a little more politics a little more philosophy

Tainancowboy wrote - bob wrote:
I think it has to be admitted though that western religions tend to breed rather a lot of intolerance. I think it stems from the fact that their adherants believe that they have recieved the very word of God. This leads to absolutist attitudes in areas of life where perhaps a greater degree of flexibility would be preferable. That is what I meant when I said that aetheism appears to be almost a requirement for ethical conduct.
Bob -
Interesting points.
I think that the "..Western religions tend to breed rather a lot of intolerance." is very debateable. I would question this in regards to the fundamental Christian teachings of acceptance, love and forgiveness for fellow man.
How would you compare the precepts of Christianity in rregards to "tolerance" to the tenets of Islam?

And, in regards to "absolutist attitudes", do you opine that this view is one that leads to the justification and acceptance of the moral position known as "conditional morality" ? Do you think that conditional morality provides a firmer base for establishing the guidelines for 'ethical conduct'?

A large can of questions I know.... Smile
_________________

bob wrote - Tainan it was the moral sense in us that compelled us to invent God in the first place. Ethical conduct has at its base a love of life so it is essentially based on "feelings," as ridiculous as that may sound to some people. The world can be a cold and brutal place sometimes though and a great deal of rationality is required to make of our love something substantial and life sustaining. Difficult dicisions need to be made. Wars fought. People killed. An absolutist position such as, thou shall not kill, simply doesn't hold up in the real world because there are too many people with no respect for life or for the freedom of others. I haven't enough knowledge of Islam to comment but having recently spent time in a (for the most part liberally) Islamic country I can tell you that there is "something" in it that is very attractive to me. It's adherents seem to posses a calm that is lacking in most western people. Certainly from me.

Fred wrote - Bob I am glad you had a great trip but come one, this "I found there was a peace in the people there" is just as much a bullshit generalization as those who think that all Muslims are terrorists. The problem today is not Islam, it is those who have hijacked it for political purposes much like Christian Kings no doubt did centuries ago for their own immoral purposes. The problem is that so much of the Muslim world is silent or at least was until Bush came along about these problems in the ranks.

I believe that we will stem the terrorism when we take down the regimes that support it. We have removed Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and to some extent Sudan and Somalia from the equation. Things look good in Lebanon and Palestine or at least better. The two nations doing most of the funding and supporting of terrorism are Syria and Iran and must be taken down. There are no half measures in this fight. The funding from Saudi Arabia has been substantially reduced but the poison remains. Ditto for Pakistan. We have our work cut out for us but let's not pretend that the Muslim world has not taken major steps forward in the three years that Bush and American have finally been dealing with the root cause and real problem which is not and has never been poverty but the sick political culture that once gave rise to Hitler's Germany. It is no coincidence that the Baath parties of Syria and Iraq were based on this as was Nasser's Egypt among many others. It is time to finally finish off world war II and the sick German racial-superiority theories once and for all and to do that we need to finish off the mess that masquerades as "stability" in these countries.

We must hurry though because we have to get things to the point where we are free and ready to deal with the worst and most dangerous of the two: Pakistan and Saudi Arabia

In particular, I completely agree with the danger of using the subjective motivation of the advocate as a justification for a bad policy. Sadly, like the boy who cried wolf, the author of this article claims to have discovered this dangerous thinking in every corner of liberal thought. And by dismissing those legitimate differences of opinions held by those on the left, the author makes it just that much harder for those on the right to point out the real fallacious reasoning of the left where it doesexist.
_________________

fred smith wrote - While I understand that many on the right can be equally mindless, I would suggest that many positions on the right are often based on well codifed established moral values while those of the left are often hard to pin down because of the ever shifting feelings of their adherents while finally, while there are committed leftists who genuinely do believe in their positions who actually do have some kind of intellectual capability, their reasoned positions are not able to take hold or persuade many and that is why you see the marginalization of people like Senator Joe Lieberman at the expense of people like Michael Moore and Howard Dean.


bob wrote - Back tracking a bit here but Stalin I never made it to Sulawesi. The Canadian and American travel advisories put me off that one. And Fred all I can say is that I "felt" or "noticed" in a lot of the muslims I met a sort of poise and self confidence that I wish I possesed myself. I am afraid I can't be much more specific than that. The Muslim world is an enormous mystery to me and I have to say, in my limited experience, rather a delightful mystery at that. It was quite a suprise after the impression you get of the Muslim world from the western media. What I suspect is that you are entirely correct about moderate muslims having been irresponsible in terms of controling the radicals in their societies, but I wonder if our interests might better be served enlistening their aid than in launching military operations that are sure to engender more hatred. The feeling I got from most of the muslims I met was that they were deeply ashamed of the events of the last few years.

Fred wrote - bob I think that you are confused on several points.

First, our invasion of Afghanistan was welcomed by most Afghanis and when 4 milliion refugees finally were able to return home from Pakistan and Iran where they were farming their children out and prostitutes and drug runners because they were not allowed to work PLUS they have an election which they obviously were very enthusiastic about, I think we can safely put the vast bulk of Afghan public opinion on our side.

Second, we invaded Iraq and took out Saddam. Was he much loved and therefore missed? Are we resented for removing him or for not ensuring better security? If the Iraqis fail to understand this why do none of them want us to leave? They had elections which 59% of the people participated in. They have a new constitution, a new leadership and they are now putting the blame more squarely where it belongs. On the insurgents not on the US. I found it interesting that a BBC poll (online) prior to the US election showed almost unanimous support for Bush among those Iraqis participating. Coincidence? Fluke? I don't think so.

Third, how would you know what Arab public opinion is like? Polls? Government positions? protests? demonstrations? Given that most of these are organized like the former Communist ones before it, what is the true sentiment? Does anyone really know? Given that most Egyptians are terrified of revealing their sentiments openly, how is it that a real understanding of their views can be gotten? It is like CNN going to interview Iraqi and Syrian citizens before the war about their support or opposition. Give me a f***ing break! Interviewing Iraqis and Syrians is not like taking a poll in the West and doing so shows an obvious intent to mislead or a crass lack of understanding about the real conditions in these countries. Are we all equal democracies with basic human rights? Give me a break!

Fourth, I have lived and studied in the Middle East. I am less impressed with the countenance that you have described. In fact, could it not in some countries be described as beaten down resignation to accepting things in a fatalist way because there is no hope that things will improve?

The Middle East can and will be reformed and the world will be better off because of it. Like people who help inner city children achieve their full potential, think of US actions as performing a similar mission. Given that so many on the left are so enthralled with such charity why not on a whole region. The Arab World need tough love. Europe is like the bad friend who exacerbates problems by assuring the alcoholic, the chronic job hopper, the embittered divorcee that life is not fair and that they are not in charge of their destinies and that they have a right to stew in their negative juices rather than getting on with their lives.
gree with your comments as well regarding the fact that the Left is not a monolithic entity. I believe however that rather than a universalist philosophical document, the author's main point was to get the point across that governing one's actions SOLELY or PRIMARILY by feelings is a characteristic that many on the left are governed by and that this is something that should be re-examined.

Also, as to religion, remember that just because the adherents behave in a certain way does not mean that they are acting in accordance with the true tenets of their religion. I would argue that this is certainly true of women's issues. Judaism and early Christianity gave a lot of rights to women that were taken away in later centuries.

I would also argue that in Judaism, while homosexuality was not a admired lifestyle, it was not condemned to the degree that some people might be suggesting. To some extent this is true of Christianity as well. I think that the real condemnation has come from evangelical groups. In fact, I would argue that much of the criticism about gay marriage from more traditional religious traditions is the marriage part. While I came to support gay marriage, I do recognize that those who do not have every valid reason for not doing so. If advocates of gay marriage want to be treated with respect, they should also accord that to those with strongly held religious beliefs. It is a two-way street. Both sides can be accommodated but recall, the left tried to pull a fast one in San Francisco and Boston. I wonder how they would have reacted had some other group tried to play fast and furious with the constitution and state law in such a fashion. They should have taken their time to make the case and keep pushing for it. I think their actions actually were a severe set back to their whole cause and that would be too bad.

bob wrote - Fred I made a casual comment about there being "something" about the people I met in Indonesia that appealed to me. A sense of dignity and peace perhaps. It wasn't intended to be construed as an observation of all people living in Muslim countries. And I never said that I was against what happened in Afghanistan. Iraq is a bit more complicated and regardless of the positives that may or may not come out that situation we all know what the real purpose was in Americas invasion of that country. If the oil companies that move in cut the locals a break and pay them a fair wage I think that will help to ensure future peace more than any of the other military operations the US may be cooking up.