The "This isn't a war about religion" line.

aruanan | October 8, 2001 | aruanan

[aruanan]

This attitude will take as long to impose on Muslims as it will to make peasants order their lives by the clock, especially since they will always find reasons for doubting our resolve.

Yes, but in the case of the clock, the better they got, the more everyone wanted to use them.

[willyboyishere]

"...the default condition of the human experience"
-----beautiful and apt phrase.
Yes, they seem stuck in a historical warp, and "left out" of even the ancient but modernizing cultures they mostly sprang from. If they don't directly become a major problem for us "militarily",they are in the meanwhile becoming a huge problem for the countries they're already living in, like Pakistan. Whether we will have to deal with them, or their own countries do, it will require the "strong stomach" I mentioned even to watch the chaos unfold.

[edayna]

At some point, we're going to have to stop dancing around the all-inclusive global view, as the original poster said, that everyone's beliefs are OK as long as they don't interfere with anyone else's.

I respect other religions, I really do. I just don't think they can co-exist and intermingle in the long term. Someone always has to be on top. The U.S. needs to make Christianity its official religion and marginalize the rest. Now as for what *type* of Christianity, that's up for debate, hm?

[aruanan]

Yes, they seem stuck in a historical warp, and "left out" of even the ancient but modernizing cultures they mostly sprang from. If they don't directly become a major problem for us "militarily",they are in the meanwhile becoming a huge problem for the countries they're already living in, like Pakistan. Whether we will have to deal with them, or their own countries do, it will require the "strong stomach" I mentioned even to watch the chaos unfold.

I was reading somewhere that the middle ages was characterized by a level of brutality, ruthlessness, and violence, even among the people we in the present day consider good back then, that is completely shocking to modern sensibilities. I know that Michael Crichton (sp?) uses this in his time-traveling (not quite) book, the name of which escapes me at the moment. You can put it another way, "Teach a caveman how to use a cell phone and you'll have a cell phone-using caveman." Technology will only extend the reach of his hand, not modify the use to which he puts it; it will only expand the available territory in his worldview, not broaden his horizons. If this person, or group of persons, were living in some isolated part of the world today, people would not have much need to fear them because their level of technology wouldn't allow them much influence beyond their immediate physical presence and the speed with which they could walk or run from one place to the next. However, if they acquire the ability to use modern technology (which has always been one or another type of force multiplier), then their ethos becomes dangerous to the extent that they can use that technology to impose it on other people. It's always easier to learn to use some technology in order to facilitate one's ambitions (think of a 16-year-old's view of car ownership) than it is to modify one's worldview in order to use that technology in a way that won't kill oneself or hurt others.

[Aquinasfan]

I've never read a better, more concise description of the Left's de facto understanding of religion.

Very well done!

The next task is to determine the best way to change their views.

[Peter W. Kessler]

We are, and have been called to be, the tools in God's toolbox.

I think God has chosen to use His hammer for this project.

[aruanan]

Thanks!

The next task is to determine the best way to change their views.

Have a higher birth rate, educate more of our kids through home schooling, and displace one population with another? There'll be a lot of them left in academia, but eventually even old growth forests die out.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Yes, but according to your own analysis, "taking out" Mullahs wouldn't solve the problem. If Islam is the source of the problem, we will (according to the logic of this view) also have to "take out" every follower of this religion. If we don't (again, according to the logic of your view) new Mullahs will always be waiting in the wings.

Here's a simpler and more realistic idea. Let's retaliate against the Bin Laden gang and then totatlly withdraw from the hopelessly screwed up Islamic world

[Quix]

Yes, I believe so.

Am reminded of THE ROCK on Whom all will either fall on and be broken

or fall under

and be CRUSHED.

[Aquinasfan]

Have a higher birth rate, educate more of our kids through home schooling, and displace one population with another? There'll be a lot of them left in academia, but eventually even old growth forests die out.

Good answer. But I'm looking for instant gratification ;-)

[wingnuts'nbolts]

This is a religious war for Bin Laden and his 40 thiefs, but since we are not trying to wipe out Islam, nor are we trying to convert those with whom we are warring, to any other religion, it is not a religios war for us. It is a cultural war and a very straight forward war on evil.

[A. Pole]

Bump

[A. Pole]

I cannot believe all Muslims are fanatics.

"Fanatic" is a loaded and misleading word. Is an American soldier sacrificing his life in defence of his country a fanatic? Or is a person devoting his whole life to help the poor a fanatic?

If you believe that Islam represent the ultimate truth and the God/Allah wants you to fight for the submission of infidels with a sword and you act on it are you a fanatic?

Or if you believe that you should give away everything what you have to the poor and follow Christ are you fanatic?

Or if you believe that getting rich is the ultimate goal and you work 80 hours weeks to achieve this are you a fanatic?

Or if you are zealous physician who works even harder the businessman for little money, are you a fanatic?

I thing that problem is not with the degree of zeal and commitment but with the CONTENT of your beliefs. If you believe in something good and beautiful and you live according to it your life will be good and beautiful. But if your belief in something not so good that of course it is better if you are not a "fanatic".

The most commited Christians try to emulate their Teacher to become meek, compassionate and loving, even to their enemies, to turn their second cheek and return good for evil. They can become monks, nuns or even hermits.

On the other hand the most pious Muslims will try to emulate Muhammad who was waging wars, capturing people, robbing and slaughtering his enemies.

But majority of the people will be lukewarm and "moderate" so the "average" Muslim and Christian will not differ that much.

[max61]

Yep, The WTC and Pentagon are the holiest of shrines to Christianity and Judaism. What a great way to strike at the heart of the infidels.

---max

[RobbyS]

But majority of the people will be lukewarm and "moderate" so the "average" Muslim and Christian will not differ that much.

But the social climate in which the people love is much "warmer" and "immoderate" than the one to which the average Christian conforms. Do we even ring church bells to sound the hours anymore(they were originally calls to prayer), do most places even observe closing hours on Sunday. Even in "secular" places like Istanbul, Muslims are constantly reminded of their religious duties. Furthermore, I think the consensus is that fundamentalism is stronger today than it was fifty years ago, because Islam--unlike the Judaism-- has never gone through an "Enlightenment." Thus Arab nationalism, ewhich was supposed to supplant Islam as a unifying force Arabs, has had to give way to a resurgent Islam. You can see this in the PLO: its radicalism has become more and more religious in tone.

[RobbyS]

And which form of Christianity? Our system works largely because of its diverse forms, and it was this diversity that James Madison depended on to protect the rights of conscience.

[Mr. Bungle]

"Astounding. How's that whole Constitution-as-toiletpaper bit working out for you? "

I'd bet the paper cuts in combination with the bacteria led to various cephalic infections long, long ago.

[Quix]

Maybe I'm not Heavenly minded enough. . .

But I thought perhaps that higher birth rate part had some inherent "instant gratification" involved in it.

grin

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

" . . . this is going to be a bloodbath of historical proportions . . ."

. . . but only if it's done correctly.

Bin Laden represents a sect of Islam which cannot be allowed to survive, because if it survives it will eventually attain the technological ability to destroy all life on this planet. It already has the will to do so.

We should destroy the mullahs, the schools, the families, and every living trace of "Ladenism". We should not accept their "defectors" because they are liars and will simply wait to stab us in the back when they recover their offensive capability. This should be a war of utter and complete annihilation.

But it will not be. There will be no cleansing of militant Islam because we are bound to find some "good" Islamic militants who are willing to turn on Bin Laden. And so, when Osama is laid to rest and the Taliban is rendered harmless, we will turn over that corner of the world to "friendly" Islamic "ex"-militants. And we will ride off into the sunset convinced that Virtue has conquered, and firm in our belief in the essential goodness of mankind.

And then in a decade or so, we get to do the whole thing all over again.