Jesus' Sword
OK. An actual post.
Historically, choosing science over religion hasn´t yielded universally fantastic results. The worst slaughters in recent history have been perpetrated by self-professed athiests.
The point isn’t whether atheists or religious nuts like Bush and bin Laden kill more people. World leaders have been slaughtering people for centuries and will most likely continue to do so for centuries. My point was that religious doctrine can be hijacked by the slaughterers to justify their horrors. I’m certain that it wasn’t Jesus’ plan to set up the Spanish Inquisition, but they did it in His name. I’m sure that when Jesus said that bit about the sword, he wasn’t thinking of the Crusades. Oh, and the Crusades are a perfect example of hijacking religion to achieve political ends. The leaders of those campaigns were interested in land acquisition, not religious conversion. They only used religion to bring the people along, much like Bush’s phantom WMD.
"Former regime elements and insurgents have made it a practice of using civilians as human shields, operating and conducting attacks against coalition forces from within areas inhabited by civilians."
Point is, Bush can not only not be blamed for these, but one would think he´s more justified in rooting out bastards who do these kinds of things
Why can’t Bush be blamed for this? Should the rules of war somehow include something about laying down all arms if you are fighting against the United States? That “collateral damage” should be the fault of the people who are killed for not leaving their homes and becoming refugees in Syria? Bush invaded a country that didn’t attack us based on lies. Now a minimum of 100,000 innocent civilians are dead. If Bush hadn’t invaded, those people would be alive. Take Truman’s use of the Bomb. Maybe he did end up saving other lives by decimating Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But there’s no question that we’re still responsible for the deaths there. Lucky for Truman’s conscience, he can rest easy knowing that at least they attacked us first. And somehow I get the feeling he didn't rest easy.
To your last point that Bush is justified to attack them because they are bad, I have two points. 1) When did the US become the world’s police? And 2) If he’s into rooting out bastards, shouldn’t he be going into Darfur, where Bush’s own people have declared that a genocide is taking place?
On torture chambers - the US fucked up there. Truly. But Saddam´s were worse. Does that justify ours? Hell no. But the fact that you mentioned ours as if we were the only ones at fault suggests that you´re not looking at the whole story. We made our soldiers stop, or at least made a show of it. Saddam didn´t even pretend. Hardly the moral high ground, but ignoring it doesn´t help your case.
Who says Saddam’s were worse? I don’t know that arguing over who tortured more people is a productive conversation, but I’ve not read anyone argue that our torture chambers are ok because his were worse, especially if what we need to have to get this done is to maintain a high moral ground – not a slightly higher moral ground that one of the most brutal dictators in the middle east.
Second, if you think the torture chambers are shut down, you’re not paying close enough attention. All they’ve shut down is the taking pictures of the horrors. Furthermore, don’t fall into the trap of blaming it on a “few bad apples.” They set this up from the beginning, starting with memos from the White House:
I do know that Jesus did not preach tolerance. ¨"I came not to bring peace, but a sword." The problem here isn´t that we´re "interpreting scripture differently" - the problem is that some interprit it badly, some well, and some, in your case, not at all.
Jesus didn't preach tolerance? He didn't preach peace? How about the Beatitudes? Blessed are the meek? Blessed are the peacemakers? That sounds like preaching peace to me. Turn the other cheek, he said. He changed eye for an eye to turn the other cheek. That was the point of His time here on earth. To change from the old-school old testament rules to the new and improved new testament rules. As a sidenote, all the conservative Christians want to have the Ten Commandments put up in every school and courthouse. But if they want to post Christian doctrine in our municipal buildings, I think they ought to post the Beatitudes. I mean, explain what laws are derived from "honor your mother and father" or "no graven images." It's legal for me to tell my mom to fuck off and to have a Buddha statue in my home.
And perhaps that's the point. We have to use logic and science to derive our laws, not someone's particular interpretation of their particular religion. It's not that I'm striving to have a country of no religion, it's that this country was established to welcome any religion. If our system of justice were truly derived from the Ten Commandments, then Hindus would not be welcome here, because they use graven images and they place other gods before yours. The rule of law must be based on logic - universal and easily understood. Not based on one person's interpretation of an ancient text. It's part of living in a pluralistic society open to all.
Historically, choosing science over religion hasn´t yielded universally fantastic results. The worst slaughters in recent history have been perpetrated by self-professed athiests.
The point isn’t whether atheists or religious nuts like Bush and bin Laden kill more people. World leaders have been slaughtering people for centuries and will most likely continue to do so for centuries. My point was that religious doctrine can be hijacked by the slaughterers to justify their horrors. I’m certain that it wasn’t Jesus’ plan to set up the Spanish Inquisition, but they did it in His name. I’m sure that when Jesus said that bit about the sword, he wasn’t thinking of the Crusades. Oh, and the Crusades are a perfect example of hijacking religion to achieve political ends. The leaders of those campaigns were interested in land acquisition, not religious conversion. They only used religion to bring the people along, much like Bush’s phantom WMD.
"Former regime elements and insurgents have made it a practice of using civilians as human shields, operating and conducting attacks against coalition forces from within areas inhabited by civilians."
Point is, Bush can not only not be blamed for these, but one would think he´s more justified in rooting out bastards who do these kinds of things
Why can’t Bush be blamed for this? Should the rules of war somehow include something about laying down all arms if you are fighting against the United States? That “collateral damage” should be the fault of the people who are killed for not leaving their homes and becoming refugees in Syria? Bush invaded a country that didn’t attack us based on lies. Now a minimum of 100,000 innocent civilians are dead. If Bush hadn’t invaded, those people would be alive. Take Truman’s use of the Bomb. Maybe he did end up saving other lives by decimating Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But there’s no question that we’re still responsible for the deaths there. Lucky for Truman’s conscience, he can rest easy knowing that at least they attacked us first. And somehow I get the feeling he didn't rest easy.
To your last point that Bush is justified to attack them because they are bad, I have two points. 1) When did the US become the world’s police? And 2) If he’s into rooting out bastards, shouldn’t he be going into Darfur, where Bush’s own people have declared that a genocide is taking place?
On torture chambers - the US fucked up there. Truly. But Saddam´s were worse. Does that justify ours? Hell no. But the fact that you mentioned ours as if we were the only ones at fault suggests that you´re not looking at the whole story. We made our soldiers stop, or at least made a show of it. Saddam didn´t even pretend. Hardly the moral high ground, but ignoring it doesn´t help your case.
Who says Saddam’s were worse? I don’t know that arguing over who tortured more people is a productive conversation, but I’ve not read anyone argue that our torture chambers are ok because his were worse, especially if what we need to have to get this done is to maintain a high moral ground – not a slightly higher moral ground that one of the most brutal dictators in the middle east.
Second, if you think the torture chambers are shut down, you’re not paying close enough attention. All they’ve shut down is the taking pictures of the horrors. Furthermore, don’t fall into the trap of blaming it on a “few bad apples.” They set this up from the beginning, starting with memos from the White House:
An Aug. 1, 2002, memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, addressed to Gonzales, said that torturing suspected al Qaeda members abroad "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogation" conducted against suspected terrorists.A whole new set of photos are going to be released soon as well. These photos are going to include the sexual abuse of children. And before you go blame the messenger, remember that it’s the fault of the person doing the crime, not the person who tells the story of the crime.
The document provided legal guidance for the CIA, which crafted new, more aggressive techniques for its operatives in the field.
I do know that Jesus did not preach tolerance. ¨"I came not to bring peace, but a sword." The problem here isn´t that we´re "interpreting scripture differently" - the problem is that some interprit it badly, some well, and some, in your case, not at all.
Jesus didn't preach tolerance? He didn't preach peace? How about the Beatitudes? Blessed are the meek? Blessed are the peacemakers? That sounds like preaching peace to me. Turn the other cheek, he said. He changed eye for an eye to turn the other cheek. That was the point of His time here on earth. To change from the old-school old testament rules to the new and improved new testament rules. As a sidenote, all the conservative Christians want to have the Ten Commandments put up in every school and courthouse. But if they want to post Christian doctrine in our municipal buildings, I think they ought to post the Beatitudes. I mean, explain what laws are derived from "honor your mother and father" or "no graven images." It's legal for me to tell my mom to fuck off and to have a Buddha statue in my home.
And perhaps that's the point. We have to use logic and science to derive our laws, not someone's particular interpretation of their particular religion. It's not that I'm striving to have a country of no religion, it's that this country was established to welcome any religion. If our system of justice were truly derived from the Ten Commandments, then Hindus would not be welcome here, because they use graven images and they place other gods before yours. The rule of law must be based on logic - universal and easily understood. Not based on one person's interpretation of an ancient text. It's part of living in a pluralistic society open to all.
posted by lifeintheG at 8:32 AM
1 Comments:
MG's got me thinking, so I won't respond until later today at the earliest. But a quick point (one that isn't really relevant to his argument as a whole) on the Crusades.
'The Crusades are a perfect example of hijacking religion to achieve political ends. The leaders of those campaigns were interested in land acquisition, not religious conversion.'
This is a great historical misconception that has been around a long time, and it's very, very wrong. Since MG's comment on the Crusades was only parenthetical and doesn't make or break his argument in any way, I'll protest here and not in a post.
MG's comment makes a few assumptions that are groundless.
1. The Crusades had leaders.
2. The leaders were interested in land acquisition.
3. The leaders were interested in religious conversion.
4 (implicit assumption). The pope, as the leader of Catholic Christendom, had any control over the crusades at all.
All four of these are false. The closest thing the Crusades had for 'leaders' were wealthy feudal lords. At most, they could only control the soldiers they had brought along with them (their serfs, fulfilling their obligation to serve in their lord's campaigns a few months out of the year). And the evidence is very strongly against any of the lords Crusading because they hoped for personal, material gain. At most they would gain glory, which they lusted for. But to finance the expedition, most every one of them had to sell nearly all they owned, including their land and at prices lower than the original purchase price. Usually the Crusader did not come back, and he and his family were keenly aware of that fact.
As strange as it sounds, most of the Crusaders (lords, serfs, and otherwise), went for the reason that we tend to instantly doubt today - piety. That's the overwhelming reason that appears in the literature of the time, and given the requirements for participating in a Crusade (leaving you and your family dirt poor for an uncertain outcome), they were probably telling the truth.
But to the point - the Crusades didn't have leaders. They had powerful lords searching for personal glory, and it took a great deal of hardship to get them to work together. As soon as they had any kind of success, bickering would start.
As for the second misconception, if the Crusaders were indeed interested in land acquisition, then they were the stupidest real-estate holders the world has ever seen. The only successful Crusade was the first, and it didn't capture anything but two cities - Jerusalem and Antioch, and it didn't leave either one in a position to be defended. No surrounding lands were occupied, no garrisons left to defend the cities. All people did was come, capture the cities, and then make their pilgrimages to the holy sites in the cities and then go home. The entire purpose (stated purpose, realize) of the first crusade was pilgrimage - the only requirements of the crusade were to pledge that one would abstain from worldly pleasures until he or she reached the holy sites at Jerusalem. The crusaders then paid homage, and then left. It wasn't about land acquisition;, it was about performing a medieval act of piety and visiting a holy site (say, the grave of a saint).
The leaders, or lack thereof, were not interested in religious conversion until they began fighting some of the powerful Muslim lords in the second and third crusades. The Christian concept of "holy war" wasn't developed until this period, and it certainly wasn't in use in the first crusade.
The pope had no control over what was happening. He couldn't even keep the crusaders from taking Constantinople, a Christian city, and not even with threat of excommunication.
Almost every argument against Christianity uses the crusades as "a great example," and almost no one has done their research. It really bugs me.
(info taken from Thomas Madden's A Concise History of the Crusades and from online sources.
Post a Comment
<< Home