I think Fez that there are many aspects of religion. Scripture is only one of them - the others being the individuals relationship to his own belief at times of need, the way he relates to others in society, rituals associated with his religion eg. praying only in a specific position etc. laws of his religion - commandments and so on. Different groups have a different emphasis and it is not necessary to accept anything in its entirety - how many Christians today really believe in a virgin birth ? Not many I would suggest, and it's not necessary to believe that to follow Christ's teachings or to call yourself a Christian (although I know some others would disagree on this). You are right with your disregard for scriptures - how can I find out about the living from dead texts. In a sense you can cherry pick - if you presume that no religion is 100% correct (nothing man made is ) then you can shop around looking for the best of each - I think if God exists he/she/it doesn't mind you doing this. The problem is Christians tell you to love your neighbour as your brother (but how many people really love their brothers !) they further tell you to 'Do to others as you would have them do to you' - but not many people really love themselves either ! So, maybe if you begin with the fundamental theory that you are unique, and that the only goal of your existence is to express that uniqueness, and further that your main duty to others is to give them the freedom to express their uniqueness then you've maybe got the basis of a good morality. Remembering that uniqueness does not allow for comparison of course.
All religions should add a footnote to their credo. 1. I believe in etc etc 2. Others hold different beliefs and I support their right to do so. It will never happen of course.
Seems to me as if you're mixing religion with spirituality. Religion requires the following of a doctrine, I.e. by scripture and where such is subject to interpretation so come the denominations. Doing as such means, by definition, that you can't be all things to all men: such are the woes of the CoE who are trying to be just that. Homosexuality is unambiguously a sin in Deuteronomy and Timothy puts women in their place. I could go on. A virgin birth is central to Christianity, but not exclusive. Neither is the resurrection. Ask any Hindu. Jesus (no I will not concede Christ) was obviously a bit of a socialist agitator in a capitalist society to give them loose modern terms. Just because a person doesn't love themselves it doesn't mean that they don't want to be loved. Jesus story is noble but not all it's cracked up to be. If you're going to tell a lie then make it a big one and wrap it up in a grain of truth. And if you're going to set up your own club then base it on the existing ones and tweak it a bit: use the same characters, the single deity, the same forbidden foods. The sooner we break from these constraints, traditions, superstitions and remove these barriers between us then the sooner we will work for the common good. Yes that's a bit idealistic but things aren't working as they stand, are they now? It's not about race as it perhaps once was. It's about religious ideology and power. There may well be oil and gas but if they were working for the common good then that wouldn't matter. Homo Sapiens. Wise Monkey. Primate. Social species. With the intelligence to work for the common good of ourselves and our environment. What we are patently lacking is the will to throw off the ancient ties that bind and move on. I find it pathetic.
Been good to engage in civilised debate on such matters, Cologne, but you are right that I see fundamentalist religion as evil and the singular menace to harmonious society.
I have to say it's been an education watching you two debate over the past couple of days, lots of point-making and differing opinions and never a hint of aggression from either of you! I have learned an awful lot from both of you! Thank you and well done!
Fair enough Fez. There is a certain amount of danger in looking for the 'ultimate' truth in crusty 2,000 year old books which have been translated several times. However we need to beware of growing levels of both Islamophobia and anti Semitism in our society propagated largely by the media. Particularly we need to confront prevailing stereotypes about Islam which are mostly negative. Reason would tell you that there are 1.7 billion Moslems in the World - within such a huge number there are bound to be a few nutters, fundamentalists and throwers of bombs (maybe 1% of the total). Yet we only ever hear about this minority and base our 'idea' of Islam on them. I agree that the so called 'sword verses' of the Khoran are vivid to say the least (they were written at a very barbarous stage in history) but they were written in the context of self defence. The 99% of Moslems who do not throw bombs want peace so please base your assessment of Islam on them. There are many aspects of Islam which simply never receive media coverage because they do not support the image which the powers that be want us to have. For example that the headscarf only emerged during the 19th century as a response to contact with colonial powers. The biggest media bias may be however with Iran. They want us to have a certain idea of what Iran is like. Iran has the largest population of Middle Eastern Jews outside of Israel - 30,000 in all. They are allowed to practice their religion openly - have 60 Synagogues and representation in the Iranian parliament. The Iranian government makes a rigid distinction between being anti the Israeli government on the one hand and anti Semitism on the other. Yet this extraordinary fact never gets reportage in the media - why?
I have not had time to follow this debate but here is some food for thought. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ow-the-whistle-on-Qatars-weird-World-Cup.html
I could not disagree more with this. A conscientious objector is what the name says - someone who objects due to their conscience. Who are you to lay down the law as to what is morally right and wrong? Whether or not you personally happen to like something does not automatically put you in the right - not even on the 3 subjects you named. Other people are allowed their opinions - the most you can do is disagree with them - unless you are appealing to God (in whom you do not believe) to rule on "absolutes". Secondly some people believe it is wrong to take a life. Even with Hitler Chamberlain tried appeasement - it may not have worked but he tried. If you think it morally wrong to take another life then you are entitled to that opinion. Some people believe that war only begets war and there are very few cases like Hitler where you would get almost unanimous condemnation. Thirdly to decide on your own that having an opinion that does not coincide with yours equates to cowardice is frankly staggering. Cowardice is lack of bravery - many conscientious objectors in WWII were incredibly brave - as Cologne said driving ambulances at the front in far higher risk than in trenches or whatever. Also many accepted a punishment of death for their beliefs - was that a coward's action? Of course not. You cannot judge a person as a coward for having different morality to your own. I could easily make an argument for someone killing another instead of seeking to find a peaceful solution as morally bankrupt.
Unfortunately Hitler looked upon this "appeasement" as weakness. By his own admission, if France had used force to stop his reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936, his position at that time (bolstered by rearmament) would have become precarious and probably his regime would have toppled. But because he was not opposed militarily (as was the "right" of the Allies under the Versailles Treaty) all the way up to war in 1939, his popularity with the German people increased exponentially during the run up to the the war. It is arguable (and I would argue strongly) that some loss of life in opposing Hitler's aggrandisement up to 1939 would have prevented many times the number of casualties (both civilian and military) later. In an ideal world, of course, peaceful solutions would always be sought and found, but human nature being what it is, there will always be the need to oppose tyrants and regimes by force - until that is gene manipulation removes man's need to dominate.
Hindsight is a marvellous thing. I agree that military action in 1936 might well have helped - but given Hilter's megalomania I am not sure anything would ultimately have prevented him. Be that as it may some people sincerely do not believe in forceful solutions - and it is just wrong to equate conscientious objection with cowardice. You could argue it is foolish but that is an entirely separate thing. I do not condemn anyone for genuinely held beliefs however much I may disagree with them.
I would suggest that it was more myopia than hindsight. There was more than enough evidence of Hitler's objectives both during his early years in power and even before he was handed the German Chancellorship (not "elected" as some maintain) - Mein Kampf lays out his intentions in detail, unreadable though it undoubtedly is. Unfortunately the hideous shadow of the Great War hung over the Allies to the degree that their politicians turned a blind eye to Hitler's excesses and, to avoid the bloodshed of 1914-18, allowed him just about any leeway, ultimately resulting in an even greater catastrophe. Most 20th century historians tend to the view that military action in 1936 would have toppled Hitler. Incidentally I agree with you totally and do not equate co with cowardice - however, I do believe that if one does not believe in "forceful solutions" (and I still think that is regrettably naive given our current state of civilisation), then at the very least one should be compelled to assist in other ways than fighting - transport, logistics, healthcare etc. To merely wash one's hands completely of the forceful solution, I believe, is morally reprehensible. After all, if Hitler had succeeded in invading Britain, then it would have been immaterial to him or his cronies whether an individual was a co - the concentration camp or the gas chamber would still have beckoned.
You have taken me out of context as shown above. So a person who will not kill be that directly or indirectly in order to protect their loved ones from as enemy who will massacre them, no ifs no buts like Hitler would or ISIS are today because of your own morality and such inaction will doubtless mean the death of an even larger group is not a coward? Of course they are! That is a fight for survival not a morality debate. Survive first and help others to, then deal with your conscience later. Your conscience alone. Or stand aside and watch everything and everyone you ever loved or believed in die first because you would not act. That, sir, is cowardice of the highest order. We're not talking about expanding empires or trying to police the world but about a fight for our very survival. If you cannot see what we're facing then more fool you. Appeasement doesn't work. Killing is never pleasant be it wringing a chicken's neck for your supper or in war. But to not kill to ensure your family's survival IS cowardice.
To be frank I think that Chamberlain's appeasement gestures at that time were born out of necessity in as much as the British Army at the time had only 3 tanks in its armoury. Conscientious objection needs to be consequent if it is to be respected. It is not enough simply to avoid killing - a true conscientious objector also wants nobody else to kill on his behalf. He does not pay his taxes to a government which sends people to war - and he avoids all personal gain which could come from winning that war. A Quaker can only really be a conscientious objector because he also denies the authority of the state (In fact denies any earthly authority or hierarchy). Simply refusing to fight but then 'taking part' in some other way is not acceptable. Most people are co's at heart - in as much as most of the men who went to war in 1939 did not want to go. Why should any man want to say goodbye to his wife and kids and go abroad with the knowledge that he may never come back ? Most of them went because everyone else was going and they didn't want to be accused of cowardice. Some may have gone with the thought that they would maybe not have to kill anyone. My father went because he had already become a soldier to escape the poverty of his early childhood and the desolation that Britain was in the early 30's, like many others. I do not know what I would have done. But I do know that if nobody had opposed Hitler then there would be no Jews, no Quakers and none of the freedoms which we take for granted now - and we would not be debating on this thread now ! What I cannot accept however is the excuse often made by people of 'I was only doing my duty'. I can accept that my father went to war - and that he killed people. I can accept that the War brutalized many people for whom `the first death was difficult but then it became easier with time`. I cannot accept that he served on a firing squad because he was ordered to. The victim was stood behind a white sheet so that the squad could not see him and some of the squad were armed with blanks (as if a soldier does not know the difference on recoil). Yet he did this, and my father is neither a saint nor a sinner - just a normal bloke who was 'doing his duty'. And for hundreds of years the working man has been doing his duty in this way - being sent to the front by other people. Maybe the solution is to learn something from the not so dark middle ages, and expect our leaders (the declarers of those wars) to lead their armies from the front like Saladin. Unfortunately the progress of history has distanced the leaders from the battlefield - and also impersonalized killing so much that the actual killer does not have to see the gory results.
Are you suggesting that we are in a 'fight for our very survival`now ? Or in a situation in any way corresponding to that of 1939 ?
This I would pretty much agree with in its entirety. The obvious exception being that in 1936 we weren't any where near ready to help out, nor even (perhaps criminally so) with failing the Czechs. Neither the stomach nor the money to build our forces. My Great Grandfather was an ambulance driver in the International Brigade in Spain fighting the fascists. He saw Hitler's troops getting some practice in first hand. He had fought in the Great War as a cavalry sergeant. Three of his sons fought Hitler be it on the Russian convoys, defending our airfields or in the European theatre. Somehow all three survived through the duration with just the one medically discharged in 1943. I have digressed but my point being that a war about empires lead to a war for our very survival. There's all the difference in the world.
I absolutely love the concept of "cowardice of the highest order" I wonder whether cowardice of a lower order might be just running away a little bit? Fez - I am afraid you simply do not understand what coward means. It is lack of bravery. You can criticise a CO for their moral beliefs if you like and it may be that some COs actually are cowards - as were many who fought wars - but you simply cannot redefine the meaning of the word coward. Someone who has a morality that does not permit them to fight is simply not a coward for their belief. Quite often they are so reviled and stigmatized by people who think they are cowards that they show bravery - of the highest order in dealing wiht others who attack them. If someone entered your house with a knife and took your children hostage and you had a gun but refused to shoot them because of your beliefs you can be called a lot of things - but a coward is not (correctly) one of them. I love the idea you have that implies you can decide how many deaths derive form different courses of action and the non cowardly way out is to choose the one that results in the fewest deaths. An old "quandry" question goes something like this - a train is heading for a bridge which is "out" over a ravine - if it proceeds it will crash and possibly everyone on board will die. But there is a family car in front of you with a man, his wife and two small children in it - if you nudge that car onto the tracks the train will hit it and have a far less serious accident probably killing nobody on the train but only the family. According to you the correct - non cowardly thing to do is to sacrifice the family for the greater good of those on the train. Life just does not work like that.
I am suggesting that if we let the likes of ISIS carry on the way they are then it will spread very, very quickly indeed. They have the morality of a Dalek and need to be stopped. They will not hesitate. They have 'god' on their side and the scripture to 'prove' it. They will fight for 12C moral values with 21C weapons. The attempts to instigate Sharia law in certain areas and the murder of Lee Rigby shows that you cannot rationalise with this mind set. ISIS are to Muslims what the KKK are to Christians. So you are clear: I will never judge a person by the colour of their skin. Religion I see as the Easily Led Club. Anyone who believes in scripture that can be interpreted in such a way that leads to the bloodshed that we see around the world today I regard as at best misguided. There is no basis for our morality in any of the bronze age book of fairy tales, we should strive to be better. I do not impose my morality on anyone but I am not afraid to speak my mind. Nor do I think I have all the answers, unlike those who speak from scripture. I will change my mind based on the evidence, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In the case of ISIS all the evidence points to a society (I use the term loosely) of submission, intolerance, slavery, fear, FGM and genocide. How can we, with any conscience, allow that to happen?
Myopia maybe - but who in 1936 was claiming a World war was coming? We know - in hindsight. There was no appetite for military action to stop Hitler in 1936 - in fact very much the opposite - and as you say also there was little capability. Yes action in 1936 may well have prevented what nobody knew at that time was coming. Historians use hindsight too. It is not about not believing in forceful solutions - it is about having a belief that killing people is wrong. The 10 commandments say "thou shalt not kill" - it is unequivocal - it does not say thou shalt not kill - except Pol Pot, Hitler and some other rather nasty fellows. That is in the basis for Judaism and Christianity. Of course it is ignored because when it comes down to it most people do not really believe it. They prefer man made solutions to those of God. If someone were genuinely a follower of those teachings they would obey God's command. Jehovahs Witnesses do - and they of course are COs and suffered for it persecution and death - but they must have been cowards for taking their religion seriously. I have yet to meet somebody who can tell me that they honestly believe Jesus would ever have killed anybody - even Hitler - be the first. I lost my faith so can pick and choose my morality - how lucky for me - I can kill people I believe are evil if I like and there is nothing to stop me. That makes me apparently NOT a coward.
I do not necessarily disagree with a single statement you have made. Maybe - maybe not - I agree we should fight for our view of how the world should be - but you still cannot claim that those who hold other views are cowards simply because they will not kill the people you want them to. Once you have taken your stance that says you should kill people you consider a danger you legitimise that same action by the people you oppose. Do you not realise that ISIS and others consider the US the Great Satan - and that killing their supporters is not only legitimate but desirable..... and then we spiral down into the depths where the most powerful rules. That is the opposite of civilisation and is where we have spent 2000 years or more trying to escape from.
