"Americans kill dozens of prisoners"

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

Looking through this perspective, democracy is very far from perfection...even in Athens democracy wasnt for everybody...there were restrictions to certain groups :women, children, slaves, foreigners and resident aliens had no rights to participate in the assembly. The Citizenship rights were limited strictly to male, adult, non-slave Athenians of citizen descent. So, this concept of democracy as something 'perfect and incorruptible' is very recent and obviously wrong...

Actually, "democracy" and "democratic" are two way overused words. We don't actually live in a world with a ton of democracies. Most free (while we are at it, what does "free" mean anyway?) countries are republics. This is good though, because republics tend to protect minorities, democracies tend to destroy them.

But anyway, the idea that total freedom to do whatever one wants fixes everything is nonsense. In a country where everyone can do whatever they want, 'they' are quite capable of destroying th very country that lets them do it.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Actually, "democracy" and "democratic" are two way overused words. We don't actually live in a world with a ton of democracies. Most free (while we are at it, what does "free" mean anyway?) countries are republics. This is good though, because republics tend to protect minorities, democracies tend to destroy them.

Seriously I cant see republic playing this role of 'protection'...anyway are you insinuating that people need less social rights?

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

But anyway, the idea that total freedom to do whatever one wants fixes everything is nonsense. In a country where everyone can do whatever they want, 'they' are quite capable of destroying th very country that lets them do it.

So you arent talking about democracy... but maybe about anarchism ???

[uncertaindrumer]

Actually what a lot of people do advocate is anarchay. They don't always realize it, but nonetheless it is true. People want to be able to do anything and that leads to anarchy.

And yes republics play that role of protection. Any look at the press, filibusters, etc. etc. shows how much minorities are protected. not necessarily enough in some areas, (and, I think, TOO much in other areas), but it does a much better job than a pure democracy.

[bilal]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

This is totally unpolitically correct, but the middle east has ALWAYS had bad relations with the rest of the world since the rise of Islam. I mean sure, there are periods of relative peace, but there has been constant Islamic wars since Mohammed started. It is definitely not just the events of the past fifty years that have the tensions as they are.

i dunno what ur saying here man................. i cant seeem to find any reason why ur Blaming the time 15 centuries ago ......when Islam was spread by our Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H.)to blame all whats happpening today........... imean....u seem to be having a very closed view of Islam .......as if u really think Islam should'nt have been here in first place......... what was the world before islam or Chritianity......... actaully its only religion.......the law of ALMIHTY................. that have in any way brought some law and order and way of living in the world............

u say middle east has always had bad relation with the world...........kindly tell me what world??............. may be indirectly ur refering hte mulims had bad relations with christians and jews............casue ......most of part of the history....most of hte palestine was under Mulims rule..............or say atlest Jerusalem..... the hole place to all religion...........was under Muslim emporors......till it was invaded by Israell....

ill be glad if u can clear my confusion here....i mean....i am lost why u hate middle east.....or as u said..... what do u see in middle east history that makes u hate it ................. please ....if you share that ....ill be most gratefull................... cause by just baseless acquisitions..... u and i are not gonna acheive anything!!.......................

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

And this is the opinion of a self proclaimed atheist. No offense but seeing as you believe in nothing, your opinion carries very little weight. But nonetheless I wsa talking about what is socially acceptable, not necessarily what is legal. I would not ban contraception even though I think it is a great evil that has contributed to many of the problems of the last century. I just find it deperessing that it is now not only socially acceptable but socially expected.

On other issues, such as abortion, I certainly WOULD outlaw it if given the chance, since many lives are at stake.

But yeah, anyway I was talking more along the lines of what is seen as acceptable/unacceptable. I mean, just the way people dress these days is disgusting, but is seen as usual and desirable.

This is despicable. That whole post was the definiton of why we as a people are in such deep poop. If every law can change, there are no real laws. They don't DO anything, since they can "change" at will. By your logic, there is absolutely nothing wrong with me taking a gun and killing you. Nothing. After all, laws are subject to change, and if I want to change them I can.

And you say how can we be tolerant when we claim someone else is wrong? First off, that is ludicrous, and second off, who says we should be tolerant? As usual people throw out these words as if they are just known to be good. You have no idea why we should be tolerant. You just assume that.

So just because I do not believe in any deity, I'm a second class citizen and my opinion isn't equal to that of a believer. This is indeed 'a very tolerant position'. Your opinion is outright racist towards non-believers.

The line between what is socially acceptable and legal is very thin btw, usually we (the democraticly chosen lawmakers) make laws in regard to what is socially acceptable, some minor things we do not put into law, but are frowned upon at times, so the big distinction you are trying to make I do not understand.

This is also were I as a non-absolutist get most of my morality from, and ofcourse out of my own opinion in regard to subject. I do not feel your need to have a higher authority, who needs to tell me what is absolutely right or wrong, I have my own judgement and the society which I live in to back me up on that.

There is no absolute law that states, to kill is always wrong. We allow people to be killed in wartime, we allow people to kill in self defense, in the US you even allow people to be killed as punishment. There are always circumstances in which certain things that are usually 'bad' can be tolerated. If I am correct it even states in the bible that the Israelites where allowed to 'take' the daughters of their enemy, if this is your absolute morality, please leave me alone with it.

Why should people be tolerant, you ask. If you want to get along with someone, you have to be respectful of him, you don't have to condone everything he does, but you have to be willing to respect his opinion on things or force your opinion on him, are there any other options? Well the latter is a thing that I find truly despicable and therefore I choose tolerance.

I disagree heavily with you, but I do not consider your opinion lower than mine, at least not to anyone else, ofcourse I consider my own opinion better in my mind, otherwise I wouldn't have had that particular opinion.

But my tolerance stops if you want to tell me what to wear, or how to have sex or for what reason, just because you think your opinion or your God's opinion is morally superior to mine. If it is an absolute, be prepared to prove it and not based upon faith.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Actually what a lot of people do advocate is anarchay. They don't always realize it, but nonetheless it is true. People want to be able to do anything and that leads to anarchy.

And yes republics play that role of protection. Any look at the press, filibusters, etc. etc. shows how much minorities are protected. not necessarily enough in some areas, (and, I think, TOO much in other areas), but it does a much better job than a pure democracy.

Actually your understanding of Anarchy is too simplistic:

The word "anarchy," as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos, nihilism, or anomie, but rather a harmonious anti-authoritarian society. In place of what are regarded as authoritarian political structures and coercive economic institutions, anarchists advocate social relations based upon voluntary association of autonomous individuals, mutual aid, and self-governance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

But anyway, the idea that total freedom to do whatever one wants fixes everything is nonsense. In a country where everyone can do whatever they want, 'they' are quite capable of destroying th very country that lets them do it.

People want to be able to do anything and that leads to anarchy.

Actually that is exactly the kind of freedom that I would want to fight for.

As a society we accept certain rules to get along. We do not accept it if you harm others physically. We accept certain rules, because it promotes our security and reduces the cause of accidents (traffic laws, gun laws), but otherwise I should indeed have the right to do whatever I want as long as it does not harm anyone else.

What is our freedom worth, if it can be crushed from within?

Anarchy of itself is theoretically a nice idea, but it just won't work. People need rules, but these rules should not be used just to force your opinion on others. There has to be a balance.

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

We do not accept it if you harm others physically.

Why?

Quote:

We accept certain rules, because it promotes our security and reduces the cause of accidents (traffic laws, gun laws),

An accident is bad? Security is good?

Quote:

but otherwise I should indeed have the right to do whatever I want as long as it does not harm anyone else.

Says who?

Quote:

What is our freedom worth, if it can be crushed from within?

What is freedom worth, period?

Quote:

Anarchy of itself is theoretically a nice idea, but it just won't work. People need rules, but these rules should not be used just to force your opinion on others. There has to be a balance.

Again, you say this, but why should I believe you?

And Ana, anarchy can mean different things. I should have clarified that when I referred to it I was reffering to the negative sense of anarchy. I am actually a utopian anarchist I believe, if I remember that term correctly, because I beieve it states that in a perfect world government would be unneccessary, which I do believe. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world and government is necessary.

[RalphyS]

You wanna play dense now?

Why are certain things bad and certain things considered good?

Not because some fantasy figure told us so, but because we as humans learned or felt that certain things are desirable for humans living together and certain things are not and we made rules about that.

The fact that there is no absolute objective morality does in no way hinder us from making us as a society a moral law to which its inhabitants have to subject itself, and if they do not, they will have to suffer the consequences.

You are using your belief as a crutch, you basically state that you cannot decide for yourself what is good or bad, that you need a higher authority to do so, that you are basically a child that will never grow up.

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

Look..you are going to be minor in History isnt it? Do you really believe in this role that US has? I mean...spreading democracy in the world throughout wars your country is involved ???? Is this the first reason ???

I think it'd be great if every country in the world had a democracy that works, for the most part, as well as the US or Britain, etc. There exists one theory that democracies simply don't fight each other. However, I don't believe in using wars to get democracy going. Something created under certain circumstances that are antithetical to that something probably won't be fully realized as was initially hoped for.

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

All religions claim to be about peace and love, but history and current news time and time again show us the atrocities committed by 'true believers'. Most Christians in the USA consider the islam a terrorist religion, I believe. I think the part that Uncertain Drummer claims as being his backbone, the absolutism of religion, is just the thing that is the most terrifying about religion. How can you be tolerant towards other views, if your religion teaches you that your view is right and that other views are absolutely wrong. But still I don't begrudge anyone his absolute belief as long as they do not impose it upon me or others, who do not share it. And this is were religion mostly goes wrong, because God's law should be imposed onto everyone. Muslims will not allow non-muslims to draw cartoons about Mohammed, Christians will not allow non-Christians to have an abortion or marry someone of their own gender, the list goes on and on. This is also the problem I have with religion. Do not tell me about the laws of your Christian God or of Allah, to me they hold no ground, unless they have proven themselves to be beneficial for the society I live in. There should be no absolute laws, every law is up for change in certain situations or if circumstances change.

I think what we're dealing with here is two different sets of circumstances that can combine together. first is the nature of the religious belief: are your religious beliefs absolutist, or do they take a relativist slant?

second is the degree to which those beliefs are pursued throughout the society or political entity in which they are present and, more than likely, are dominant? i would argue that, so long as i do not see it as right to force my religious beliefs upon others, an absolutist belief system is not as dangerous as you allege it to be. i don't know that most americans see islam as the religion of terror. i'm sort of isolated (at a university with other, hopefully, enlightened individuals), but i think there is a general consensus that the radical elements and factions of Islam are faaaaaaaar more dangerous than those of Christianity (after all, Pat Robertson has yet to depose Chavez).

as for my personal beliefs, because i live in a democratic society (in which the minority peacefully accepts that he cannot now control the direction of the political entity) and realize that my beliefs are likely in the minority (insofar as that religion is not supposed to be state-sponsored in the US), i try not to allow my personal beliefs on ethical and moral questions (abortion, gay marriage, death penalty, etc.) affect the candidates or party for whom I vote. thus, although i might personally be opposed to these three issues i mentioned, it is not politically right to elect people just because they do. i would suspect that most other Christians would find this view to be somewhat radical, by not using whatever means necessary to spread God's word, but I also believe that using democracy to spread God might not be how God wants others to find out about Him.

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Well I do think the 'spread of democracy'-concept is a new one. Sure the US was very busy involved with governments in Latin America and Asia during and even after the cold war, but it had nothing to do with spreading democracy. They didn't care if the countries were democratic or led dictatorialy as long as they were not under communistic or even socialistic influence. I think the support of the military coup by Pinochet in Chili and the opposition to the democratically elected Allende is the perfect example for it. Another good example is the support that the oppressing apartheid-regime in South Africa got from the US. It might not be always out in the open, but the US backed those governments, which were all but democratic.

if you're going to be cynical there, then why not just assume that the US isn't really trying to spread democracy in the Middle East, that we're there solely for economic gain, and it has nothing to do with trying to help out Israel (with a more agreeable political climate)?

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

So involvement of the US in other nation's governments surely isn't a new concept, but calling it 'the spreading of democracy' is, but in fact I think it's just another slogan for the same game. We see how democracy has triumped in Palestine and how the USA is now standing on the barriers to support the democratically elected government there The same thing applies to Iraq, in totally free elections there would probably come a very islamist government that might even adopt sharia-law, I do not think that is what the US wants. They want influence and a government that is friendly to the US, whether it is democratic or placed in any other way. And in these cases I even agree, democracy isn't always the answer, because not only in the USA, as Uncertain Drummer stated, but all over the world the majority seem to be d.mb f.cks, pardon my French.

hey, I think Hamas should be given a fair shake. they won the elections fair and square, and it's only fair they be given a fair chance to do what they want. i'd honestly like to see if the theory that giving radical minority groups power helps them to become more involved in the political society.

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Which Christians did this exactly? I know it must not have been a majorly Catholic problem. If it was, I'd hear about all the time...

Protestants and Catholics, alike. what do you mean you'd hear about it all the time? i've never had anyone give me grief over this before, as most people really aren't aware that it happened. i assume you're trying to make the connection that, because no one's said anything to you about it, it didn't happen at all. but, whether you like it or not, European Christians forced conversions of Africans, much in the same way the Spanish and French (in particular) did in the 'New World.'

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

Not sure...this is a very naive conclusion...

not really.... seems to me that most politicians, at least in the US, make it there based on how much $$$ their parents have. and while a republican form of government may be designed to prevent public ignorance from playing too great a role, the US has become more democratic over the years. at any rate, contemporary politicians aren't the brilliant ones. they're recruited for their good looks or ability to win over crowds.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

I think what we're dealing with here is two different sets of circumstances that can combine together. first is the nature of the religious belief: are your religious beliefs absolutist, or do they take a relativist slant?

second is the degree to which those beliefs are pursued throughout the society or political entity in which they are present and, more than likely, are dominant? i would argue that, so long as i do not see it as right to force my religious beliefs upon others, an absolutist belief system is not as dangerous as you allege it to be. i don't know that most americans see islam as the religion of terror. i'm sort of isolated (at a university with other, hopefully, enlightened individuals), but i think there is a general consensus that the radical elements and factions of Islam are faaaaaaaar more dangerous than those of Christianity (after all, Pat Robertson has yet to depose Chavez).

as for my personal beliefs, because i live in a democratic society (in which the minority peacefully accepts that he cannot now control the direction of the political entity) and realize that my beliefs are likely in the minority (insofar as that religion is not supposed to be state-sponsored in the US), i try not to allow my personal beliefs on ethical and moral questions (abortion, gay marriage, death penalty, etc.) affect the candidates or party for whom I vote. thus, although i might personally be opposed to these three issues i mentioned, it is not politically right to elect people just because they do. i would suspect that most other Christians would find this view to be somewhat radical, by not using whatever means necessary to spread God's word, but I also believe that using democracy to spread God might not be how God wants others to find out about Him.

Separation of church and state (god/belief and politics) in one's own mind, on one side I'm very impressed and admire you for that stand. And surely it makes coexistence with people from other worldviews much easier.

On the other hand, I always wonder about moderate religious people, while I personally like there to be more, but that is just out of convenience, I mostly have a hard time grasping their view.

As previously stated and well-known around here by now I'm an atheist and therefore lack any belief in any deities, but if I would be religious, I mean if I had a belief in a God and it was according to that belief my primary target to worship or at the very least pay my respect to that loving God, who demands that of us in his holy scriptures I would have a hard time being a moderate.

Isn't any belief in any God absolute, and is it therefore not required to live by the absolute standards of this religion? How can I, if I am a true believer, pick and choose what parts of religion I adher too and what not, or at what time I do or I do not. I mean my views are totally opposed to that of any fundamentalist, but somehow I think that if I was a believer I too would be one. Religion is somehow a very black and white issue, either the God of the bibler or of the koran exists, in which case you should at all times and in every situation go by your holy book, or god doesn't exist, in which case the holy books are nice fairytales, written by men, with maybe some moral lessons to learn from, but surely no foundation for anything.

I'm probably not making much sense here, since I first preach tolerance (letting everyone live their life according to their own worldview and ideas) and now I'm saying that I cannot understand tolerance in a religious person, because to me religion cannot be relative and must be absolute, but it does somehow describe my view to religion as a sometimes slumbering, but mostly permanent danger to society. I understand that there is much 'love' involved in religion, but there always has to be absolutism at some point, because God as described in the holy books (and in my opinion therefore as invented by people) is absolute.

I hope you get the drift of what I wanted to explain.