"Violent Extremism"

[jake431]

This topic raises too many connected subjects to go into.

Let me just add that Religions are not a bad thing. People manipulate words and people to use for their own means.

Peoples weakness to greed and power sometimes take a strong hold and they do things in the names of religions or countries.

If we make individuals responsible for their actions, and not let them hide behind "following orders" or "God told me to" there would be a lot less abuse within government, business, religion and families.

Religion serve an important part to many people.
Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I think the problem is that in this war against violent extremism, our President's rhetoric and the "violent extremists" rhetoric is very similar - when our President says God told him to act, and he doesn't have facts but faith that he is doing the "right" thing; and uses these beliefs as part of a reason to send our armed forces in to commit violence against others of different beliefs (all of this in a country that was founded on a notion that politics should not be part of our politcal life), it's not very different from a Muslim terrorist obeying the will of God and commiting violence.

To me that is interesting, and frankly worrying.

-Jake

 

[Joseph Casazza]

Yes, that is our fault, for allowing ourselves to be bamboozled by a politician's feigned piety, stubborn wrong-headedness masquerading as resolve, or cynical lies, or some combination of these - take your pick - instead of hashing out the advantages and disadvantages of particular actions as a liberal democracy should. We might have found ourselves in the same place in the end, but we would have gotten there with a clear head, and not feeling like a drunk waking up in a strange bed the morning after.

That was the victory of civil rights legislation in the 1960's. It took committed and visionary leadership, but it also took the general sense among ordinary people that fairness and the ideals we claimed as Americans required that we make sure all citizens are equal at the polls and before the law. Obviously, not everyone agreed. We still do not have thought police. But the current crop of politicos wants to take the shortcut around building consensus, and so need to stifle as much dissent as possible. The appearance of consensus, the appearance of leadership, tha appearance of resolve, is more important than the real thing now. So they tell us we shouldn't be arguing pros and cons of action, as that exhibits weakness to our enemies, when, in fact, it is the false appearance of single-mindedness that is our real weakness.

 

[Feraud]

I think the problem is that in this war against violent extremism, our President's rhetoric and the "violent extremists" rhetoric is very similar - when our President says God told him to act, and he doesn't have facts but faith that he is doing the "right" thing; and uses these beliefs as part of a reason to send our armed forces in to commit violence against others of different beliefs (all of this in a country that was founded on a notion that politics should not be part of our politcal life), it's not very different from a Muslim terrorist obeying the will of God and commiting violence.

To me that is interesting, and frankly worrying.

-Jake

Points well taken Jake. Historically speaking, using rhetoric, God, values, preservation of civilization, etc. has always been the way for leaders to solidify opinions regarding war and expansionism. No citizen fights a war in an unknown country without reason.

As an aside. I am almost finished with a book called Flyboys, by James Bradley. I highly recommend this read. Bradley tells the story of American pilots shot down, captured, and executed in the Pacific theatre towards the end of WWII. George Bush, Sr. was a pilot shot down over Chichi Jima but luckily was rescued. The sad fate of those captured is finally told in the book.
Bradley appears to me to be as neutral a storyteller as can be. The tales of rhetoric, secrecy, and Nationalism(from every nation's viewpoint) is honest and informative.
The chapter regarding the atomic bomb and its real outcome of the war was new to me and very interesting.

 

[jake431]

Flyboys...

Points well taken Jake. Historically speaking, using rhetoric, God, values, preservation of civilization, etc. has always been the way for leaders to solidify opinions regarding war and expansionism. No citizen fights a war in an unknown country without reason.

As an aside. I am almost finished with a book called Flyboys, by James Bradley. I highly recommend this read. Bradley tells the story of American pilots shot down, captured, and executed in the Pacific theatre towards the end of WWII. George Bush, Sr. was a pilot shot down over Chichi Jima but luckily was rescued. The sad fate of those captured is finally told in the book.
Bradley appears to me to be as neutral a storyteller as can be. The tales of rhetoric, secrecy, and Nationalism(from every nation's viewpoint) is honest and informative.
The chapter regarding the atomic bomb and its real outcome of the war was new to me and very interesting.

Flyboys is controversial from a historical point of view. Check this review out:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/flyboys.htm

-Jake

 

[Feraud]

Thanks for the link Jake431!
The technical inconsistencies are unacceptable for a historical book. I usually prefer historical books with copious footnotes. I think this tends to keep the facts in line. I have heard from others who take issue with Bradley's analogies and his putting historical events into a greater context. That is a tough call, as each person views historical events within their particular viewpoint.
It is hard to write history. While it should be objective, authors are frequently subjective.

 

[jamespowers]

Yes, that is our fault, for allowing ourselves to be bamboozled by a politician's feigned piety, stubborn wrong-headedness masquerading as resolve, or cynical lies, or some combination of these - take your pick - instead of hashing out the advantages and disadvantages of particular actions as a liberal democracy should.

Point of order here. We live in a Democratic Republic. We are not a liberal democracy---thank God. I don't think Ben Fanklin would be too happy with the US being described that way. He simply said we were a Republic--if we could keep it.

Regards to all,

J

 

[jake431]

Point of order here. We live in a Democratic Republic. We are not a liberal democracy---thank God. I don't think Ben Fanklin would be too happy with the US being described that way. He simply said we were a Republic--if we could keep it.

Regards to all,

J

Franklin also wouldn't be too happy about Religion and politics blending.

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
[Ben Franklin, _Poor Richard's Almanac_, 1754 (Works, Volume XIII)]

-Jake

 

[jamespowers]

Franklin also wouldn't be too happy about Religion and politics blending.

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
[Ben Franklin, _Poor Richard's Almanac_, 1754 (Works, Volume XIII)]

Yeah I suppose Franklin was as immoral as they could get for a founding father. He would likely say that. His son hated him nearly to the end.


Regards to all,

J

 

[Joseph Casazza]

"Democratic republic" is fine. The point of the original sentence is the same, we need to hash out the advantages and disadvantages of particular actions as a democratic republic should. A liberal democracy is merely a democracy of or suitable for free men and women, a more general, less precise term, granted.

 

[jake431]

Yeah I suppose Franklin was as immoral as they could get for a founding father. He would likely say that. His son hated him nearly to the end.


Regards to all,

J

How about these guys?

"...difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a common censor over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
[Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on the State of Virginia [1781-1785]"]

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
[James Madison, 1803]

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."
[John Adams]


Surely not all of them are immoral. My point - the founding fathers were not establishing a religious nation. They Established a democratic one. And Franklin's son hated him because he fought with the American "rebels" - his son was a Tory who moved to Britain after the Revolution.

-Jake

 

[android]

Well, while we're discussing what our founding fathers really thought, we shouldn't leave out George either....

I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country.
-- George Washington

If you read the books, it is very clear that they had no intention of promoting or prohibiting any religion and that government should be neutral with respect to any religion.

 

[jamespowers]

All of those quotes are speaking to the establishment of a national religion as was the case in England at the time. That was and is perfectly fine. It simply says that there is a freedom of religion---not freedom from religion. This is elementary. Android is quite correct in his last sentence.
We have to remember that some of those founding fathers were in fact Deists not Christians. There is is difference. I am sure some of them had problems with Christianity for sure---or any organized religion for that matter.
I see you want to discount the fact that Franklin was married when he had his dalliances over in France. I think his son had more grievances with him than Politics. Perhaps his mother's treatment might have been one of them.
Lastly, let me remind you that we are a Representative Republic. I am sure you really do not want to exist in a pure Democracy where two wolves and one sheep vote on who is for dinner.

Regards to all,

J

 

[android]

I am sure you really do not want to exist in a pure Democracy where two wolves and one sheep vote on who is for dinner.
J

The problem is that now two wolves with a few million dollars, some lobbyists and a PAC can get the congress to legislate that the flock of 3000 sheep will be dinner.

 

[jamespowers]

The problem is that now two wolves with a few million dollars, some lobbyists and a PAC can get the congress to legislate that the flock of 3000 sheep will be dinner.

Then the sheep will sue and keep them so embroiled in a lawsuit that the wolves will starve before they see one sheep for dinner. The court system to the rescue---some of the time.

Regards to all,

J

 

[Biltmore Bob]

James...

It's me and you against the world...

 

[Thomas Walden]

It's me and you against the world...

I hope you are joking.

 

[Biltmore Bob]

Not at all sir...

While I respect everyone's opinion and views, I tend to share J's opinions and views on several issues. He appears to be rather conservative, and guess what? So am I. With the exception of a couple of other members I find most of the members to be rather liberal in their views.

 

[Joseph Casazza]

I am certainly liberal, in the sense that I hold opinions suitable for a free citizen, and do not see things through the eyes of slave, of a serf, or of a blind follower of any sect or political party, but feel obliged to think things through for myself, discover what information I can, and arrive at my own best approximation of truth. I also happen to be registered as a Republican in my state, and, until recently (well, certainly until Barry Goldwater's disastrous campaign of 1964), that meant holding as a political position several ideas about responsibility with public funds, invovlement in the affairs of foreign nations, and the nature of duties and responsibilities of the citizen and of the government, which seem to have been forgotten by the current crop of so-called neo-conservatives and religious conservatives who control that party now. Since I long for the good old days of the Republican Party, I suppose I am a conservative as well! Ah, the world is far more complex than such simplistic dichotomies will allow!

 

[Biltmore Bob]

There is no such thing as...

an approximation of the truth. If you think there is you subscribe to moral relativism and situational ethics.

 

[jake431]

an approximation of the truth. If you think there is you subscribe to moral relativism and situational ethics.

I think he means he is capable of arriving at his own conclusions.

-Jake