Beware when you hear people use words like "absolutely". Be even more wary if you start using it yourself.
I totally agree with you.
On the other hand, I can tell you with absolute certainty that war is absolutely wrong. Maybe this makes me a fundamentalist pacifist, but that's OK by me.
Are you suggesting that the US simply walk away from Iraq and hope that Saddam doesn't spread chemical weapons (which he clearly has) or bio weapons? Should we just rely on good 'ol Saddam to do the right thing? Are you really that fucking moronic?
This is insightful?
The flame war over the war continues! I say, To Arms!, fellow slashdotters, and flame on!
To rebut the parent's lunacy:
Nobody with any sense is suggesting that the US, or anybody else for that matter, should just do nothing. However, there are many other options in any conflict situation besides doing nothing and killing people. The US should try to address the problems which underlie the instability of the region, as well as those which underlie what is often called the "campaign of hatred" against the US by the Muslim world. The US should attempt to address these issues in a reasonable and civilized manner, instead of reverting to the basest barbarism, xenophobia, and might-makes-right mentality.
Oh wait...I guess the US should walk away and lift the sanctions. Then Saddam can do whatever he wants.
I fail to see how the sanctions were preventing Saddam from committing atrocities. Their purpose was clearly to soften up Iraq for this invasion, which has been in the works since before Sept. 11 (see the Project for a New American Century for an explanation of the real causes behind this war) and had nothing to do with preventing atrocities. In a very real sense the first Gulf War never ended, the US has been killing Iraqis ever since and shows no signs of wanting to stop. Violence and killing will never stop atrocities, only create new ones.
The US should indeed walk away and lift the sanctions, and then find other ways of dealing with the problem. There are some pretty smart people in the US, I'm sure they can come up with something more creative than this silly and pointless rerun of the same old shit they've been doing for the last century. Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT and staunch pacifist, for instance, has some pretty good ideas which at least bear consideration.
You can't change the past
No, but we can influence the future, and it is clear (as has been seen over and over again in history) that undertaking immoral actions such as war will more than likely have a strongly negative effect on the future. This is known as karma. If you do something wrong now, odds are, nothing good will come of it, regardless of the supposed benevolence of your intentions.
War is morally wrong and can never be justified. The US is just getting itself into a huge mess which will cause all sorts of horrible atrocities and further bloodshed, as we will all see soon enough.
If you are interested in my views on this, please see the thread linked to in my sig, which is a great debate on the issue of Pacifism vs. Jingoism in which I said most of what I have to say on the matter.
I prefer we overreact and keep info out of the hands of the public (read historians who travel to the National Archives) for a little longer then run a security risk, however slight.
"Any nation which will sacrifice a little liberty for a little security will get and deserve neither." --Thomas Jefferson
Considering that the data in question is 25 years old and that we are at a critical juncture in the current administration's PR strategy, it seems clear that this blatant stalling tactic was undertaken for reasons of PR rather than national security.
In the past, the declassification of historical documents about American security activities has been damaging to the public perceptions of security agencies (mostly because it reveals them for the unscrupulous bastards they are, or at least were), and this is a time when the US government can hardly afford to risk further losses in public opinion.
They don't want you to know about this stuff because they are afraid you won't like it. It's that simple.
The administration official said there may be cases in which information that has already been made public needs to be retrieved and made confidential because it compromises national security.
There's an easy technical fix for this problem. Everybody out there mirror whatever info you can get your hands on, before they try to reclassify it!
"The Force is strong with you, young Jedi, but beware the dark side. Fear, anger, hatred, the dark side are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny!"
Seriously, man, think about what I've said, and talk to Jesus about it, and search your heart and your soul. Hatred and anger and vengeance and violence and war are not the answer. Love is the only answer. May God bless you, man, and keep you safe in the troubled times ahead.
And furthermore (sorry, but this debate is highly addictive, I just can't let it rest, there are few things I love better than a good debate, kind of odd for a pacifist, eh, but I do have the warrior spirit, never said I didn't, in Aikido it's called Takemusu Aiki, the Warrior Spirit in Harmony with Love)...
Of course God does not contradict himself. He's God. However, you must admit that there are many apparent contradictions in the Bible. When you encounter one of these, I think the only thing to do is go back to Jesus. What did Jesus say about the issue? What would Jesus probably say about the issue? How can the direct statements of Jesus be used to resolve the apparent contradiction? A great example of this is the issue of divorce. Jesus came out at one point against divorce (another point modern Christians are in the habit of ignoring), and said that a man who lies with a divorced woman commits adultery. His audience questioned him about this, saying something like, "but wait, doesn't the Law say that if you have good cause, you can give your wife a writ of divorce?" Jesus said, "it was for the hardness of your hearts that your Father gave you the writ of divorce."
To me this sheds a great deal of light on many issues of divergence between the OT and NT. My take on this is that Jesus was saying that God decided to cut the Jews some slack, as it were, because of the "hardness of their hearts", presumably because they had not heard the words of Jesus yet and therefore could not be expected to know any better. To me this means that we, as Christians who have heard and accepted the word of Jesus, are held to a higher standard of behavior than the pre-Christian Jews were. That some things which were premitted to them because they had not heard the word of Jesus, such as divorce, war, religious bigotry etc, are no longer to be tolerated, because now that we have heard Jesus' word and seen the example of his life, we should know better. There are other cases where this is upheld, such as when Jesus said, "you have heard it said of old that you should love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you to love your enemy, and do good to those who hate and persecute you. Then you will truely be sons of the Most High, who makes the rain fall upon the just and the unjust." Jesus is saying, the new Covenant is a little stricter, in some sense, than the old Covenant. You have to do all that, and then go the extra mile, be even more tolerant, even more loving, even more pure, now that you have heard me speak. The new Covenant extends and strengthens the old Covenant, takes it to the next level, as it were.
So maybe for the Jews of the OT, making war on their neighboring tribes was OK. Maybe it was even necessary. But for us Christians, it's clearly unacceptable behavior, just as divorce, violence, intolerance, hatred, and vengeance are clearly unacceptable to Jesus. It's kind of a tall order, kind of a high standard, but that's what He requires of us. "Be you therefore perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect."
I think it was for the hardness of their hearts that God permitted the Jews to make war. I think that in every case, when asked about the rules of the OT, Jesus said, "yeah, do that, and then some." In fact, on the issue of murder, he said that not only should you not kill, you shouldn't even think negative thoughts about your brother, for that is committing murder of the heart. I think Jesus would say something like, "yeah, you shouldn't murder. In fact, you shouldn't kill anybody under any circumstances, and not only that, but you shouldn't even say or even think bad things about them! And if somebody else commits murder or says or thinks bad things about you, you should give back nothing but love and respect and tolerance, and you should not even speak a word against them." And when he was asked, "how many times shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him", he said "I say to you, not seven times, but seven times seven."
OK, I know I said let's call it a draw, but I can't resist taking the bait on this one. If God is always in control, does that mean we should just sit back and do nothing in any and all cases, since whatever happens is for the best? Clearly it is, even evil and sin serve God's grand plan. So why make war on evil? By your reasoning, isn't Saddam's regime OK, since it's all part of God's grand plan?
Does it matter what we do at all? Shall we just say, "fuck it, it doesn't matter what we do or say, God is in control anyway, so let's just sit back and watch it happen?" Well, no, that's not what Jesus said. But he did say something very specific about resisting evil. Don't have my bible on me, but this is from Matthew, from the Sermon on the Mount, and the phrasing may not be perfect but I know I have the idea right:
"So I say to you, resist not evil. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. And if someone takes from you your shirt, give to them your coat as well. And if someone compells you to walk a mile, walk with them two."
Sounds pretty clear and uncomplicated to me, I don't see why this passage is so hard for Christians to understand and implement.
WWJD? as they say. This disagreement is characteristic of the split running through modern Christianity, which I've heard described as the "Love Side" and the "Law Side". Basically, the Law Side wants to continue to follow the OT to the letter, whereas the Love Side wants to focus more on the message of Jesus, in particular the part where Jesus said that the supreme commandment in the Law is to "love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart and all thy mind and all thy soul, and to love thy neighbor as thyself." I think the OT needs to be reinterpreted in light of this statement, which is pretty clear and unambiguous, and is clearly meant to be Jesus summary of the take-home message from the entire OT. Anything you say or quote or interpret which contradicts this statement, contradicts Jesus and is therefore clearly wrong. Or, to put it another way, I think a single direct quote from Jesus trumps any number of quotes from the OT, and Jesus was not at all unclear about these issues.
I know that, I was just joking! Besides, there were others on that forum who feel the same way I do, and if there weren't, I'm not too worried about it anyway.
"If 1000 men disagree with me, then the odds are 1000 to one that they are wrong." --Robert Heinlein
AR, I'm just messing with you at this point. As, I suspect, you are just messing with me. I'm glad that such a heated issue can be lightened with a little humor! Trouble is, I actually rather like you, and I was hoping that I could talk you around... oh well, another one lost to the propaganda wars. I am very interested in the prospero forum, it looks really cool, but I just can't afford to join right now, maybe if this stupid war ends soon and we get some business this will change;-).
I think that there's not much point in continuing this debate in earnest at this point. I think time will tell, sadly enough. Let's call it a draw, shall we?
I don't see any reason to engage in that discussion anyway, mhazboun_cfl has already made all of my essential points. Jesus said to turn the other cheek and love your enemy. This seems pretty incompatible with war to me, and Jesus was the Man, was he not?
Hey, wait a second, that's a paid subscriber forum! Sorry, interesting but I can't afford it. Have to say, I disagree with the post you linked to, sounds like rampant Crusaderism to me, there are very few things which have caused more and more horrible atrocities than making war in the name of God. I find this whole line of reasoning highly disturbing, and am frankly horrified by the tone of the post you linked to. Maybe we could move this onto my side's turf instead?
It would probably be best to move this discussion to the forum I linked to above as others can help with your issues.
Is this the slashdot equivalent of "you wanna step outside?"
OK, I'm game, though I should warn you that my religion is somewhat unorthodox, perhaps even heretical. But I doubt I am the only Christian who's a pacifist!
Before we take this outside as it were, I just want to thank you again for a great debate, AR, I enjoyed it thoroughly. I have some work to do today, but I'll meet you over at prospero when I have time.
Surprisingly enough, I have more to say about this.
Are you confusing killing with murder?
I have to admit, I am a little confused about the difference between "killing" and "murder." Perhaps you can explain it to me. I am also a little confused about the difference between "shock and awe" and "terror", the difference between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist", the difference between "collateral damage" and "dead babies", the difference between "liberation" and "conquest", the difference between "humanitarian aid" and "occupation", the difference between "police action" and "war", and indeed the difference between the principles held by the current US and Iraqi regimes.
I am confused about a number of arbitrary and blatantly doublethink distinctions which people make when talking about war. It seems to me that the only real difference between these terms is that one is what we call it when we do it to other people, and the other is what we call it when they do it to us.
The manipulation of language is one of the primary tools of propaganda. And what is the difference between "news" and "propaganda" anyway? Oh yeah...
If a nation with your philospohy was even able to exist, yours would be the first occupied by any agressor, hoping another nation or group of nations would come and liberate it.
Oh, I don't know, Switzerland actually comes pretty close to embodying the philosophy I advocate. From a position of strength, with a strong warrior spirit, they stay determinedly neutral in all conflicts, trying to get the other parties to listen to the voice of reason. Can you imagine the Swiss ever invading anyone? They have stood by these principles dispite many wars which raged around them, and I admire them greatly. They still exist, and probably will for some time to come.
And no response to terrorist activities that kill innocents will only result in more dead innocents.
And again I say, I am not advocating no response, I am advocating a different response. Please read the following article, which makes this point far better than I ever could. Noam Chomsky is a prof. at MIT and knows what he's talking about, and is further a brilliant essayist.
I don't see anything better for forming an opinion
I'm not arguing with the accuracy of the facts they presented. I don't care about that. The question is, what did they leave out? And the other question is, how did they choose to arrange their facts so as to manipulate your opinion? And yet another question is, can any of these facts, no matter how accurate, provide justification for doing something which is still wrong no matter how you look at it?
Having said all that, American Revolutionary, I want to thank you for a great debate. You have made many strong points, and given me the opportunity to make the strongest of mine as well. This was very cool, and it's this kind of frank and open exchange of ideas that makes me love slashdot. I understand your argument, and I can see how many intelligent people have been convinced to fall for it. Some of the points are compelling, and you made them well.
Yes, these issues are more complex than my simplistic ethical arguments admit. I'm trying to make the bare bones of an argument which has been made extensively by pacifists throughout the ages, and I hope I have done it some justice.
I think that war is wrong, and I am opposed to it on general principle. I think that in this particular instance, the US has made a very weak case that war is necessary, and that there were many other avenues of approach which would have worked much better. This seems to be the point that the leaders of many other major nations were trying to make as well. There is a big difference between defending yourself against direct attack and invading a sovereign nation. This sets a bad precedent, and will probably go down in history as a Big Mistake.
But I acknowledge and respect the strength of your resolve to help the Iraqi people, and I encourage you to continue to debate and think about these issues. Please try to keep an open mind to other possiblities for conflict-resolution besides war.
Well fought, my Lord, and may we someday meet again upon the field of honor.
This argument is untenable for many different reasons, and has been thoroughly demolished by many people from many different schools of thought. In my view, the strongest arguments against it are religious.
For instance, to take a Christian perspective (the US still claims to be a Christian nation, doesn't it?), Jesus said to turn the other cheek. Do you think he meant, "unless they hit you really hard, in which case kick their ass?" NO! If somebody else commits a sin, that is their problem, between them and God. To commit sins against them in retaliation just means that you have now sinned, and you now have a problem with God. "Vengeance is mine" saith the Lord.
I happen to be a Christian, but I am willing to entertain other points of view as well, so let's try attacking your argument from some other perspectives, shall we?
From a Buddhist/Taoist point of view, to involve yourself in someone else's bad karma just drags you down into their cycle of suffering. Then you have to suffer for their mistakes. How does that make sense? To alleviate suffering, you must act with compassion, rather than simply causing more suffering.
I don't know much about Islam, but from your straw man characterization and that of many others, I can only infer that they are the only religion in the world which believes killing is OK and justified. If so, how can we claim to be better than them, if we just follow the same logic?
Or, if you're not a religious person, there are plenty of secular humanist arguments to demolish the "end justifies the means" fallacy as well. For instance, from a Utilitarian perspective, the means may have unintended consequences, and ususally they do, and they are often worse than the original problem. Kant says that you should "act on that maxim which you can consistently will become universal law." This means that you should do what is ethically right, regardless of the consequences. From an Aristotelian perspective, performing wrong (unvirtuous) actions damages your character, it makes you a bad person, and then you continue to perform wrong actions ad infinitum. I could go on. As I've said elsewhere, the statement that "the end does not justify the means" is fairly uncontroversial among ethical philosophers and religious scholars.
your saying no would should kill at whatever the consequences or cost are of not killing
You got that right Bubba, that's exactly what I'm saying. Killing is wrong. Therefore you should not do it. If your back is to a wall and you really have no choice, I can see killing to defend yourself from direct attack, but even then, you better spend a lot of time on your knees afterwards, or you're going to end up having a little chat with the man downstairs. The moral worth of an action cannot be judged by its consequences, nor by its intended consequences, because the actor cannot possibly know what the consequences of the action will be. The moral worth of an action must be judged on its own merits, and killing is a wrong action however you slice it. It should be avoided whenever possible, and I do not remotely buy that there was no choice in this case.
Are you confusing killing with murder?
I am aware that some people make this silly (and arbitrary) distinction as a justification for war, saying that God didn't mean, "thou shalt not kill," he meant "thou shalt not murder," and this makes all the difference, and says that it's OK to kill if your government tells you to. In my view, this argument is not worth a load of fetid dingo's kidneys. Killing is killing. It's always wrong. When faced with a choice between evils, you may have to choose the lesser, and it may be killing, but that doesn't make it right. It just makes it less wrong. It's still wrong, and should be avoided if at all possible.
You assume that in this situation there were only two options, doing nothing and going to war. But there are always many options in a
You see, this is exactly the sort of thing I'm on about. This is why the end does not justify the means. We feel like we have to do something about the Iotola (however you spell it), so we support a brutal vicious killer and help him retain power. Then our brutal vicious killer starts going around... well... surprisingly enough... brutally and viciously killing people. Then we say we have to kill even more people to put a stop to this. Where does it end?
Somebody, I can't remember who, once said, "all of todays problems are the direct and inevitable result of yesterday's brilliant solutions."
This is typical of the kind of problems the US gets itself involved in. They see something terrible happening, and they say, "hey, something terrible is happening, we have to do something about it." So they go in and kick the living shit out of somebody, and of course this never helps, and causes more problems in the region, so then a few decades later, they say, "hey, something terrible is happening, we have to do something about it." and they go in and kick the living shit out of somebody, and it just goes on and on. Bombs don't solve problems. Killing doesn't solve problems. The end does not justify the means. Two wrongs do not make a right.
It's horrible when civilians die; just ask the thousands of fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters of the victims of the WTC.
I say to you again, two wrongs don't make a right. All of the things you mentioned really sucked. So will this war. So will the subsequent occupation. In fact, this entire stupid game of Colonial Imperialism that we've been playing for the last 500 years sucks. Let's call it a draw, and go play something else, what do you say?
Oh, yeah, and I seem to remember seeing a few of those people out on the streets of NY the other day, carrying signs like "this 911 family member is against the war." So yes, I think you should indeed ask them.
Do we listen to our morals if they tell us to take a stand or should we turn a blind eye and let countries take care of themselves? If countries support terrorism should we act to prevent or just do damage control?
I think I should address this question as well. No, you should not turn a blind eye when something terrible is happening. You should oppose it with all your might. However, you should do so in some way which does not involve killing people. If someone tries to convince you that they should solve any problem (including terrorism) by killing people, you shouldn't listen to them. They are wrong. You should tell them to find some other way to solve the problem. And if they fail, then find some other way, and another and another, as long as they don't involve killing people or committing further atrocities. Two wrongs don't make a right. Your mother should have taught you that.
Serious questions...glad I don't have to answer them for the country!
But you do! All of us have a responsiblity to answer these questions and to speak out about them. Don't just go along with what you see on PBS. "Think for yourself, schmuck!" --Robert Anton Wilson (written in letters of fire on the wall in front of a startled Moses in a painting described in Illuminatus)
The answer is even easy, in this case. Act to prevent terrorism by removing the causes which create terrorism in the first place. If the US were not brutally oppressing and robbing these people, they would probably not be so pissed off. Work to stabilize the international political situation, rather than acting to polarize and destabilize it, the way the US is doing now.
"The simplest and most effective way for us to reduce the level of violence and terror in the world is for us to stop participating in it." --Noam Chomsky
USUALLY the outcome has left things better than when it started
This seems highly dubious to me. Before WWII started, there were a lot more Jews, Russians, Germans, French, British, and even Americans than there were after it was over, whereas if the war had never started in the first place (which was, of course, clearly the Nazi's fault, I'm not saying it wasn't), there would be no reason to even speculate about the French and British speaking German. And if you think that American interferance in foreign affairs has, on the whole, had a positive influence, I suggest you go back and read a little more history, you will find that in the vast majority of cases, they have fucked things up royally.
Wars of this new century will not be as defined as ones of the past. Today's wars will probably be built on perceived responsibilities and morals. Of course morals differ from one person to another, so there will always be debate there.
Moral relativism once again rears its ugly head in this debate. Moral beliefs differ from one person to another, but morals themselves are absolute. There are moral facts. The vast majority of ethical philosophers and religious authorities agree on this. One of them is that WAR IS WRONG. This can be shown by the Socratic method in three easy questions:
1) Q: Is killing wrong?
A: Why, whaddaya know, KILLING IS WRONG. This one's a no-brainer. If you disagree with me on this, I hope I never meet you in a dark ally.
2) Q: Does war involve killing?
A: Why, yes indeed it does. No matter how much you try to minimize casualties, war involves killing pretty much by definition.
3) Q: Does the end justify the means?
A: This is the point in the argument where they will try to fool you. Don't buy it. The end does not justify the means for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that you cannot possibly know that the means you propose will lead to the ends you seek. The common way to put this is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So the answer is NO.
ERGO: WAR IS WRONG. And anyone who believes otherwise is wrong too. This is not just my opinion, this is not open to debate, this is a MORAL FACT.
War mongers always use convoluted arguments, villainization, and propaganda to convince you that somehow war can be justified, mitigated, or otherwise made right, but it's not. Don't listen to them. They are wrong.
But an equal number of innocent Iraqis have already died this year, because of Saddam's abuse of the oil for food program
Well, that's one way of putting it. Another way would be to say, "an equal number of innocent Iraqis have already died this year, because of US imposed economic sanctions." It is quite typical, in an abusive relationship, for the abuser to blame the victim for the consequences of the abuse. "See, now look what you went and made me do." This argument basically amounts to saying, "well, if we don't kill them this way, we're just going to kill even more of them in other ways, so what's your problem?" Doesn't hold water in my book. How about if you STOP KILLING THEM ALTOGETHER?!?!
Even if some people die by accident -a truly terrible thing- that is better than six times that number dying deliberately.
Ah yes, the cold calculus of death. They always say the same things about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Let's kill these people now, because we believe that will save these other people later. You gotta be pretty heartless to make those kind of calls, but I suppose somebody has to do it.
"When you stand in the first light of dawn and contemplate taking a small group of octogenarians against an army of hundreds of thousands, you start to do the cold calculus of death. 'Great Gods!" Cohen thought, 'It will take weeks to kill them all!'" --Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that aptly describes our foreign policy.
You tell 'em, Nept! Nice, succinct, and to the point.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I totally agree with you.
On the other hand, I can tell you with absolute certainty that war is absolutely wrong. Maybe this makes me a fundamentalist pacifist, but that's OK by me.
This is insightful?
The flame war over the war continues! I say, To Arms!, fellow slashdotters, and flame on!
To rebut the parent's lunacy:
Nobody with any sense is suggesting that the US, or anybody else for that matter, should just do nothing. However, there are many other options in any conflict situation besides doing nothing and killing people. The US should try to address the problems which underlie the instability of the region, as well as those which underlie what is often called the "campaign of hatred" against the US by the Muslim world. The US should attempt to address these issues in a reasonable and civilized manner, instead of reverting to the basest barbarism, xenophobia, and might-makes-right mentality.
Oh wait...I guess the US should walk away and lift the sanctions. Then Saddam can do whatever he wants.
I fail to see how the sanctions were preventing Saddam from committing atrocities. Their purpose was clearly to soften up Iraq for this invasion, which has been in the works since before Sept. 11 (see the Project for a New American Century for an explanation of the real causes behind this war) and had nothing to do with preventing atrocities. In a very real sense the first Gulf War never ended, the US has been killing Iraqis ever since and shows no signs of wanting to stop. Violence and killing will never stop atrocities, only create new ones.
The US should indeed walk away and lift the sanctions, and then find other ways of dealing with the problem. There are some pretty smart people in the US, I'm sure they can come up with something more creative than this silly and pointless rerun of the same old shit they've been doing for the last century. Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT and staunch pacifist, for instance, has some pretty good ideas which at least bear consideration.
You can't change the past
No, but we can influence the future, and it is clear (as has been seen over and over again in history) that undertaking immoral actions such as war will more than likely have a strongly negative effect on the future. This is known as karma. If you do something wrong now, odds are, nothing good will come of it, regardless of the supposed benevolence of your intentions.
War is morally wrong and can never be justified. The US is just getting itself into a huge mess which will cause all sorts of horrible atrocities and further bloodshed, as we will all see soon enough.
If you are interested in my views on this, please see the thread linked to in my sig, which is a great debate on the issue of Pacifism vs. Jingoism in which I said most of what I have to say on the matter.
No.
I prefer we overreact and keep info out of the hands of the public (read historians who travel to the National Archives) for a little longer then run a security risk, however slight.
"Any nation which will sacrifice a little liberty for a little security will get and deserve neither." --Thomas Jefferson
In the past, the declassification of historical documents about American security activities has been damaging to the public perceptions of security agencies (mostly because it reveals them for the unscrupulous bastards they are, or at least were), and this is a time when the US government can hardly afford to risk further losses in public opinion.
They don't want you to know about this stuff because they are afraid you won't like it. It's that simple.
There's an easy technical fix for this problem. Everybody out there mirror whatever info you can get your hands on, before they try to reclassify it!
"The Force is strong with you, young Jedi, but beware the dark side. Fear, anger, hatred, the dark side are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny!"
Seriously, man, think about what I've said, and talk to Jesus about it, and search your heart and your soul. Hatred and anger and vengeance and violence and war are not the answer. Love is the only answer. May God bless you, man, and keep you safe in the troubled times ahead.
Peace out...
Of course God does not contradict himself. He's God. However, you must admit that there are many apparent contradictions in the Bible. When you encounter one of these, I think the only thing to do is go back to Jesus. What did Jesus say about the issue? What would Jesus probably say about the issue? How can the direct statements of Jesus be used to resolve the apparent contradiction? A great example of this is the issue of divorce. Jesus came out at one point against divorce (another point modern Christians are in the habit of ignoring), and said that a man who lies with a divorced woman commits adultery. His audience questioned him about this, saying something like, "but wait, doesn't the Law say that if you have good cause, you can give your wife a writ of divorce?" Jesus said, "it was for the hardness of your hearts that your Father gave you the writ of divorce."
To me this sheds a great deal of light on many issues of divergence between the OT and NT. My take on this is that Jesus was saying that God decided to cut the Jews some slack, as it were, because of the "hardness of their hearts", presumably because they had not heard the words of Jesus yet and therefore could not be expected to know any better. To me this means that we, as Christians who have heard and accepted the word of Jesus, are held to a higher standard of behavior than the pre-Christian Jews were. That some things which were premitted to them because they had not heard the word of Jesus, such as divorce, war, religious bigotry etc, are no longer to be tolerated, because now that we have heard Jesus' word and seen the example of his life, we should know better. There are other cases where this is upheld, such as when Jesus said, "you have heard it said of old that you should love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you to love your enemy, and do good to those who hate and persecute you. Then you will truely be sons of the Most High, who makes the rain fall upon the just and the unjust." Jesus is saying, the new Covenant is a little stricter, in some sense, than the old Covenant. You have to do all that, and then go the extra mile, be even more tolerant, even more loving, even more pure, now that you have heard me speak. The new Covenant extends and strengthens the old Covenant, takes it to the next level, as it were.
So maybe for the Jews of the OT, making war on their neighboring tribes was OK. Maybe it was even necessary. But for us Christians, it's clearly unacceptable behavior, just as divorce, violence, intolerance, hatred, and vengeance are clearly unacceptable to Jesus. It's kind of a tall order, kind of a high standard, but that's what He requires of us. "Be you therefore perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect."
I think it was for the hardness of their hearts that God permitted the Jews to make war. I think that in every case, when asked about the rules of the OT, Jesus said, "yeah, do that, and then some." In fact, on the issue of murder, he said that not only should you not kill, you shouldn't even think negative thoughts about your brother, for that is committing murder of the heart. I think Jesus would say something like, "yeah, you shouldn't murder. In fact, you shouldn't kill anybody under any circumstances, and not only that, but you shouldn't even say or even think bad things about them! And if somebody else commits murder or says or thinks bad things about you, you should give back nothing but love and respect and tolerance, and you should not even speak a word against them." And when he was asked, "how many times shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him", he said "I say to you, not seven times, but seven times seven."
This is all very clear stuff, very easy to unders
Does it matter what we do at all? Shall we just say, "fuck it, it doesn't matter what we do or say, God is in control anyway, so let's just sit back and watch it happen?" Well, no, that's not what Jesus said. But he did say something very specific about resisting evil. Don't have my bible on me, but this is from Matthew, from the Sermon on the Mount, and the phrasing may not be perfect but I know I have the idea right:
"So I say to you, resist not evil. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. And if someone takes from you your shirt, give to them your coat as well. And if someone compells you to walk a mile, walk with them two."
Sounds pretty clear and uncomplicated to me, I don't see why this passage is so hard for Christians to understand and implement.
WWJD? as they say. This disagreement is characteristic of the split running through modern Christianity, which I've heard described as the "Love Side" and the "Law Side". Basically, the Law Side wants to continue to follow the OT to the letter, whereas the Love Side wants to focus more on the message of Jesus, in particular the part where Jesus said that the supreme commandment in the Law is to "love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart and all thy mind and all thy soul, and to love thy neighbor as thyself." I think the OT needs to be reinterpreted in light of this statement, which is pretty clear and unambiguous, and is clearly meant to be Jesus summary of the take-home message from the entire OT. Anything you say or quote or interpret which contradicts this statement, contradicts Jesus and is therefore clearly wrong. Or, to put it another way, I think a single direct quote from Jesus trumps any number of quotes from the OT, and Jesus was not at all unclear about these issues.
I know that, I was just joking! Besides, there were others on that forum who feel the same way I do, and if there weren't, I'm not too worried about it anyway.
"If 1000 men disagree with me, then the odds are 1000 to one that they are wrong." --Robert Heinlein
AR, I'm just messing with you at this point. As, I suspect, you are just messing with me. I'm glad that such a heated issue can be lightened with a little humor! Trouble is, I actually rather like you, and I was hoping that I could talk you around... oh well, another one lost to the propaganda wars. I am very interested in the prospero forum, it looks really cool, but I just can't afford to join right now, maybe if this stupid war ends soon and we get some business this will change ;-).
I think that there's not much point in continuing this debate in earnest at this point. I think time will tell, sadly enough. Let's call it a draw, shall we?
I don't see any reason to engage in that discussion anyway, mhazboun_cfl has already made all of my essential points. Jesus said to turn the other cheek and love your enemy. This seems pretty incompatible with war to me, and Jesus was the Man, was he not?
Hey, wait a second, that's a paid subscriber forum! Sorry, interesting but I can't afford it. Have to say, I disagree with the post you linked to, sounds like rampant Crusaderism to me, there are very few things which have caused more and more horrible atrocities than making war in the name of God. I find this whole line of reasoning highly disturbing, and am frankly horrified by the tone of the post you linked to. Maybe we could move this onto my side's turf instead?
Is this the slashdot equivalent of "you wanna step outside?"
OK, I'm game, though I should warn you that my religion is somewhat unorthodox, perhaps even heretical. But I doubt I am the only Christian who's a pacifist!
Before we take this outside as it were, I just want to thank you again for a great debate, AR, I enjoyed it thoroughly. I have some work to do today, but I'll meet you over at prospero when I have time.
Are you confusing killing with murder?
I have to admit, I am a little confused about the difference between "killing" and "murder." Perhaps you can explain it to me. I am also a little confused about the difference between "shock and awe" and "terror", the difference between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist", the difference between "collateral damage" and "dead babies", the difference between "liberation" and "conquest", the difference between "humanitarian aid" and "occupation", the difference between "police action" and "war", and indeed the difference between the principles held by the current US and Iraqi regimes.
I am confused about a number of arbitrary and blatantly doublethink distinctions which people make when talking about war. It seems to me that the only real difference between these terms is that one is what we call it when we do it to other people, and the other is what we call it when they do it to us.
The manipulation of language is one of the primary tools of propaganda. And what is the difference between "news" and "propaganda" anyway? Oh yeah...
Oh, I don't know, Switzerland actually comes pretty close to embodying the philosophy I advocate. From a position of strength, with a strong warrior spirit, they stay determinedly neutral in all conflicts, trying to get the other parties to listen to the voice of reason. Can you imagine the Swiss ever invading anyone? They have stood by these principles dispite many wars which raged around them, and I admire them greatly. They still exist, and probably will for some time to come.
And again I say, I am not advocating no response, I am advocating a different response. Please read the following article, which makes this point far better than I ever could. Noam Chomsky is a prof. at MIT and knows what he's talking about, and is further a brilliant essayist.
"Drain the swamp and there will be no more mosquitoes -- Noam Chomsky
I'm not arguing with the accuracy of the facts they presented. I don't care about that. The question is, what did they leave out? And the other question is, how did they choose to arrange their facts so as to manipulate your opinion? And yet another question is, can any of these facts, no matter how accurate, provide justification for doing something which is still wrong no matter how you look at it?
Yes, these issues are more complex than my simplistic ethical arguments admit. I'm trying to make the bare bones of an argument which has been made extensively by pacifists throughout the ages, and I hope I have done it some justice.
I think that war is wrong, and I am opposed to it on general principle. I think that in this particular instance, the US has made a very weak case that war is necessary, and that there were many other avenues of approach which would have worked much better. This seems to be the point that the leaders of many other major nations were trying to make as well. There is a big difference between defending yourself against direct attack and invading a sovereign nation. This sets a bad precedent, and will probably go down in history as a Big Mistake.
But I acknowledge and respect the strength of your resolve to help the Iraqi people, and I encourage you to continue to debate and think about these issues. Please try to keep an open mind to other possiblities for conflict-resolution besides war.
Well fought, my Lord, and may we someday meet again upon the field of honor.
Peace out...
This argument is untenable for many different reasons, and has been thoroughly demolished by many people from many different schools of thought. In my view, the strongest arguments against it are religious.
For instance, to take a Christian perspective (the US still claims to be a Christian nation, doesn't it?), Jesus said to turn the other cheek. Do you think he meant, "unless they hit you really hard, in which case kick their ass?" NO! If somebody else commits a sin, that is their problem, between them and God. To commit sins against them in retaliation just means that you have now sinned, and you now have a problem with God. "Vengeance is mine" saith the Lord.
I happen to be a Christian, but I am willing to entertain other points of view as well, so let's try attacking your argument from some other perspectives, shall we?
From a Buddhist/Taoist point of view, to involve yourself in someone else's bad karma just drags you down into their cycle of suffering. Then you have to suffer for their mistakes. How does that make sense? To alleviate suffering, you must act with compassion, rather than simply causing more suffering.
I don't know much about Islam, but from your straw man characterization and that of many others, I can only infer that they are the only religion in the world which believes killing is OK and justified. If so, how can we claim to be better than them, if we just follow the same logic?
Or, if you're not a religious person, there are plenty of secular humanist arguments to demolish the "end justifies the means" fallacy as well. For instance, from a Utilitarian perspective, the means may have unintended consequences, and ususally they do, and they are often worse than the original problem. Kant says that you should "act on that maxim which you can consistently will become universal law." This means that you should do what is ethically right, regardless of the consequences. From an Aristotelian perspective, performing wrong (unvirtuous) actions damages your character, it makes you a bad person, and then you continue to perform wrong actions ad infinitum. I could go on. As I've said elsewhere, the statement that "the end does not justify the means" is fairly uncontroversial among ethical philosophers and religious scholars.
your saying no would should kill at whatever the consequences or cost are of not killing
You got that right Bubba, that's exactly what I'm saying. Killing is wrong. Therefore you should not do it. If your back is to a wall and you really have no choice, I can see killing to defend yourself from direct attack, but even then, you better spend a lot of time on your knees afterwards, or you're going to end up having a little chat with the man downstairs. The moral worth of an action cannot be judged by its consequences, nor by its intended consequences, because the actor cannot possibly know what the consequences of the action will be. The moral worth of an action must be judged on its own merits, and killing is a wrong action however you slice it. It should be avoided whenever possible, and I do not remotely buy that there was no choice in this case.
Are you confusing killing with murder?
I am aware that some people make this silly (and arbitrary) distinction as a justification for war, saying that God didn't mean, "thou shalt not kill," he meant "thou shalt not murder," and this makes all the difference, and says that it's OK to kill if your government tells you to. In my view, this argument is not worth a load of fetid dingo's kidneys. Killing is killing. It's always wrong. When faced with a choice between evils, you may have to choose the lesser, and it may be killing, but that doesn't make it right. It just makes it less wrong. It's still wrong, and should be avoided if at all possible.
You assume that in this situation there were only two options, doing nothing and going to war. But there are always many options in a
You see, this is exactly the sort of thing I'm on about. This is why the end does not justify the means. We feel like we have to do something about the Iotola (however you spell it), so we support a brutal vicious killer and help him retain power. Then our brutal vicious killer starts going around... well... surprisingly enough ... brutally and viciously killing people. Then we say we have to kill even more people to put a stop to this. Where does it end?
Somebody, I can't remember who, once said, "all of todays problems are the direct and inevitable result of yesterday's brilliant solutions."
This is typical of the kind of problems the US gets itself involved in. They see something terrible happening, and they say, "hey, something terrible is happening, we have to do something about it." So they go in and kick the living shit out of somebody, and of course this never helps, and causes more problems in the region, so then a few decades later, they say, "hey, something terrible is happening, we have to do something about it." and they go in and kick the living shit out of somebody, and it just goes on and on. Bombs don't solve problems. Killing doesn't solve problems. The end does not justify the means. Two wrongs do not make a right.
I say to you again, two wrongs don't make a right. All of the things you mentioned really sucked. So will this war. So will the subsequent occupation. In fact, this entire stupid game of Colonial Imperialism that we've been playing for the last 500 years sucks. Let's call it a draw, and go play something else, what do you say?
Oh, yeah, and I seem to remember seeing a few of those people out on the streets of NY the other day, carrying signs like "this 911 family member is against the war." So yes, I think you should indeed ask them.
I think I should address this question as well. No, you should not turn a blind eye when something terrible is happening. You should oppose it with all your might. However, you should do so in some way which does not involve killing people. If someone tries to convince you that they should solve any problem (including terrorism) by killing people, you shouldn't listen to them. They are wrong. You should tell them to find some other way to solve the problem. And if they fail, then find some other way, and another and another, as long as they don't involve killing people or committing further atrocities. Two wrongs don't make a right. Your mother should have taught you that.
Serious questions...glad I don't have to answer them for the country!
But you do! All of us have a responsiblity to answer these questions and to speak out about them. Don't just go along with what you see on PBS. "Think for yourself, schmuck!" --Robert Anton Wilson (written in letters of fire on the wall in front of a startled Moses in a painting described in Illuminatus)
The answer is even easy, in this case. Act to prevent terrorism by removing the causes which create terrorism in the first place. If the US were not brutally oppressing and robbing these people, they would probably not be so pissed off. Work to stabilize the international political situation, rather than acting to polarize and destabilize it, the way the US is doing now.
"The simplest and most effective way for us to reduce the level of violence and terror in the world is for us to stop participating in it." --Noam Chomsky
This seems highly dubious to me. Before WWII started, there were a lot more Jews, Russians, Germans, French, British, and even Americans than there were after it was over, whereas if the war had never started in the first place (which was, of course, clearly the Nazi's fault, I'm not saying it wasn't), there would be no reason to even speculate about the French and British speaking German. And if you think that American interferance in foreign affairs has, on the whole, had a positive influence, I suggest you go back and read a little more history, you will find that in the vast majority of cases, they have fucked things up royally.
Wars of this new century will not be as defined as ones of the past. Today's wars will probably be built on perceived responsibilities and morals. Of course morals differ from one person to another, so there will always be debate there.
Moral relativism once again rears its ugly head in this debate. Moral beliefs differ from one person to another, but morals themselves are absolute. There are moral facts. The vast majority of ethical philosophers and religious authorities agree on this. One of them is that WAR IS WRONG. This can be shown by the Socratic method in three easy questions:
1) Q: Is killing wrong?
A: Why, whaddaya know, KILLING IS WRONG. This one's a no-brainer. If you disagree with me on this, I hope I never meet you in a dark ally.
2) Q: Does war involve killing?
A: Why, yes indeed it does. No matter how much you try to minimize casualties, war involves killing pretty much by definition.
3) Q: Does the end justify the means?
A: This is the point in the argument where they will try to fool you. Don't buy it. The end does not justify the means for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that you cannot possibly know that the means you propose will lead to the ends you seek. The common way to put this is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So the answer is NO.
ERGO: WAR IS WRONG. And anyone who believes otherwise is wrong too. This is not just my opinion, this is not open to debate, this is a MORAL FACT.
War mongers always use convoluted arguments, villainization, and propaganda to convince you that somehow war can be justified, mitigated, or otherwise made right, but it's not. Don't listen to them. They are wrong.
Well, that's one way of putting it. Another way would be to say, "an equal number of innocent Iraqis have already died this year, because of US imposed economic sanctions." It is quite typical, in an abusive relationship, for the abuser to blame the victim for the consequences of the abuse. "See, now look what you went and made me do." This argument basically amounts to saying, "well, if we don't kill them this way, we're just going to kill even more of them in other ways, so what's your problem?" Doesn't hold water in my book. How about if you STOP KILLING THEM ALTOGETHER?!?!
Even if some people die by accident -a truly terrible thing- that is better than six times that number dying deliberately.
Ah yes, the cold calculus of death. They always say the same things about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Let's kill these people now, because we believe that will save these other people later. You gotta be pretty heartless to make those kind of calls, but I suppose somebody has to do it.
"When you stand in the first light of dawn and contemplate taking a small group of octogenarians against an army of hundreds of thousands, you start to do the cold calculus of death. 'Great Gods!" Cohen thought, 'It will take weeks to kill them all!'" --Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times
Oh, well then, we are in total agreement. That's what I'm saying too. Sorry to get on your case like that.