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

aruanan | October 8, 2001 | aruanan

[edayna]

>>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?

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

I apologize. I was being a bit sarcastic, but forgot to make it obvious. :)

What I meant was that even if Christianity was the only religion allowed, we'd still have problems. Every sect has its militant fringe.

[willyboyishere]

"we are bound to find some "good" Islamic militants..."
It looks like that has already taken place in Afghanistan, where I hear what sounds like the first troubling news thus far as the anti-Taliban effort unfolds: that there have been sizable "defections" from the Taliban side to the side of the Northern Alliance, and that these defections have apparently been accepted, rather than the obvious option of killing the "enemy". Of course the killing could come later, or the N.A. could be opportunistically using them for their intelligence and/or just to have more temporary manpower. Too many "ex"-Taliban remaining behind, and wanting to point to the "help" they gave us and the N.A. could result in re-establishing themselves in positions of power,(this time euphemistically called "sharing" power) which would put us back close to Square One.

[DreamWeaver]

I can understand your confusion or skepticism. But I wonder if you've ever traveled to the Middle East? Or have you talked extensively with Americans who've worked in Saudi Arabia? . . . especially, for example, single men.

In answer to your questions, yes, I have traveled to the Middle East. Israel and Egypt.

Yes, I have talked extensively with an American who worked in Saudi Arabia. My husband. He worked In Saudi for 2 1/2 yrs.

[Quix]

I agree there is a deeper resevoir of strength in the U.S., evidently, still.

On the other hand, if our real strength lies in the depths and quality of our spirituality--meaning our RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD AND DEVOTION TO HIM--how strong are we?

Thankfully, there still seem to be numbers of folk fairly well squared away on that score. And this experience seems to be increasing that number and the quality as well.

On the other hand, there's still enormous amounts of playing church and winking at Christian obligations about forgiveness of one another; making relationships right before offering things to God; clearing anger before sleep etc.

I think we have a ways to go before I'd consider our nation strong. There's still too much endemic rot too deeply in too many place.

[Quix]

It's been an interesting issue to ponder over the years. Diversity is somewhat inherently necessary for free will, choice.

How would you rewrite the constitution to minimize the problems given to Christianity in our era while preserving suitable diversity?

I'm just glad Christ will be the overt and resident Boss sooner than later. What a day that will be!

[Quix]

Sure would like to see the NEA out of things or wholesale reformed toward sanity. . . .and some mix of options available to all wtih minimum non-local interference.

The Feds have no place in local schools, in my opinion. Yet, how to insure minimal solid standards? Sigh.

[Quix]

The mindlessness of so many "modern" ideas and positions still floors me. You are so RIGHT about some methods, systems, structures--even some religions--being more right than others.

But what do we mean "more right?"

I try to teach my students to ask:

1) WHAT IS THE GOAL concerned?

2) WHAT IS THE CRITERIA FOR MEASURING WHETHER THE GOAL HAS BEEN REACHED OR NOT? WHAT IS THE STANDARD concerned?

3) WHAT IS THE CONTEXT?

Only knowing these issues can provide a solid, functional answer to what is "MORE RIGHT" or "MORE WRONG."

If the goal is more freedom, choice, options, safety etc, eventually some compromises have to be made between freedom and safety, for example. Some compromises are better than others.

And, as Viktor Frankel (sp?) said. THERE IS NO FREEDOM WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY. That is ALWAYS true sooner or later. Avoiding responsibilities ALWAYS results sooner or later in forfeiting freedoms.

But satan has convinced so many youth and childISH adults of our last 50-75 years that one can have one's rebellion and safety too. As the Chinese taxi driver might say: "Bu Canun" Impossible--No can do GI. NO WAY.

He's been so clever--erodes the vigor and fierce passions for healthy Love and Right living--then causes enormous angst that there's nothing meaningful or exciting any more--fostering a whole generation addicted to flirting with every form of real and virtual reality death imaginable.

A plausible result when suffering parents try too hard to protect their children from every discomfort and blame more or less all discomforts on OTHER terrible people--especially authority figures.

Of course it doesn't help when authority figures are behaving so destructively to begin with. Can you imagine building a stable culture on Bill C's model?

[Quix]

I agree that when the forces of good and evil are reduced to their essences--as seems to increasingly be the case--then one has to take a stand--even take no prisoners so to speak.

Compromising with cancer and fanatics is suicidal.

[Quix]

From my own travels, I found the people rather intense--pot calling the kettle black in this case but anyway.

As I understand it from single American men working in Saudi Arabia--it was common to walk down the highway toward town and be approached persistently by Saudi men wanting the use their rears for sex.

Would your husband say that the moderates were firmly entrenched in their moderation? Or could he imagine them siding with more agitated folk given certain contingencies?

As I understand it, the men approaching the westerners by the highways were quite average, normal men--deprived given the culture and their unmarried state--but quite average. It takes a certain kind of cheek to do that so routinely. That's not exacctly a "moderate" behavior regardless of the cultural sanction for it.

[Quix]

I love Arcosanti in Arizona. . . a planned ecofriendly community established and a building by Palo Soleri. His notion is that 2,000 or so people can easily live very closely on little of the land in essentially a very large greenhouse on a south sloping hillside in central Arizona.

Great idea. But I once asked him how he was going to maintain peace and harmony with a satanist on the otherside of a Pentecostal Christian. He never answered.

Some things don't fit very well together. Trying to have peace and harmony with folk who want you dead; want your property, your territory and your political and religious influence--well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that's not a great plan for success. , . . especially when such folk want you dead so intensely they are wiling to die themselves for it. . . . as millions are reportedly willing to do. Rolling over and playing dead is not a functional solution. . . . making the job of the suicidal terrorists easier is dumb. . . . suicidally dumb.

[Quix]

Concur.

Though I am fiercely against one tribe (Muslim) destroying another tribe because the 2nd tribe is Christian.

Muslims--in addition to avoiding following so slavishly essentially what is evidently a demonically generated religion--ought also to avoid being so insecure about their masculinity, security etc.

[Darkshadow]

It looks like that has already taken place in Afghanistan, where I hear what sounds like the first troubling news thus far as the anti-Taliban effort unfolds: that there have been sizable "defections" from the Taliban side to the side of the Northern Alliance, and that these defections have apparently been accepted, rather than the obvious option of killing the "enemy".

Are these "defectors" by any chance the people forcibly drafted by the Taliban last week?

[willyboyishere]

A VERY good point, that the "defections" could be among the recently "enrolled" new Taliban soldiers---I hadn't thought of that. Excellent!

[willyboyishere]

I too have spoken of "disengagement", but you're right, it's not a realistic short=term option. If we got all our re-alignment ducks in a row and announced TOMORROW that we were disengaging, most of the Arab world would not let us. They need the tension, and this particularly perverse and strained relationship they have with us: they also need the ability to say "Yes, we're with you, BUT..." like the Saudi Prince did the other day after giving the 10 Mil check to Giuliani---they're playing the mini-superpower role with us that they think we're playing with them: largesse that always comes with a lecture, and strings attached. However, disengagement with these people should be possible for the long-term, and I think we have to begin planning for it. Life is already too complicated to have to share the planet with these arrogant Johnny-come-latelies, who, of course, see us in exactly the same way. Their only claim to belonging to the 21st Century is that they happened to be sitting atop a precious global resource that they'd never have been able to exploit without the help of the West.

[Quix]

Strongly concur.

This is an interesting phenomenon. It seems to be more present in our era than any I'm aware of. Other than the enemy's work, what is the origin? Poor parenting? Easy target and probably true. But what aspect?

My best guess is . . . what . . . hmmmm . . . uuuhhhh . . . welllll . . . . I think parents who give kids things, toys--and not themselves--especially if there's some authoritarianism, some emotional/physical/sexual abuse; some perfectionism but a real lack of caring, bonding etc. . . where the parents are not very loyal to their kids--especially at a heart level. . . with some genetic personalities, that might do it.

Certainly I feel the individual is still responsible for their choices. But these people don't grow up in a vacuum.

This may be related to God's promise to cause the hearts of the children and the hearts of the fathers to return to one another. . . else He'd smite the whole earth with a curse.

[Quix]

IF I understand the ultimate plan much at all, I expect Saudi Arabia to lose territory to Israel. . . Syria to be more or less greatly diminished at best . . .Iran and Iraq to be wholesale devastated; Egypt to be severely disciplined and marginalized but possibly with some protection for her masses; Lybia devastated; Algeria and Morocco devastated--WITH ALL THE ABOVE subject to great moderation depending on how much mass conversion occurs as a function of God's choosing for various reasons to miraculously overwhelm them with awareness of and submission to Himself in a whole new way.

I expect Medina and particularly the key shrine to undergo a very interesting devastation--possibly a supernatural one. Likewise, something interesting is probably with the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosque.

No, I don't have a set of Scripture references to support all this--it's kind of gestalt feeling--somewhat related to Scriptures and somewhat to the law of reaping and sowing.