Bush commutes Libby sentence

[kandrathe]

You are mistaking religion with culture.
At this moment in time the most developed countries are the ones with Christian backgrounds.

Consider...

American author Louis L'Amour , noted for his extensive research, summarized the spread of Islam as follows: "In the space of one hundred years following the death of Mohammed in 632, the Arabs had carried the sword of Islam from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, holding at one time most of Spain, part of southern France, the isle of Sicily, all of North Africa and Egypt, all of Arabia, the Holy Land, Armenia, Persia, Afghanistan, and almost a third of India. The empire of the Arabs was larger than that of Alexander the Great or of Rome" (The Walking Drum, 1984, p. 171).

It is important to realize that Jews and Christians, whose religious traditions Muhammad saw himself as succeeding, were accorded special favor in this conquest. He allowed them to keep their religion as long as they paid a tax. In this respect the Islamic empire was more tolerant of Jews and Christians than Christian Europe was of Jews and Muslims during much of its history. Muslims gave those who were not Jews or Christians the simple choice of converting to Islam or death.

Yet, as L'Amour writes: "They came with the sword, but they retained the best of what they discovered. Much that we know of Arab science was born from the minds of Jews, Persians, Greeks, various Central Asiatic peoples, and the Berbers, but it flowered under Arab enthusiasm. A scholar was welcome everywhere ... (and) for more than five hundred years the Arabs carried the torch of civilization" (pp. 171-172).

While Europe languished in the poverty and ignorance of the Dark Ages, the Arabs were developing libraries and learning centers. They preserved the great works of ancient Greece and Rome, transmitting to us the decimal system, logarithms, algebra and trigonometry. Under their patronage, medical treatment, botany, geography, zoology and other studies advanced.

The development of this countries happened despite Christianity, not because of Christianity.

I would claim the opposite, it was because of the productivity afforded by an ordered and moral society that enabled people to have time to focus on enlightenment. Whether this is Greek/Roman with a pantheon of nature gods, Muslims in Moorish Spain or European Christians. I return to the notion that a "Shaman" is just as much a leader as a "Chief" in tribal society. So too, a religion that promotes peace, tolerance and harmony will result in a more productive and fruitful society. War making is destructive (anti-constructive) and siphons a nation of resources. In peaceful societies war making is reserved for stopping external destructive forces. Hence, notions like the war on drugs or the war on terror. You don't win those wars by merely killing off the dealers, or the terrorists. We need to make drug use, or terrorism unpalatable social mechanisms. Consider that the fall of the Roman Empire was precipitated by social apathy and a colossal misunderstanding the barbarian threat ("Germanization") until it was too late.

It is just a question of time. I mean as little as 150 Christian Americans were slaughtering Native Americans... and I'm sure this was done, backed up by their faiths. As little as 300 years ago the Protestant Dutch were transporting slaves to the America's, and I'm also sure this was entirely accepted in the church.

It is more complicated than that... Greedy land grabs, sure but there were other reasons, for example consider the 7th President of the US, Andrew Jackson;

Northern Creek Band chieftain Peter McQueen killed 400 men, women, and children in what became known as the Fort Mims Massacre (in what is now Alabama). Jackson commanded in the campaign against the Northern Creek Indians of Alabama and Georgia, also known as the "Red Sticks." Creek leaders such as William Weatherford (Red Eagle), Peter McQueen, and Menawa, who had been allies of the British during the War of 1812, violently clashed with other chiefs of the Creek Nation over white encroachment on Creek lands and the "civilizing" programs administered by U.S. Indian Agent Benjamin Hawkins.

Regarding Slavery, and the "Golden Triangle"; Blacks were captured by other Africans and sold for shipment, or rounded up by sailors (not really your Dutch Protestant types) and transported to the Americas and resold at a high profit.

A Dutch slave trader exchanged his cargo of Africans for food in 1619. The Africans became indentured servants, similar in legal position to many poor Englishmen who traded several years labor in exchange for passage to America. The popular conception of a racial-based slave system did not develop until the 1680's.Chronology Of The History Of Slavery: 1619-1789

Assuage your white guilt if you like, however, slavery, and racism was at that time used by all cultures around the world. The fight against slavery was however, clearly a Christian endeavor. And, one that resulted in a US civil war which resulted in around 700,000 American deaths, and ripped the country apart.

Our culture has been greatly improved/altered, their culture hasn't yet. Big difference now is that with globalization everybody can see what happens everywhere, and hate mongers use that. All religions to me are equally wrong. However culture/education/development is clearly superior in Western Europe. Saying that a religion is superior to another makes one part of the conflict.

Where you see Muslim crime in Europe, I see Jihad. Don't you think 1400 years is enough time for Islam to become less murderous? Trust me, it was not a Christian sentiment nor justification that compelled men to the taking of slaves, or the killing of Native Americans. In fact, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia it was a much debated topic which they decided to table for 20 years.Muslim Violence — Crime or Jihad?

[Jester]

I would claim the opposite, it was because of the productivity afforded by an ordered and moral society that enabled people to have time to focus on enlightenment.

This is a rather bold claim. You would not only have to show that there was order, morality and productivity that preceded enlightenment (a dubious claim, as the centuries that preceded the enlightenment were wracked by social and political turmoil), but that religion caused the first two, which caused the third, which caused enlightenment. That would be quite the historical project.

I believe that political and economic developments laid the groundwork for the enlightenment, and that, at least in Britain, the "order" and "morality" of the Cromwells, or of the Stuarts, was precisely what enlightened thinkers were rebelling against.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I believe that political and economic developments laid the groundwork for the enlightenment, and that, at least in Britain, the "order" and "morality" of the Cromwells, or of the Stuarts, was precisely what enlightened thinkers were rebelling against.

I would also contrast those societies who enforced uniformity and order, against those who gave their citizens a larger measure of freedom.

Consider what Alexis de Toqueville wrote; HOW RELIGION IN THE UNITED STATES AVAILS ITSELF OF DEMOCRATIC TENDENCIES
You may also enjoy; The Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard

[Jester]

I would also contrast those societies who enforced uniformity and order, against those who gave their citizens a larger measure of freedom.

Consider what Alexis de Toqueville wrote; HOW RELIGION IN THE UNITED STATES AVAILS ITSELF OF DEMOCRATIC TENDENCIES
You may also enjoy; The Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard

Thanks for the recommendations. I'm not sure I'd take Toqueville as the final word on such issues, but he is certainly an interesting read.

Cpt. Anarcho-Capitalism should be quite the argument, and I'm glad it's available online.

I would recommend Roy Porter's book on the British enlightenment, appropriately titled "Enlightenment." It is an enormously readable history of how "enlightened" thought came out of Britain in the 18th century.

-Jester

Afterthought: I am tickled by Tocqueville's opinion on women: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/ch3_12.htm

Just in case anyone was planning on taking the gentleman too seriously. :lol:

[kandrathe]

Thanks for the recommendations. I'm not sure I'd take Toqueville as the final word on such issues, but he is certainly an interesting read.

True, my intent was a show additional viewpoints on the connection between the presence of morality in order to achieve freedom.

Cpt. Anarcho-Capitalism should be quite the argument, and I'm glad it's available online.

Ah, I see you employ your usual tactic of rejecting the substance of the source by branding the entire source unworthy.

Afterthought: I am tickled by Tocqueville's opinion on women: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/ch3_12.htm
Just in case anyone was planning on taking the gentleman too seriously. :lol:

Ah, I see you employ your usual tactic of rejecting the substance of the source by branding the entire source unworthy. Do we really want to argue the merits of political philosophies? I'm unwilling to accept all of Mr. Rothbard's positions, just as I am with Ayn Rand. Just because I quote something relevant from "Atlas Shrugged" does not mean I accept the tenets of Objectivism.

Using your tactic, we could easily tear down almost all published historical authors. I just read that chapter, and it appears that he was objectively reporting on the state of womens condition in America. Did you forget that the founding Fathers all supported a patriarchal state, and would have been in agreement with Mr. de Toqueville's assessment. Consider the time in which this was written in comparison to the events transpiring in his native France at that same time. Women's suffrage did not materialize in France until 1848. Women did not get to vote in America until 1920; however it was 1928 in Great Britain, and it was not until 1944 that women in France were able to vote.

"Thus the Americans do not think that man and woman have either the duty or the right to perform the same offices, but they show an equal regard for both their respective parts; and though their lot is different, they consider both of them as beings of equal value. -- Alexis de Toqueville"

[Jester]

True, my intent was a show additional viewpoints on the connection between the presence of morality in order to achieve freedom.Ah, I see you employ your usual tactic of rejecting the substance of the source by branding the entire source unworthy.Ah, I see you employ your usual tactic of rejecting the substance of the source by branding the entire source unworthy. Do we really want to argue the merits of political philosophies? I'm unwilling to accept all of Mr. Rothbard's positions, just as I am with Ayn Rand. Just because I quote something relevant from "Atlas Shrugged" does not mean I accept the tenets of Objectivism.

Using your tactic, we could easily tear down almost all published historical authors. I just read that chapter, and it appears that he was objectively reporting on the state of womens condition in America. Did you forget that the founding Fathers all supported a patriarchal state, and would have been in agreement with Mr. de Toqueville's assessment. Consider the time in which this was written in comparison to the events transpiring in his native France at that same time. Women's suffrage did not materialize in France until 1848. Women did not get to vote in America until 1920; however it was 1928 in Great Britain, and it was not until 1944 that women in France were able to vote.

"Thus the Americans do not think that man and woman have either the duty or the right to perform the same offices, but they show an equal regard for both their respective parts; and though their lot is different, they consider both of them as beings of equal value. -- Alexis de Toqueville"

Settle down.

I thought you were lightheartedly giving me some recommended reading, not setting a tiger trap.

I do not reject Murray Rothbard's opinions simply because of who he is. I called him "Cpt. Anarcho-Capitalism." That's it. Funny ha-ha. I actually find his ideas very interesting, along with Nozick's. I don't agree with them on everything, but they've at least thought the whole mess through.

Obviously, I disagree with Tocqueville on just about every point in terms of his assessment of religion. However, my point on his beliefs about women is that his thought on these matters is archaic. While it is entirely appropriate for its time (if not terribly progressive), it looks dusty, sexist and downright silly from our vantage point. So too do his opinions on Islam, Christianity, and the role of religion in society, and for individuals. For the mid 19th century, these were not unusual beliefs, although again, far from progressive. For today, they look parochial, and wrong. Since when do preachers keep themselves out of politics in America?

-Jester

[eppie]

Assuage your white guilt if you like,

I don´t have to because I, in contrast to you apparantly, only consider the individual that is responsible for his ow acts. Not some religion or race. That is why I am so sure about the fact that our society is not based on religion, but it is in fact the other way around.

however, slavery, and racism was at that time used by all cultures around the world. The fight against slavery was however, clearly a Christian endeavor.

I think it was a clear liberal endeavor. People that were able to think outside of the religion box that told them they were superior to others, that being plants, animals, or different races.

Where you see Muslim crime in Europe, I see Jihad. Don't you think 1400 years is enough time for Islam to become less murderous?

First,I don´t think it is Islam. Should I otherwise say that Christianity is still murderous after 2000 years because GW Bush is fighting an illegal war? No I don´t think so. It are the neocons that want to fight a war, not Christianity. Your reasoning here is very weak.

Trust me, it was not a Christian sentiment nor justification that compelled men to the taking of slaves, or the killing of Native Americans. In fact, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia it was a much debated topic which they decided to table for 20 years.Muslim Violence — Crime or Jihad?

And this is exactly my point, thank´s for showing me I was right. :D

People do what they like, often they use religion to justify their actions, however, it is the society and these people that make these things possible. Once it is needed that some Native Americans have to be killed....... religion will be used to justify this. Religion is nice to keep the simple people quiet, but more often it is used to start a hate campaign. Religion is just a tool, it has never been the basis of a culture an sich.

[Thecla]

Don't you think 1400 years is enough time for Islam to become less murderous?

This seems like a very blinkered view of history---for maybe 700 years Islamic civilization was one of the most cultured and tolerant part of the world, responsible, for example, for the preservation of knowledge from the ancient world that was all but forgotten by what passed for civilization in Western Europe at the time. I can highly recommend reading the accounts of Ibn Battuta, a 14th century Muslim from Morocco who traveled 75,000 miles over 29 years across the entire Islamic world (as well as to Sri Lanka, China, Byzantium and Russia).

[eppie]

This seems like a very blinkered view of history---for maybe 700 years Islamic civilization was one of the most cultured and tolerant part of the world, responsible, for example, for the preservation of knowledge from the ancient world that was all but forgotten by what passed for civilization in Western Europe at the time. I can highly recommend reading the accounts of Ibn Battuta, a 14th century Muslim from Morocco who traveled 75,000 miles over 29 years across the entire Islamic world (as well as to Sri Lanka, China, Byzantium and Russia).

Indeed, but also you make the mistake kandrathe makes, in my opinion. There was a civilization in the middle east, but this was not because of their religion. The two things just existed together.

[kandrathe]

I don´t have to because I, in contrast to you apparently, only consider the individual that is responsible for his own acts. Not some religion or race. That is why I am so sure about the fact that our society is not based on religion, but it is in fact the other way around.

Ok, because you say so, and you are sure your are right. Good enough for me... not.

I think it was a clear liberal endeavor. People that were able to think outside of the religion box that told them they were superior to others, that being plants, animals, or different races.

It was religious people who wrote that "All men are created equal" and that "all men are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights". It was religious people, namely Quakers, that led the abolitionist movement in both Europe and the US.

First,I don´t think it is Islam. Should I otherwise say that Christianity is still murderous after 2000 years because GW Bush is fighting an illegal war? No I don´t think so. It are the neocons that want to fight a war, not Christianity. Your reasoning here is very weak.

I suppose you think Mohammed Bouyeri was just a thug, and Van Gogh's murder was just street crime.

And this is exactly my point, thank´s for showing me I was right. :D

Actually, I said the opposite. Twist it as you like.

People do what they like, often they use religion to justify their actions, however, it is the society and these people that make these things possible. Once it is needed that some Native Americans have to be killed....... religion will be used to justify this. Religion is nice to keep the simple people quiet, but more often it is used to start a hate campaign. Religion is just a tool, it has never been the basis of a culture and such.

It is evil people who use anything they can to justify their crimes, and not just religion. They use other people, the law, or civil institutions and some even religion to justify their evil acts. This does not mean that it is these things that beget evil. Evil actions are the fetid eruptions of a human heart.

I could just as well substitute "The Law" into your final sentence and it makes as little sense; "People do what they like, often they use the law to justify their actions, however, it is the society and these people that make these things possible. Once it is needed that some Native Americans have to be killed....... the law will be used to justify this. The law is nice to keep the simple people quiet, but more often it is used to start a hate campaign. The law is just a tool, it has never been the basis of a culture and such."

[Jester]

It was religious people who wrote that "All men are created equal" and that "all men are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights".

... and they were liberal people.

And white people.

And men.

And landowners.

And a hundred other things.

Why is religion singled out, other than the fact that it supports your case?

-Jester

[eppie]

I suppose you think Mohammed Bouyeri was just a thug, and Van Gogh's murder was just street crime.

So because this guy hears voices in his head and thinks he needs to murder people, Islam is a hateful religion?
IS that the point you want to make?
No it isn't just like christianity is not a hateful religion just because a christian like Bush goes to war.
Religion is used to do hateful things, that is true......but again my point, religion follows ethics.

[Thecla]

Indeed, but also you make the mistake kandrathe makes, in my opinion. There was a civilization in the middle east, but this was not because of their religion. The two things just existed together.

Well, I wasn't making any particular statement about the connection between civilization and religion---I was simply referring to Islamic civilization as a historical entity, like the Roman Empire, which it undoubtedly was.

[kandrathe]

Why is religion singled out, other than the fact that it supports your case?

It has been a part of every culture. Like family and property, it is universal constant in human society.

[Occhidiangela]

This seems like a very blinkered view of history---for maybe 700 years Islamic civilization was one of the most cultured and tolerant part of the world, responsible, for example, for the preservation of knowledge from the ancient world that was all but forgotten by what passed for civilization in Western Europe at the time. I can highly recommend reading the accounts of Ibn Battuta, a 14th century Muslim from Morocco who traveled 75,000 miles over 29 years across the entire Islamic world (as well as to Sri Lanka, China, Byzantium and Russia).

If you call "clutured" the principle of taxing people for having a different religion, second class citizenship, full participation in the slave trade, and conversion by the sword for those not part of Abrahamic sects, sure, but I think Islam was "enclutured" by the PErsian, Greek, Egyptian, and other actual civilized societies, and all it brought was social cohesion and order via a common cultural rule set.

Let's not give it more credit that it is due, since Mohamed wasn't a mathematician, nor a logician, but a leader, warrior, and merchant. IMO, a key contribution of Islam, like Christianity, was its impact on spreading the written word and thus empowering literacy, albeit for non secular aims.

Occhi

[Jester]

It has been a part of every culture. Like family and property, it is universal constant in human society.

That would be my point. It is everywhere, and therefore to single it out as a driver of change is problematic. It begs the question: what changed religion, if religion changed something else?

Religion had been around a long time, and yet 'all men are created equal', meaning equal in terms of rights, had not been a very popular idea, up until around 1700. What changed? Since religion is so omnipresent, I would put my money on some other factor.

Slavery was perfectly popular with religious folk until around 1700. Indeed, enslavement by-christians-for-christians-of-heathens made up the bulk of world slavery, from 1500-1800 or so. Why the change in opinion?

Eppie cuts religion out of the picture of culture entirely. That is almost certainly wrong. But I don't think it makes sense to put religion on too high a pedestal. Society is mostly driven by other things.

-Jester

[eppie]

Eppie cuts religion out of the picture of culture entirely. That is almost certainly wrong. But I don't think it makes sense to put religion on too high a pedestal. Society is mostly driven by other things.

-Jester

I don't cut out religion entirely, I just think it is a tool for people to get what they want and to keep power over others. Religion is often used by people to drive things.
I mean if I give you the example of Scientology, we all see the way these people use the religion to obtain certain things (wealth for example).

Religion is an important part of many cultures, but we make it, we decide what to believe in.
Very visible examples are Henry the 8th (i believe) that created a new religion because he wanted to be able to be married to several wives. Another more recent example is the pope stating that (more or less was decided) that the place were babies that die before they get baptized (I'm sorry I don't know the English word) go does not exist. He found that it was a bit unfair not to let them into heaven.

[Jester]

I don't cut out religion entirely, I just think it is a tool for people to get what they want and to keep power over others. Religion is often used by people to drive things.
I mean if I give you the example of Scientology, we all see the way these people use the religion to obtain certain things (wealth for example).

Religion is an important part of many cultures, but we make it, we decide what to believe in.
Very visible examples are Henry the 8th (i believe) that created a new religion because he wanted to be able to be married to several wives. Another more recent example is the pope stating that (more or less was decided) that the place were babies that die before they get baptized (I'm sorry I don't know the English word) go does not exist. He found that it was a bit unfair not to let them into heaven.

You don't have to convince me that people manipulate religion to get what they want. That's clearly true, as much now as 7000 years ago.

But all culture is determined by humans. We determine what we write, speak, sing, trade, build, think about, destroy, etc... It's all just what we do. Why is religion any different?

Limbo is where babies supposedly went when they died, along with pre-christian pagans, and people who died without sin, but also without salvation.

-Jester

[eppie]

Limbo is where babies supposedly went when they died, along with pre-christian pagans, and people who died without sin, but also without salvation.

-Jester

I think the dutch word for this ('voorgeborchte') is very impressive. It doesn't sound like a dance at least. :D

Try pronouncing it....the winner gets to start his/her own topic of choice on the lounge, completely for free.:blink: And I might be able to throw in a pint of Guinness....

[kandrathe]

Slavery was perfectly popular with religious folk until around 1700. Indeed, enslavement by-christians-for-christians-of-heathens made up the bulk of world slavery, from 1500-1800 or so. Why the change in opinion?

Here is a pretty detailed history from the Catholic Church's own encyclopedia --Slavery and Christianity. I know you will want to take that link with a grain of salt, but it does seem historically accurate to me. Slavery in the 1500-1800 time period was not a Christian enterprise, and it was not blanketly accepted as you might believe. Conquistadors, for example, were first military expeditionaries, secondly treasure seekers, 3rd conquerors, and then somewhere down the list some may have been Christians (at least they thought they were). This is the same group of randy seamen who often so enraged the indigenous populations with their arrogant taking of women and property. Those who captured the slaves were not good examples of Christians, however once taken and shipped to those places that needed them, it is true that some Christians were complicit in buying and owning slaves. And, I would point out that many of the US founding fathers and elder statesmen who owned slaves did so knowing it was also wrong. But, for example, if one merely reads the New Testament it is filled with passages such as "For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:27-28) This verse and many others clearly establish the equality of humanity in the eyes of God.

Slavery prior to the 17th century was reserved for a conquered people or serf/chatel of a noble or wealthy man regardless of race. It was an anachronism of barbarism inherent in the culture and often a belief in cultural superiority. Often people could purchase their way out of slavery as well once they became productive and assimilatable into the reigning culture. In Roman times slaves frequently became citizens as they became so qualified. I would also reflect on the writings of Plato on the subject in ancient Athens for example.

Anyway, my original premise was that those institutions (including religion) that promote peace, harmony, and morality have a positive effect on civilization, while those institutions that promote destruction, anarchy, and immorality have a detrimental effect on civilization. You might reflect that "the law" or "the government" are also institutions, but I think that again begining at a tribal society on upward that the primary institution that promoted civilization would be that cultures religion. If we can agree that this seems obvious, then the next leap here is to reflect on the actual tenets of each religion. You point at specific anecdotes of some failures of some Christians to then condemn the entire creed, without reflecting on the basic tenets and beleifs of its true adherents.

For example, if a primary tenet of Judaism is "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", then we can surmise that we might find endless cycles of retribution for past crimes, or as Ghandi reflected, pretty soon the whole world is blind. My observation is that Islam in general, and especially Wahabism promotes a 6th century ruthlessness that is uncharacteristic of European culture. A primary tenet of Islam is Jihad, or the highest honor that one can perform for God is to further the 'movement' or 'struggle' to convert the world to Islam. In this regard in some peoples interpretations of the Koran, it is acceptable for a Muslim to even be violent or deceitful if in the end it furthers the Jihad. I would then ask you to imagine the conditions in Afghanistan, with the burkas, the high walls with razor wire, and the armed henchmen by which it is the culture that has formed that need within the society. It existed before the Infidels invaded. Why? Then look to India which used to enjoy more freedoms, but now as time progresses its culture is slowly becoming more and more like Pakistan and Afghanistan. Why? What is happening in India?

Eppie cuts religion out of the picture of culture entirely. That is almost certainly wrong. But I don't think it makes sense to put religion on too high a pedestal. Society is mostly driven by other things.

What things? It seems to be a pretty popular worldwide phenomena by which most people define their existence and worldly purpose.