Correct - but not many people fit that description. Many of us deplore lots of human rights abuses. If you use the defense that abusing human rights in Gaza is OK if it happens elsewhere then you do not understand human rights at all. I may be a teensy weensy bit cynical but why is it that suddenly the US is defending a group who need it in Iraq when it has been below their radar for months if not years - is it a coincidence that it is taking some of the attention away from the conflict in Gaza?
I'm sure you are spot-on Leo! The problem with Gaza is there can not be a winner there, Israel can't ignore being attacked and Hamas will never stop trying to eradicate Israel!
Until outside powers find a way to force both sides to talk - but I am not expecting that to happen in the foreseeable future
The problem is Leo, Hamas have on several occasions agreed to a cease-fire and then broken it almost immediately!
I cry out about all human rights violations Dave - but this thread is only dealing with Israel and Palestine. comparing figures is not what this is about. I can however quote you a few figures here which maybe raise doubts about our fixation with so called terrorism. 57 million - the number of people who die every year. 40% the number of those which, according to the calculations of the World Health Organization, are preventable. People who die of what are called 'poverty related preventable diseases'. According to UNFPA 'an estimated 60% of the global burden of disease from acute repiratory infection, 90% from diarrhoeal disease, 50% from chronic respiratory conditions, and 90% from malaria could be avoided by simple environmental interventions`. The problem is not ignorance but rather lack of investment. The 2001 commission on macroeconomics and health report from the WHO calculated that an increase of 27 Billion dollars per annum ( 25 dollars per citizen in the 'developed World') would directly save 8 million lives per year. American military spending last year 600 + Billion ! To save or not to save that is the question - 'preventable' means choice - to prevent or not to prevent: the deaths do no have to occur ; the choice is to let them. Another statistic - average share of GNP in the Worlds' richest nations given to aid 0.33%. At the same time the World bank has made privatization of water supplies a condition before many African countries receive foreign loans - consequence, families in Mauritania spend 20% of their meagre income on water. In June 2002 at the last formal preparatory negotiations before the Johannesburg Earth summit the US blocked plans designed to halve the number of people without effective sanitation in Africa - a situation that causes a child to die every 10 seconds from water borne disease. And at the end I ask - who are the real terrorists in this World ? People who plant bombs or people who could prevent death but choose not to with such devastating consequences. Remember - the US budget on weapons is enough to prevent nearly all poverty related diseases in the World, in effect to save roughly 20 million lives per year - but they choose not to, they would rather have us looking up to them for protecting the World against terrorism.
Once there are no more Muslims, Jews, Christians or any other bronze age (or any other age) fairy tale believing bigots then homo sapiens, as a species, might just have half a chance. Doesn't look too hopeful to me that that'll happen any time soon.
Just to avoid any misunderstanding have you just suggested that all Jews' Christians and muslims are bigots?
Sorry I can't go along with this one. For Amnesty International, Greenpeace and the concept of conscientious objection we are indebted to Quakers - who, if I am not mistaken can still be classified as Christian. But you are right in as much as most people only have enough 'religion' to divide them from their neighbours, and not to unite. If you believe in God, and you look at the diversity of life forms, languages cultures etc. on this earth then you are forced to accept that God loves diversity - and therefore we must also value it. Some Christians, Moslems and Jews have transcended the differences between them and have become truly religious - but they are the minority. Unfortunately we cannot have a debate on religion here - believers and non believers cannot 'debate' as such but they can accept each other.
What the late Christopher Hitchens says. Far more eloquently than I could put it... http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=pn_LjZb0Bx8
My point being that the concept of "god" can neither be proven nor disproven but scripture is at the heart of our problems. We can talk all we like about the morality of what is happening in Gaza, Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, North Africa, Indonesia, Thailand, Kurdistan and elsewhere in the world but until we deal with the root of the problem (the imposition of one religious doctrine or another) then we aren't going to get anywhere. As to conscientious objectors there comes a point where such action becomes self serving. It becomes cowardly when the action of the individual is out weighed by the necessity of the betterment of society as a whole. Sometimes we do have to fight for what is actually right (e.g. against Hitler) than for what may constitute a duty (e.g. the Boer War). Conscientious objection of the latter is acceptable because the morality of the action is open to question. Anyone who objects to fighting the likes of Hitler (ISIS, Al Qaeda etc.) is both a coward and morally bankrupt.
I do not believe scripture (words written by dead men) to be the problem Fez - but rather some interpretations of them. Many people would say that the major religious books, Bible, Khoran, Bhagavad Gita etc. are basically saying the same thing - others choose certain passages, out of context, and build whole philosophies based on that alone. Interesting to know that there are Christian Socialists, Jewish Socialists, Islamic Socialists and also Buddhist Socialists who all take their inspiration from scripture and lead to the same conclusion. One of the problems with Islam is it's lack of a centralized hierarchical structure (ie. like the Vatican) - So, no central authority which can declare some practices ie. of Hamas as being anti Islamic, which they are. For me the root of the problem is economic ie. have and have not. If the Palestinians did not live as a population of 2 million cramped into an area little larger than Bristol, if they had real economic prospects for the young (and nearly all Arab states have disproportionately young populations), if they really had the infrastructure of a modern state - then the recruiting of droves of young people for eg. Hamas would not be so successfull. Also Fez, please remember that many conscientious objectors have worked as medical orderlies in times of warfare - often exposing themselves to worse dangers than those carrying the guns.
To take your last point first Cologne I did not equate C.O. with cowardice in the context you stated. That they were forced into battle in such circumstances and showed bravery to their fellow man is not in dispute. That they could not face their own beliefs and accept that to fight, to commit murder so far as their indoctrination is concerned, for the wider good is and always will be cowardice. As to the politics of the middle east they are all rooted, neck deep, in religious doctrine. The Jews are 'god's own' children and Israel is the promised land. The Christians invoke the sacrifice of Jesus and all who do not believe shall be sent to Hell (you won't find the concept of hell in the OT btw) and as for the Muslims, well their doctrine pretty much allows for the beheading of the unbelievers etc. Regardless, REGARDLESS of whether that is the "correct" interpretation of scripture, the mere fact that it can and IS interpreted in such a horrific way is more than enough evidence to convince me that it is not the word of any loving omnipotent and benevolent "god" but that of clever men imposing power and fear over superstitious people. We need to grow up PDQ.
Sorry Fez but I do not believe that they are only rooted in religious doctrine - but rather in possession of land. Historically Jews had never been as persecuted in the Islamic culture as they had been within Christianity - at least before the state of Israel. In many cases, as in Spain, they were protected by Moslems against the ravages of the inquisition. Another point to mention here is that it has never been as simple as Jews vs Christians vs Moslems - the Arabs fought with the British against the Ottoman Empire (Brother Moslems) and Turkey was the first Islamic country to not only recognise Israel but actually had joint military exercises with the Israeli army (On Turkish soil). In contrast to what many people believe, Islam has no more intolerance than any other religion. Jesus is mentioned in the Khoran as a prophet - and all Moslems accept him as such. I have not met one single Moslem who has been anti Christian - most regarding it as a wonderfull religion (their critique of us being more that we do not practice it). Islam has also well over 100 different sects, without any central organizational structure - you simply cannot label a whole religion in this way - and I would challenge you to find any part of the Khoran which emphasizes the beheading of non believers. The whole religion is no more responsible for misguided groups within its' ranks (eg. Hamas) than the whole Christian World is responsible for George Bush.
It's never quite that simple, but the core is. I stand by my post earlier, in response to Dan Starkey, and that principle holds to this argument. The Israeli land grab has its roots in religious doctrine and where it has ceded land has been due to politics. Islam is by definition submission. I am pretty sure you have not yet met one Muslim who supports ISIS or Boko Harem, either? Neither have I. You seem to miss my point that ALL religion has, at its core, a fundamental basis steeped in "we're right, every one else is wrong" regardless of whatever watered down peace and goodwill to all lovey dovey cherry picked distortion of the whole doctrine they choose to believe. As to how the Koran actually states how unbelievers should be dealt with is really beside the point. The mere fact that it can and is interpreted by religious fanatics, for it is the word of 'god' that inspires them, to allow them to commit these atrocities is more than enough reason to dismiss this dogma than accept any diluted version.
No I do not know any Moslem that actually supports either of these groups. We have a neighbour (Lutheran Christian) who has a Turkish Moslem for his wife - neither of the two families have apparent problems with this, and both of them practice their own religions. I don't think they consider themselves as belonging to 'lovey, dovey cherry picked distortions' but rather as the mainstream - there are numerous examples of German-Turkish marriages which cross over religious lines in this way. It is the radicals who are the minority in all religions. Or would you blame all Christians for the inquisition ? Or maybe even all atheists for Hitler or Stalin ? I do not believe that the Israeli land grab is about religion - more about the creation of buffer zones, fear of losing their only homeland and a lack of raw materials - on the Palestinian side it is about self determination and the return of Israel born Palestinian refugees to their homeland - religious zealots have poured oil on the fire on both sides but the essential conflict is non religious.
I think Surah 5:33 is fairly unambiguous at its worst and far too open to misinterpretation at best to be the teachings of a loving and all merciful deity. Crucifixion, dismemberment or submission.... the choice is yours! (granted, beheading is not mentioned but the result is the same). Read on another 20 verses or so and feel the love. It is an affront to humanity and an insult to rationality. No not all Muslims are bad, of course not. The scripture that forms the basis of their belief is more than open to question.
Hitler was a Christian, Cologne, I'd expect you to know that. If not read Mein Kampf. Know your enemy. Stalin started out in the seminary. For him, as a psychopath and megalomaniac, the orthodox church was his biggest threat as a large powerful and rich organisation. It had to go.
It may surprise you to know Fez that the children of our neighbour follow both religions which is possible. I didn't actually want to engage in debates on scripture here - but, here goes. Khoran Sura 2:257 'There shall be no compulsion in religion' Khoran Sura 18:30 'It is the truth from your lord; wherefore let him who will, believe, and let him who will, disbelieve'. In the Bible there is mention of a promised comforter who will bring teaching from God after Jesus departs. John 14-26. Believed to be Mohammed by Moslems. It is actually fundamental to believe in the truthfullness of Jesus for Muslims - a whole chapter of the Khoran is called 'Mary' mother of Jesus. Islam is the only religion which requires followers to believe in the truthfullness of all prophets sent by the same God - Not only Mohammed and Jesus, but also Abraham,Moses, Isaac, Ishmael and many more. In this sense Moslems are all Christians and Jews by virtue of believing in the founders of those religions. Sorry, although able to read Mein Kampf in the original as it were the book is forbidden in Germany. However, I can see that we are not going to get much further with this as you are obviously convinced that religion of all types is the source of all evil in the World and that all believers are tarred with the same brush. My personal belief being that most wars are essentially economic in their origins. However - I think we must agree to differ.
No, that clearly is not what I think. I am a sceptic who's fairly recently lost his faith having been asked some pertinent questions by a devoutly religious friend. As a result of our discussions I had to read the scripture, and further research his POV. I agree with his views that you cannot cherry pick but have to accept the whole including a six day creation, woman from a rib, geocentrism, a talking snake, talking donkey, global flood, genocide,racism, slavery, resurrection etc. etc. It is far easier to dismiss the whole than accept the more reprehensible parts of that book as the basis of my morality. The same goes for what I've read in the Koran and other scripture. I see the new Pope as basically a good man but still in charge of an institution with more blood on its hands than will wash. Hopefully he'll be a source of real change, it has to start somewhere. Until we base our morality on something better than a bronze age book of fairy tales and take responsibility as autonomous human beings, then we, as a species, have a real problem.
