Forget Osama. Apparantly, we're goin' after Satan!

Remove all ads!

I can't recall the name of the guy who said it, but he's a nobel prize winner... he said that the only way world peace can be achieved, the only "isms" left should be atheism, humanism and Amnesty Internationalism.

Or was that just the Spoon guy's own version? Can't recall. But that should sum up my thoughts, I think.

 

*Pointing up*

What she said. And Amen to that.

 

I do not think atheism is the secret ingredient for world peace.

Populations of humans require leaders to make final decisions that effect them all individually.

If this leader is a man who believes he is the ultimate power in his life, a dictator of his own destiny, then he is apt to make all kinds of fear induced and ego-driven decisions.

If this leader believes there is a power greater than himself, then he is, at the end of his days, answerable to a higher authority. Even more importantly, his belief in a God that loves all men would make him equal in "value" to the man who is judged lowest by human standards.

Men of ego rule; men of God serve.

The hatred that religious people endorse has nothing to do with God, it is entirely under the domain of their individual egos.

 

Let's see, where are the world's dictatorial horrors today? North Korea, the Congo, Zimbabwe, Cuba, China...what do these all have in common, I wonder? Oh, wait...explicitly atheistic regimes opposed by their resident churches. What an eerie coincidence.

Ironic that atheism worships empiricism except as regards the actual application of political atheism.

 

Well, actually, it does not make no difference if a dictator believes in god or does not believe in god. The reasoning of the killing makes no difference. If you think you serve god by letting slave-workers errect a giantic cross or burn people on a stake or if you think you would bring humanity or your nation or your bank-account a step further by killing people. The dead are the same.

Religion or any kind of ideology, who's to say what is what ?

The up for atheism and religion would be, if there would be social control, that values like life, property and due process are upheld. And this, interestingly brings up the question, what is a dictatorship ?

 

Combine atheism and huimanism and you migyht actually have a functioning "ism"... To not to follow the doctrrines set in times past, and yet not screwing around wwith people.

Or words to that effect.

 

Arabwell you are forgeting one thing. You mix religion with church. These two are completely different entities. The first is the pure ideology and ideals of a cult, the latter is the organization that exploits the above mentioned ideology for their own interests sadly. Religions and ideologies generally are almost never responsible, people and the way they apply these ideologies on their world is what makes thing looks bad.
Too bad that people aren't perfect or at least all have a good/neutral alignment. Ideologies are just theories, people apply them in practice and people screw them up.

 

I do not support Boykin's comments. It stems from the very kind of religous fundamentalism that I find distasteful, whether Christian, Islamic or otherwise. He has since issued an apology for his remarks. At least we live in a society where overzealous idiots can be reigned in, it is not so for much of the Islamic world where the most extreme positions go unchecked. For example:

"The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them"

Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia at a meeting of Islamic leaders

Not since Hitler's "Final Solution" have we seen this kind of blind hatred espoused to an eager audience. Makes Gen. Boykin seem like a harmless old fool.

 

Not hardly. Yes he apologized, but don't believe for one second he's sorry about what he said. That apology was for PR reasons, nothing more. Boykin has received no punishment, not so much as a slap on the wrist, and so far the administration who backs him has made no attempt to seperate their position from his. To me, that's the same as agreeing with him. In fact, he was defended. In this case, not disagreeing with him is condoning what he said and stands for, and sends a powerful message to the muslim world.

 

I understand that it was all a formality. Boykin's apology has effectively dismissed him as a credible source for US policy. The point I am drawing is that we do not have hordes of US military flocking to his standard and viewing him as a spiritual leader. This is not the case for an equal or greater statement of ignorance from an Islamic leader. Trust me, most Americans are not drawn in by his statements, let alone are willing to embark on a crusade to give up life and limb for religous zeal. Such is not the same in the Islamic world.

(I apologize in advance for painting the Islamic world with a very broad brush. I refer only to the radical segments who espouse Jihad and have lost all respect for fellow "People of the Book")