rational alternative to those of your supposed higher authorities. They may have been inquisitive, but they hardly grasped what was right in front of them, that god concepts could be and probably were rubbish.
David, we have danced around this circle before. The rational alternative to God is no-God, and you cannot, as you have eloquently stated, prove that either. However, LOOK around you, David. The complexities of this world, down to the tiniest atom, scream for explanation via a Creator. The FACT is, the mathematical possibility of this all happening by chance is so astronomical as to be impossible. The MORE rational explanation is a designer. Good grief, David, even your buddy Dawkins thinks we came from SOMEONE -- although I think his deal was space aliens.
I believe I attempted to explain in detail why you cannot ask someone to prove a negative assumption because it is not possible to prove under any circumstances, be it about gods or trying to disprove the existence of a three foot thick layer of French brie covering the third planet in the Alpha Proxima star system, which you could not do for the same reason it is dishonest to ask someone to prove a god does not exist. I went to great effort to explain it to you, but obviously you are just too stupid to get it, as most who read this forum clearly can see. Why don't you just quit while you're behind, it is only becoming more pathetic the longer you carry on.
Diane, how do you feel about a "third way"? "God or no-God" implies here the Biblical Yahweh or atheism. What if you are right that there is a creative force behind the cosmos but the pantheists too are right, and that the Universe is a living organism that we are a part of? What if the Taoists are right, that The Way of Heaven guides things? Can you live with that? Or would you then proceed to hammer them just as hard as you hammer David for not believing in your concept of God....? History indicates that's exactly what happens, and that is the reason many people get tired of the God subject....
Instead of subscribing to any fanciful creations of the imagination to formulate a spurious reality, what is wrong with stating, "I DON'T KNOW......YET"? Is it not the honest answer, or is having an obvious false answer to cling to like a child's security blanket worth all the hatred and suffering such beliefs have caused throughout our history?
David, I have never called you stupid, as you insist on doing, but I am beginning to wonder if you are just a tad mentally challenged. Or perhaps you're just not reading what I wrote. I am aware that one cannot prove a negative; in another post I stated exactly that. My point is... follow this carefully, David, I want you to get it this time: You stomp your foot like a child and want someone to PROVE God is real before you will even consider such a notion. When presented with rational reasons why there might be such a Being, you reject them because they don't "prove it irrefutably." YET-- YOUR religion -- atheism -- also cannot be proven. THAT WAS MY POINT. Do you get it now? Geez!
By the way, if you honestly were willing to seek those answers you think are so elusive... I would suggest reading Thomas Aquinas. It's pretty heavy stuff though.
And Rob. What do you mean by, can I live with a "third way"? It's not a matter of what I can live with. I wasn't arguing for the supremacy of Jesus Christ, in this particular post, although you know that's what I believe. My point was, you either see a Creator or you do not. The great thinkers of most great civilizations -- perhaps all, come to think of it -- have believed there is SOMETHING other than US. A cause, perhaps. Whatever you want to call it. So, yeah, bring on the pantheists too, in this case. They at least acknowledge what David's religion of atheism will not allow him to acknowledge. He, sadly, thinks that WE are all there is.
Diane - Atheism is a religion? Atheism is the total repudiation of religion in any of its mindless, unprovable forms. That you have to have some kind of made up deity to give meaning to what I'm sure is otherwise a fairly meaningless life, would probably weigh on you heavily if you had to face reality without that particular crutch. As to proving there is no god, easy, just produce it and prove me wrong. If it is real, then what's your problem? Just shove it in my face so that I will have no doubt it exists, and you win. The burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders as, you are making a positive assertion, (again you fail basic logic). Atheism just asserts that in light of the fact that there is not now, nor has there ever been the tiniest shred of proof that a god exists or has ever existed, that to base one's existence on a creature with that little credence would not only be statistically foolish, but incredibly stupid. Perhaps that is the basis for my low opinion of what you spew and why it lends itself to the term "stupid".
Thomas Aquinas as a source for your attempt to sell the god lie is no more reliable than any of the other names you listed several comments ago, who also were NEVER able to prove the existence of a god, any god.
Again and again you ignore the obvious. There is such an incredible amount of proof for a "God" that most everyone throughout history, and in present times, thinks there is something--other than "just us."
And yes, atheism is a religion. Religion is a system of beliefs by which one orders one's life; beliefs regarding the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. Atheism is YOUR religion, David, and you can't "prove" it's right. There is far less evidence that "man is all there is" than there is evidence to the contrary. Just because you refuse to see it, doesn't mean it's not there. Again, head-in-the-sand is really no way to go through life.
Your "obvious" is little more than your acceptance of the accumulated myths and superstitions of your less than intellectually developed ancestors, who like you, in lieu of having the actual answers, or were too proud, or too arrogant to admit they "DID NOT KNOW....YET!" concocted fairy-tales to give meaning to their place in the world. Unlike you, who are here to fulfill some god/Human Hybrid invention's made-up role, while leading Humanity to that god's ultimate goal (our destruction in some "end time"), we who have repudiated such rubbish, have accepted that our role, as the first sentient species to evolve on Earth) is to ask the question "Why?".
Atheism, which has no dogma, ritual, spirituality, deities or sacred texts, can hardly be considered a religion in any stretch of the imagination by anyone capable of reasoned thought. In as much as you Christers think that what you believe is somehow not a religion, but some personal relationship with your made-up god, you have a vested interest in lumping Atheists in with all the other groups you consider heathens not worthy of your silly god's love. That will not work no matter how much you continue to push that fallacy and any intrusion you attempt to make in an effort to further the narrow precepts of such beliefs on those who want no part of them will be resisted vigorously.
As far as going through life with one's head in the sand, I would challenge that peculiar notion when applied to those of us who face reality head-on in an open and inquisitive manner, knowing that we are still in our infancy of understanding the universe, before facing reality in your manner where the major answers to fundamental questions have all been laid out for you in a book written thousands of years ago by men who thought the world was flat and that disease was caused by demons. I refuse to see your reality, because you, and anyone else who has tried, have failed to give it any credence in fact or demonstratable proof. Until such time as you can do this, keep you superstitious beliefs to yourself where they cannot harm the rest of society or lead us to your silly religion's final goal.
I am under no compulsion to keep my beliefs to myself any more than you are, David.
I gave you a dictionary definition of "religion," and by that definition, both Christians and atheists indeed do embrace a religion. Actually, everyone does. It's just another way of saying "worldview." Your worldview/religious outlook determines the filter by which you view the universe, relationships, etc. You have one as sure as anyone else, David, despite your attempts to pretend that you are somehow "above" that.
The very fact that you consider previous generations to be "less than intellectually developed" does show some degree of ignorance on your part. Just because they didn't have computer did not mean they had less intellect; evidence would seem to the contrary, in fact.
Diane - That our ancestors thought the Earth was the center of the universe, considered disease demon caused, or a result of "sin", that they made their unclean women stay apart in menstrual shacks, practiced universal blood letting (only valid in treatment of Polycythemia), thought bathing unhealthy, treated their women as chattel property, burned, hung or had mostly women drawn and quartered as witches, beheaded blasphemers, used rape as genetic dispersal program and who in their infinite wisdom killed the cats in plague ridden Europe because they were the mediums of witches who were spreading the disease (actually it was the fleas on the rats that the cats could no longer kill) which resulted in 50 million horrible deaths, only shows that your (and my) ancestors, who invented your god and all the trappings, were "less than intellectually developed".