Results 1 to 20 of 74

Thread: Comparing religions

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    278

    Default marct,

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    I do agree with Skiguy that that is when they have to start (if not earlier). Over the years, I've done a fair bit of research on how one group stigmatizes another - usually with little or no basis in reality. For example, 2nd century ce Roman authors accused Christian cultists of exactly the same things that later Christian groups accused other groups of - e.g. stealing children to sacrifice hem and drink their blood, casting evil spells (malleficium in Roman Law), seducing youths away from what is "right and proper" (i.e. the official religion), etc.

    These types of accusations are really simple to make against almost any group but, when aimed by one religious group against another, they tend to heighten the emotional divide while, at the same time, portraying each other in line with the "demonic" of their own conceptions. BTW, this shows up much more in monotheistic religions than in others - not surprising since their are Manichean elements in all of the major monotheistic religions.

    I suspect that Bosnia is, in many ways, a particular type of a special case. Bear with me for a moment, because I know that it is a very personal case for you .

    Most mountainous areas tend to hold groups that "lost" in their bids to get better land. In some ways, the areas tend to contain an incredible number of different ethnic groups - think about the Caucuses, the Balkans, the Highlands of Scotland before the Highland clearances. Even when you have only a single ethnic group, it is usually because they "lost" (e.g. Ethiopia, Swaziland). This is one strand that plays out in the creation and maintenance of very strong ethnic identities.

    The second strand that tends towards the creation and maintenance of strong ethnic identities is the very nature of most mountainous areas. Think about how food is produced and, also, what other economic activities are followed (e.g. mining, lumber, etc.). All of these activities require both strong teamwork and control over access to scarce resources - a situation that tends to promote strong lineage systems which, in turn, leads to the development of feud cultures with honour systems based around blood vengeance and long memories. Even in the US you can see this in the rather infamous Hatfield-McCoy feud.

    This gives us a situation where the social structure and the economic base of the cultures in mountainous areas, such as the Balkans, are predisposed towards conflict and, also, to the use of any symbol system that allows for a) justifications for feuds and b) differentiation between ethnic groups.
    Hi, marct

    All true to the point but you are forgetting that "minor" thing of misuse of religion and history in Balkans! Both strong and both so easily manipulated. Latest war was not about land and food sources per se, but it was about losing control that gave serbs power and right on continues use of name "Yugoslavia" (no matter how much they hate Yugoslavia and Tito) which will grant them same prestige that YU heaved in UN and World, and all those gold reserves (which serbs stole before Yugo wars).

  2. #2
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Sarajevo,

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarajevo071 View Post
    All true to the point but you are forgetting that "minor" thing of misuse of religion and history in Balkans! Both strong and both so easily manipulated. Latest war was not about land and food sources per se, but it was about losing control that gave serbs power and right on continues use of name "Yugoslavia" (no matter how much they hate Yugoslavia and Tito) which will grant them same prestige that YU heaved in UN and World, and all those gold reserves (which serbs stole before Yugo wars).
    Umm, I'm not trying to "forget" the misuses of religion in the Balkans so much as trying to contextualize them and note some of the structural reasons why religions tend to be misused in these areas. BTW, another good example, in similar terrain, is the Turkish, Armenian, Kurdish interactions.
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default Shooting the Man, Not the Qu'ran

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21816221/


    " updated 2 hours, 7 minutes ago
    KHOST, Afghanistan - Taliban militants shot dead a teenage boy in southeastern Afghanistan for teaching English to his classmates, police said on Thursday.

    Taliban militants have killed a number of teachers and students in recent years for attending government-run schools, taking part in classes for girls or what the hardline Islamist militants consider un-Islamic subjects.

    Armed men arrived at the school in the Sayed Karam district of Paktia province and grabbed a 16-year-old student and dragged him outside. "

    There ain't a man here that wouldn't draw down on these killers and religion and culture has nothing to do with it.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    278

    Default marct,

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    Hi Sarajevo,

    Umm, I'm not trying to "forget" the misuses of religion in the Balkans so much as trying to contextualize them and note some of the structural reasons why religions tend to be misused in these areas. BTW, another good example, in similar terrain, is the Turkish, Armenian, Kurdish interactions.
    Oh, I didn't mean to sound like I disagree with you, on the contrary. You are completely right about misusing religions and people passions for this or that. But then again, people are just bunch of sheeps.

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Sarajevo, some questions. Why are you calling it crusades? Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and all those other right-wing idiots who do are wrong. I think most, if not all, of us here know this. We've declared war on those who kill innocent people, not Islam. And if the United States is so bad as you're saying, then why are so many of your Muslim brethren joining us in fighting these people and speakng out against terrorism?

    About McVeigh, we did sentence him to death. Doesn't that count for something? And by the way, he was no Christian, he was a terrorist.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    278

    Default skiguy,

    Quote Originally Posted by skiguy View Post
    Sarajevo, some questions. Why are you calling it crusades? Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and all those other right-wing idiots who do are wrong. I think most, if not all, of us here know this. We've declared war on those who kill innocent people, not Islam. And if the United States is so bad as you're saying, then why are so many of your Muslim brethren joining us in fighting these people and speakng out against terrorism?

    About McVeigh, we did sentence him to death. Doesn't that count for something? And by the way, he was no Christian, he was a terrorist.
    But, that's exactly my point! He is NOT Christian but terrorist and you put ONLY him on death... In mean time you are waging war on ISLAMIC/MUSLIM terrorist (why that big label in this case while you never label McVeigh or IRA Christian terrorists!?) and attacking and destroying all countries instead small groups and individuals.

    I believe your President called Crusade first, General Boykin picked up... In mean time Wolfowitz came out that reason are oil... And there are some others who are not duds like Limbaugh and they beliefs shaping (our) destiny here and today.

    BTW, talking about killers of innocent people, remember those U.S. sanctions that killed 500,000 Iraqi kids and for which Albright said it was "worthed"!? Do you really believe your "side" don't kill innocent people? "Funny" how killed Americans are always "innocent people" and all others living on open range and when they died it's they own fault.

    No, I do not say that majority of people here think that way but some do. But we are talking in general terms and about this "side" and that "side". I never accused anyone here of being this or that, I do not know anyone nor I know what you or others did in this war/wars (if anything). But we have labels and alliances and we are talking about them.

    One more thing, I never said that Americans are so bad or that all Americans are evil and murderers. And I will never say such thing. I am living here and I know people around me. But your foreign (imperial) politics sucks, and you do have same lunatics and bad seeds (like everybody else!). Plus, you have president with 23% approval rating who said that he do not care what other people think since he "knows" he is right. God told him, I guess.

    BTW, how you feel bad being put it in same group with those yahoos and labeled badly it's kinda makes you close to me/us when americans labeling all other people together and treating them in same bad way.

    Talking about "muslims allies"... There are Muslims and "muslims" and they have they own free will and souls. Let's just hope they will not end up like many of your allies you used and betray on the end. Or maybe even worst then that... Like this latest:

    US accused of killing Iraq allies
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7096755.stm

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default Be Like Patton

    Now there was a guy who knew how to roll over enemies and he had extra time for repentance and redemption believing in reincarnation as he did, what with more lives coming down the line allowing him to become a better general the next time around - it's sort of like being able to run a stop sign and you never get a ticket because you can stop twice the next time. 'Atta boy, George! This reincarnation thing seems to be the way to go - no need to invoke Divine wrath against enemies, just surge ahead, no pun intended here, and refine your tactics the next time around. Of course the problem is, we don't all get to be generals. Sarajevo probably was Saladin in a past life but isn't remembering it, otherwise he wouldn't need to be constantly calling on God to back him up. Who were you in a past life?? It's show 'n tell time - Stan, you go first......

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ft Riley , KS
    Posts
    42

    Default Reality Check

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarajevo071 View Post
    BTW, talking about killers of innocent people, remember those U.S. sanctions that killed 500,000 Iraqi kids and for which Albright said it was "worthed"!? Do you really believe your "side" don't kill innocent people? "Funny" how killed Americans are always "innocent people" and all others living on open range and when they died it's they own fault.

    Talking about "muslims allies"... There are Muslims and "muslims" and they have they own free will and souls. Let's just hope they will not end up like many of your allies you used and betray on the end. Or maybe even worst then that... Like this latest:

    US accused of killing Iraq allies
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7096755.stm
    You make some valid points, Sarajevo. However, the two claims you make above are not accurate. Sanctions were a result of Hussein not abiding by the UN mandates he agreed to at the end of Operation Desert Storm. This is true of any country that may be suffering under the burden of sanctions. So, in actuality, it was Hussein who caused his people to suffer. Also, it is true that American military actions have killed innocents; however, it is a mistake to equivocate terrorist actions, which intentionally kill innocents, with U.S. actions that unintentionally kill innocents. I don't think you have necessarily done this in your posts, but your comments triggered these thoughts in my mind. Anyway, there have been instances where the U.S., as a state decision, has targeted innocents for killing, but this is another lively discussion altogether. In those instances, your charge is much more valid, but it has been years since this has occurred. Remember that I am only referring to state sanctioned actions, not the actions of people who commit crimes. The point is that in modern days there are never any U.S. military operations in which the U.S. intentionally targets innocents. Intention is a key point here. Of course this discussion revolves around the discussion of the definition of terrorism, a frustrating and difficult discussion.

    Also, it is not useful to refer to allies "betrayed" when discussing international relations issues. These are moral terms that do not apply in the conduct of international relations. The only thing that matters in international relations is to secure the interests of the state (raison d' etat), and the moral imperatives that apply to individuals are not extended to the actions of the state. This is the nature of international relations, and it does not matter whether a country is Islamic or Western. Every state operates toward securing its own interest. So, allies come and go depending on their usefulness in any given circumstance. Has not the United States been used and discarded by other countries? YES! It is just the way things are, and to say the United States is singularly bad for doing what every other country does is really quite ridiculous and disingenuous. In order to have a real discussion on U.S. foreign policies, it would be much better to do away with the moral invectives and the emotions because they just don't matter.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    278

    Default invictus0972,

    I am sorry but to agree that ONLY Saddam is in fault over sanctions I can not. U.S. government have they blame there too. Big time. Book titled "The Fire This Time: US Crimes in the Gulf" by Ramsey Clark it's amazing read on this subject.

    I understand your references on state sanction killings and your attempt to distance your self (U.S.) from killings that I was referring too, but when we talk about those "others" who killing your civilians, they are also NOT state sanctioned but rather singular soldiers in broad war. Instead to fly planes and drop 1,000 lb bombs on everyone under them, they going heads one with they bodies or cars.

    So, my point, we are here talking about individuals who are committing atrocities and states/leaders that do not punishing them. In grand scale of life, murder is murder. Simple. At least for me.

    I do agree with you about selfish state/nation interests and there is nothing new or strange there. My answer was not emotional but exactly on target and with same irony, bias and underlying insults I am reading from some people here (when I am in case). Also, I never said that "the United States is singularly bad" for doing this or that. You are right. Everyone else is doing same for them self.

    That's why I think politics and governments (majority of them) sucks big time.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •